.jpg)
BACK STORY WITH DANA LEWIS
Dana Lewis is a veteran World Affairs Correspondent. He's been everywhere. From global war zones to the streets of London where he is based.
He has been based in Jerusalem, and Moscow.
And he loves talking to people about whats behind the headlines. Award winning. "A real in the trenches reporter". Great interviewing skills and easy to listen to.
BACK STORY WITH DANA LEWIS
Navalny's Death And Russia In Ukraine
Could the untimely demise of Alexei Navalny herald a darker turn in the Ukraine conflict? On Back Story this week, Dana Lewis, examines the disturbing allegations of President Putin's involvement in the death of the Russian opposition figure. Mikhail Kasyanov, former Prime Minister, joins me to offer an insider's perspective on the Kremlin's opaque refusal to release Navalny's body We dissect the chilling repercussions that Navalny's passing may have, not just within Russia's borders but also in galvanizing Western resolve to support Ukraine's sovereignty struggle.
More on Ukraine with Crisis Group Director Olga Oliker who says talking has been going on a long time, but decisions are quickly needed to save Ukraine.
I'm sure in the future we'll know what's real circumstances of his death.
Dana Lewis :Do you believe that Putin is guilty of murder in the Valny's case?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fmr P.M.:He's responsible, absolutely he's responsible for that.
Dana Lewis :You have said it's shorter weapons and personnel money stalled in Washington. Europe's ability to deliver weapons is also in question. You're not painting a very bright picture.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Group:It's not a very bright picture. I suppose the good news is that all is not lost yet. But look, these are things people have been talking about for months and they're still talking about them.
Dana Lewis :Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of Backstory. I'm Dana Lewis. Was Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny murdered by President Putin? Well, as we say in crime reporting, where I got my journalism start, motive, means and opportunity Add up to the main suspect being Putin. His fingerprints are all over Navalny's death Motive Navalny was a threat to Putin's choking, stifling stranglehold on freedom and democracy in Russia. Means Navalny's wife says it was poisoning. Regardless, the Russians won't release the body for examination Opportunity. I mean, navalny's been at Putin's care in Putin's prisons since returning home in January of 2021, when he had survived an earlier poisoning attempt by the Russian security services. Tragic end that was stunning, but not altogether shocking, as Putin rules now by terrorizing his own citizens.
Dana Lewis :What does Navalny's death mean for the war in Ukraine? Could it reignite American and European commitment to defeating Russian forces in Ukraine? Maybe, and on this Backstory, former Prime Minister of Russia Mikhail Kasyanov, who is now a declared enemy of Putin's state, and the brilliant Olga Olegur from the International Crisis Group on Ukraine. The Russian Army is now a threat to Ukraine. Mikhail Kasyanov is the former Prime Minister of Russia now labeled by the Kremlin as an enemy of the state, and he is living in exile in Europe. Mikhail, welcome back to the podcast.
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fmr P.M.:Yes, hello, happy to be in the program again, thank you.
Dana Lewis :It is heart-wrenching to hear pleas from Alexei Navalny's mother and his wife asking for the body of Navalny back. In a video released Monday, for instance, yulia Navalny accused Putin of killing her husband. She says that the refusal to hand over the body is part of a cover-up Quote. They are cowardly and meanly hiding his body, refusing to give it to his mother and lying miserably while waiting for the trace of poison to disappear. She suggested that her husband might have been killed with a Novichok-style nerve agent. What would you say about what we're hearing?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fmr P.M.:Yeah, I think there are a number of aspects on why just authorities didn't passing, just giving the body to the mother and the wife. In fact, first we don't know what the circumstances of his death were. Maybe he was poisoned, maybe not just that what people, of course the whole world and of course family, first of all, would like to know. But the second important issue is that, in fact, authorities quite nervous right now, concerned about just potential funeral process, because that will be just actual demonstration. They couldn't prohibit this. But they don't know what to do. That's why they're keeping the body they have by law, they have a right to keep it up to 30 days and that's what they will definitely will do, just if they have no decision how to get out of this situation.
