.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
Russia-North Korea Alliance, And Ukraine War
The strategic alliance between Russia and North Korea has the world on edge, and in this episode of Backstory, you'll understand why. Join us as we unpack the recent high-stakes meeting between President Putin and Kim Jong Un. General Ben Hodges provides expert insights into North Korea's agreement to supply Russia with millions of artillery shells and missiles for its war against Ukraine. Together, we investigate the technological exchanges that could significantly bolster North Korea's nuclear and satellite capabilities, posing grave risks to South Korea, Japan, and global security.
Oleg Ignatov talks to why Putin has embraced North Korea, a journey of desperation in his war against the west and quest to revive a Russian empire at all costs.
Lastly, hear from Natalia Drozd, chairwoman of the Dobrochyn Center NGO, as she shares the devastating impact of the prolonged Russian invasion on Ukraine's infrastructure.
It was important that members of Congress, including Republicans, voted to change the law that says no American president can unilaterally withdraw from NATO. So even the Republicans recognize the idiocy and the danger of that.
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group:First of all, he doesn't have a choice because Putin doesn't have so many friends right now. And the second thing yes, as you said, it's about military issues, it's about ammunition, it's about missiles, so it's about firepower.
Natalia Drozd:Because, you know, it's not only a war between Russia and Ukraine, it's not only bilateral, it's already the globe on the map who are involved in this war.
Dana