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fmr P.M.:And, of course, if Alexei was poisoned, as I hear from different experts, just the, just the remainers of Novichok or other chemical agents could live more in the body, could more than 30 days, and that's why, just, maybe there's not a solution. But in any case, in any case, they, in short, they don't know what to do with this, although of course there is no doubt that he was killed, if not directly, it means that he was killed, keeping himself for three years in the torture conditions, just all these times, and in fact, in fact that really, really, really was a difficult period for Alexei and they pressing him just trying to destroy his mental, say, strong position, his bravery, etc. But he was very strong and they bring him to this final end with the death. We will probably show in the future we will know what was real circumstances of his death.
Dana Lewis :Do you believe that Putin is guilty of murder in Navalny's case?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fmr P.M.:He is responsible, absolutely he is responsible for that. First of all, he gave an order to put him in jail, and unlawfully, and in fact he spent there just three years and within three years, just through the torture, he came to death. And that's what absolutely the responsibility of the regime and Putin in, just first of all.
Dana Lewis :So a lot of people don't know. After you left the inner circle of President Putin, because you were the prime minister under Yeltsin and then, when Putin came, you continued on as prime minister for a couple of years. A lot of people don't know that. Then you just didn't retire. I mean, you launched your own political party, parnas. You tried to challenge President Putin democratically. You were unable to do so, but at one point you were partnered with Navalny's party, trying to challenge the Kremlin and trying to bring about political change in Russia. What do you remember in your conversations about Navalny that really strike you now that he has died and imprisoned?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fmr P.M.:Yeah, we were just in cooperation just a few times here Once, the first when Alexei appeared to be one of the leaders of the opposition. That was 2011 and 2012 just on all our demonstrations in Moscow, of course, he was a leading person on the streets, and that time, in 2013, my party just nominated him for the elections of mayor of Moscow and at that time he got almost 30% and we all believe that he got even more than that here and potentially, if there would be the second to the second voting in the second round, he potentially could win at that time. And then, of course, navalny became just one of the most important critics of Putin and one of the most bright leader opposition. In 2016, we had the coalition elections in federal elections to Duma.
Dana Lewis :That was not quite successful, but at least we were in close cooperation with him and his team at that period, and what kind of things would he say to you, knowing the uphill and possible fight that both of you had taken on? What kind of things would he say?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fmr P.M.:Alexei is different from me, for instance, but he is a real politician on the street. He is just the best leader of the street protests and that is an important part of any opposition and, in fact, all changes could come, especially in such country like the Austrian regime, like in Russia, or even dictatorship, of course. Without street protests you cannot have any changes. And now we don't have just Alexei, and he was a real bright leader of the streets In the past. There was also my friend, boris Nemtsov, who was also killed, and that is, we lost just two of the most important parts of the opposition who could move people and call people and lead people on the streets, which is very important. Without this, we cannot get changes. That is why we have a tragic, dramatic loss in our position, and this is what is represented by Alexei Navalny. He led this. That is what is absolutely clear.
Dana Lewis :Do you remember anything that he ever said about fighting the Kremlin, about fighting Putin?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fmr P.M.:He always called me and said, just even from the jail, just call for everyone Do something, don't stop and don't give up on that. That is definitely what he did till the last day of his life. He did something. Just protests and all those court discussions which he participated on video just many times as he called for people for that. Don't give up and continue a fight. That is. I say that he is very bright and brave person.
Dana Lewis :I don't think anybody would ever say he is not exceptionally brave. He was poisoned with Novichak, he was treated in Germany and he returned back to Russia, knowing very well, probably, that he would go to jail.
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fmr P.M.:In fact, I didn't recommend him to. I talked to him one month before he is coming back to Russia in 2021. I talked to him and recommended him not to come back because the risk of getting to be put in jail just wasn't very high In that time. The reason was like four years in jail at that time, but still it was just very risky.
Dana Lewis :What did he tell you? What did he say?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fmr P.M.:He didn't answer just directly because I wanted him to lead my party instead of me. I was prepared on that time, of course, just to, and I talked to people in my party so that in Congress they would vote and elect him while he would be staying in Germany. But he could be elected as a leader of Parnass people's freedom party and then on the later stage he could come back as a leader of the party, but not as a popular blogger, as Kremlin and all authorities are just calling him just popular blogger, but to be a leader of political party with the program, a very sustainable, liberal, democratic program. Of course it's important, but I don't know why he came back just in a very short period of time and was immediately put in jail.
Dana Lewis :Why now? Why would President Putin order his death now?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fmr P.M.:I think that's clear, because Putin eliminated all enemies and of course Navalny was enemy for Mr Putin.
Dana Lewis :Of course it was Could have killed him three years ago, or he could have killed him a year ago. Why now?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fmr P.M.:They didn't want to do this, like they did with Prigoshin, because it's a little bit different. Prigoshin is Putin's person who betrayed him, but Navalny is different. He has nothing to do with Putin's team or whatever Putin's circle. That's the different things.
Dana Lewis :Is it because the elections are approaching, in the spring, in March, and the Kremlin just doesn't want to?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fmr P.M.:have that. The speculation could be just very, very lens on this, but I think that there was not necessarily just some kind of instructions to kill him now. It could be some kind of end of the process, but ended in this period of time. But on the other hand, we can also take into consideration that Putin already likes just demonstrative events, like he killed Prigoshin so that to create such a feeling among people, so that for everyone could take such an end and now just we could also think or speak away that the death of Navalny was in the same way to demonstrate to others that despite of any circumstances and any period of time, just these people could be eliminated, could be killed. We don't know.
Dana Lewis :It's setting another fire of fear through Russia. He is ruling through terror.
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fmr P.M.:In some ways, exactly that is one of the instruments of Mr Putin's rule. The whole environment in Russia, the environment of the fear, and people are afraid to protest and to identify themselves as against the regime or against the decisions the regime takes.
Dana Lewis :Last, question to you. We're two years since the war began in Ukraine. What is the best reaction that the West can give to the death of Navalny? Obviously calls for human rights and democracy. We're well beyond that. The West can't pressure Russia right now on that. Sanctions are not bringing about change within Russia. Is supporting Ukraine and the battlefront against Russia perhaps some of the best change that the West can do in terms of?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fmr P.M.:defeating Putin. Two directions, I guess. One of them, of course, the protecting human rights, and continue to demonstrate that human rights is the highest priority for the civilized world, for Western countries, of course, and not close eyes for human rights violations taking place in Russia every day. Secondly, of course, just supporting Ukraine. We cannot accept Putin's behavior. We cannot accept Putin's way of changing the whole world, just the whole world order. He tries to destroy this. It's not acceptable. Of course, he already destroyed the whole architecture of European security. But what is next if Ukraine would be defeated by Putin? It means just another threat appears Putin would try to test Article 5 of NATO chatter. It means one or the smaller NATO countries which, nearby to Russia, would be subject of next aggression. That's what's not possible even to imagine. That's why Ukraine is not just Ukraine. Ukraine fights in Ukraine or supports Ukraine. That's fighting to keep the order that European and all J7 countries would like to keep. They created this system. There's a liberal order. Putin wants to destroy this. We shouldn't allow him to do this.
Dana Lewis :Mr Prime Minister, thank you very much. Mikhail Kassianov, thank you so much.
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fmr P.M.:Thank you, Dana. Thank you very much, Dana Lewis. Thank you.
Dana Lewis :Olga Oleg is the International Crisis Group's Program Director for Europe and Central Asia. She's just, I think, what a terrific voice when it comes to understanding what's going on in Russia and Ukraine. Olga, thanks so much for talking to us again.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Group:Very happy to be back.
Dana Lewis :Ukraine is emerging from a disappointing counter-offensive. You have said it's shorter weapons and personnel Money stalled in Washington. Europe's ability to deliver weapons is also in question. You're not painting a very bright picture.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Group:It's not a very bright picture. I suppose the good news is that all is not lost yet. But look, these are things people have been talking about for months and they're still talking about them, and you can go to places like the Munich Security Conference and everybody talks this great talk about support for Ukraine and this war is existential for Europe, but the reality is that the money is very much not where their mouths are.
Dana Lewis :Some people would say that the Munich Security Conference because you brought it up was one of the most disappointing security conferences in memory. There was a lot of talk but when you really look at, was there any traction on Ukraine? There's a lot of disappointment.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Group:Well, I wasn't there so I can't give you a personal impression, but I think that, look, we're in a place where Zdenensky came to that conference on the heels of signing security assistance deals with the French and the Germans, which in turn followed such a deal with the UK.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Group:So what they're doing is making good on G7 commitments that they made on the sidelines of the Vilnius NATO Summit, which are that we're going to sign deals with Ukraine that promise that we will continue to provide support of the sort we are providing, and I think they mean it right, they will. They really do see this as crucial to their security. The problem is that it's the United States that has had the easiest logistical time of it providing more weapons, and the United States has pretty much stopped doing that because of domestic politics, and what the UK and France and Germany and Sweden and the Czech Republic and all of the rest of them can do is simply more limited. Now they could still do more. I think the big gap in Europe has been an unwillingness to sign the long-term contracts that European firms want in order to produce a kind of weaponry that the governments want them to produce. So they could do that, but it still, it takes time, it's not push a button and ammunition starts to come off the assembly line.
Dana Lewis :Precisely, precisely. So has time slipped away. I mean, we're two years into this and they're still talking about revving up assembly lines and doing more to provide what the US is not providing.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Group:So this has been, I think, a huge gap for the Europeans, and it's not an absence of capacity. European firms can do this. What they need is the contracts. And, yes, a certain amount of time has slipped away, and I think a lot of it is about expecting the United States to continue to fill the gap. But the United States hasn't right, because a small group of congressional Republicans has been able to be disproportionately influential and prevent the money, and therefore the guns, from flowing.
Dana Lewis :So is President Trump helping right now? Former President Trump suggesting that his country will not protect NATO member states if they fail to meet the spending minimums, and that he's even said he would invite Russia to attack NATO member states. So surely he's helping people get serious, as ludicrous as some of his comments may be.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Group:So, look, the commitments to spend more on defense on the part of the NATO members were made at Vilnius. They were made before Vilnius. They keep getting more and more commitmenty. They also are spending more. Another commitment they made was to spend, I believe, 20% of their defense budgets on defense industry. That would be a good one to move along.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Group:I don't know about a year ago, but we'll settle for now. So, look, does Donald Trump help? In a kind of perverse way? He does, because he drives home the point that this isn't perhaps an aberration, that the United States maybe isn't as reliable as you'd like it to be. And if indeed, europe, this is a war for your security, for your existential, for your existence as Europe, then you need to think about what to do if the United States isn't fully reliable. And, of course, during the four years of Donald Trump's presidency, this was something that occurred to everybody. But then that presidency ended and they all breathed a giant sigh of relief. And now they're starting to get serious again. And I think, watching well, from the inside I'm sitting here in Brussels, but watching not as a European but as an American it's frustrating, but it's a very slow process. The problem is, ukraine does not have a ton of time.
Dana Lewis :They certainly don't. Do you think that the front lines in Ukraine, given what we've just seen in Avdivka and there's a lot of different pictures that were painted on the retreat Some say it was an orderly retreat. The stuff I've read is that it was pretty chaotic and a lot of Ukrainians died in that retreat. Do you think the front lines are beginning to collapse in Ukraine, that it is that critical, or what's your analysis?
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Group:Look, ukraine is moving to a defensive footing, which it needs to do. It needs to do that for several reasons. One is pushing the counter offensive didn't work. Two is their low on weapons, and a defensive position basically just uses less ammunition than trying to be on the offense. They also need to build up their force size. They need to mobilize and train more people, as well as get more weapons into the stockpile. So all of those call or shifted to defensive positions. Some of that means falling back and getting two positions that are defensive.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Group:Now you can do that in a very organized, thought out way, but there's no way to do that without looking like you're retreating. You are retreating. As it happens, they're doing it under Russian fire, as they're being forced back by Russians, taking generally small amounts of territory, but the Russians are taking that territory and they're pushing the Ukrainians back. In terms of what happened in Ividevka specifically, yes, you're absolutely going to get all sorts of stories. I think the bottom line is there was not a way for the Ukrainians to hold it, whether they could have done a better job on the retreat. You could always do a better job.
Dana Lewis :You think it's the first in a series? Do you think that we should understand there's going to be more of Ividevkas?
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Group:So Russia is pushing pretty much all along the line of contact and Ukraine has to determine what it can defend and where it wants to dig in and how it wants to get to those positions, and then from that point it can see what it can do, whether it's launching offensive actions where possible and when that's possible. I don't know, but I think right now we are seeing the Russians continue to push forward.
Dana Lewis :Do you think that some of this plays into the replacement of Ukraine's top general Zelensky, that he and Zelensky just didn't see eye to eye? Zelensky was pushing offensive operations. Zelensky was reportedly just saying that they were in a stalemate, months before Zelensky actually acknowledged it and that he had a different vision of where the war was going. And it may be that Zelensky was spot on versus Zelensky, who was always campaigning for more Western support, always painting a picture of an optimistic picture, that maybe some of that replacement of Zelensky was rooted in some stark realities.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Group:Look, I don't like the term stalemate for this conflict because I think of it in chess terms, and in chess terms it's the end of the game. And we're not at the end of the game. We are at a place where the Ukrainians were unable to move forward and the Russians now are moving forward with tiny amounts of territory, with tremendous losses. This is a fight that favors defense, so that's just kind of what it is. I think the very public fight between Zelensky and Zelensky is a breakdown of civil-military relations and a reflection of the problem with civil-military relations in Ukraine, which is a long-standing one. But I also don't know. It's not that I think Zalushny would have somehow prevented the Russians from taking Aviv-Divka, and I try not to be an armchair warrior that questions the decisions made by people who have more information than I do and who are actually responsible for the lives of the people under their command. These are very tough choices and war is unpredictable.
Dana Lewis :What would you say about Ukraine's manpower situation? And I know you covered it in some of your material from the International Crisis Group and some of your experts have talked about it. I mean, I was struck by one of the sessions that you did where they said you know a lot of the guys in the front line. They've been there two years I mean two years in some of the worst conditions since World War II, getting in the army. You know very few breaks. They're tired, they're worn out. The average age, according to one of your experts on the front line, is 43 years old. Did I get that right?
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Group:So Ukraine made a conscious decision not to mobilize young people. They mobilized people with prior military experience and just prior experience in general. So you get an older fighting force and, as one Ukrainian official pointed out to me, you also get people who don't run this fast, right or as long. You get people who you know but you also get. You get people with experience and you're not drawing down your young men and it is predominantly men. One of the things they are looking at doing now is mobilizing younger people.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Group:The big challenge for Ukraine is fixing a mobilization system so that people feel confident coming in and joining this force. Because if you look at the public opinion polls, they support this war right, it's a war for their very survival. They get it. But the reports you hear from soldiers are that it's not clear where you're going to be assigned when you're mobilized, that it's not clear what the rotation is, if there is a rotation. So if they can fix that, they're probably going to get at least somewhat better responses. When people get mobilization notices, they're going to be more likely to show up. Ukraine hasn't run out of people it could mobilize, but it has to make decisions to actually mobilize them and it needs to set up a system that doesn't punish them and their families for responding.
Dana Lewis :The assistance piece as you've referred to it, and even if the US can unclog its very difficult politics in Washington, and there's no sign of that. But right now, essentially the US works on sending needed equipment to Ukraine using existing stocks and then new procurements. Do I get it right that the existing stocks are dwindling to the point that the Department of Defense is not comfortable sending anymore and that the new stocks are several years in a pipeline, even if you direct the money to commission those new weapons?
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Group:So yeah, I mean, as you said, there's two pots of weapons for which the US is drawing. One is stockpiles, and what the US has like to do is send Ukraine stuff as they replenish. They don't have the supplemental. If they don't have the funding to replenish, they don't want to keep sending the stockpiles, because then the US doesn't have a stockpile anymore. So that's kind of the first pot, the first bucket.
Dana Lewis :And that's one of the most critical ones, because that arise quickly. Yeah, exactly.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Group:Take that out of a warehouse.
Dana Lewis :Push it on a plane and get it rolling.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Group:That stuff that exists. The other piece of this is procurement and those are contracts, and different things take different amounts of time to build on contracts. Some things take six months, some things take two years. So there are things that have been contracted for that Ukraine is going to keep receiving because they are being built right. Whatever defense firm got the order, is assembling whatever it is and it is going to get shipped when it's finished. But with no new contracts you're not going to get more of this stuff and that's the problem with that. So on the one hand, you don't have the replenishment of US stockpiles and on the other, you don't have the money to just buy new things that the defense industrial firms which are. They're American firms, it's American jobs, it's money to American towns and cities, but they're not producing without the contracts.
Dana Lewis :And even if the log jam is broken in Washington, there's lag time. There's a lag there is a commission and manufacture and delivery.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Group:Right, you can't. I mean, yeah, it's not magical.
Dana Lewis :In the meantime, people are dying. I probably you know I left the headline to the last and it maybe should have been the first thing I asked you about, because it also plays into this. But when you look at the death of Alexei Navalny in prison in Russia, they still haven't turned over the body. There are all sorts of demands for that. Now they're saying it could be two weeks before they do that and lots of questions about why they don't want to do that. Do you think there, what is the fallout from it in terms of does it play in the West in such an alarming way of how brutal and nasty this regime is in Russia that that may provide some new impetus to people saying you know, Putin's got to be dealt with, We've got to get behind Ukraine, because that's the last line of defense?
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Group:Look, I think it certainly lends strength to that argument, right? The answer to the question, what do you do about this? Is support Ukraine. I also will say that I don't know a Russian citizen who isn't wrecked you know who has not been wrecked since Friday, and I think it's important to understand it. That for Russians who have a different vision for their country, this is a kick in the ribs to somebody who's bleeding out from having been brutally beaten anyway, right, and that's an effort to tell all of those people give up. There is no hope for a different Russia. This is the Russia, and you know you're seeing that community, or that set of communities, grapple with that situation. But I think for the rest of us, for Americans and Europeans, it really does have to be about either supporting Ukraine or figuring out how you're going to deal with the consequences if you don't.
Dana Lewis :Olga, olikot Olga. Thank you so much for your time. Olga from the International Crisis Group, it's always a privilege to talk to you. I think your terrific, and your organization has such great insights on what's been taking place, so I thank you so much for sharing some of your wisdom with us.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Group:Thank you so much for inviting me.
Dana Lewis :And that's our Backstory. This Week, as we speak, news emerged a Russian helicopter pilot who defected to Ukraine murdered in Spain. Putin's security services likely suspects he was shot 12 times under a bridge. Revelations the so-called informant for the FBI trying to frame President Biden and his son was connected to Russian intelligence. The accusations against the Biden's false More election meddling in America and candidate Trump failed to condemn or blame Putin. He never wants to confront Russia. Wonder why, and many people wonder about that. Thanks for listening to Backstory. I'm Dana Lewis and I'll talk to you again soon.
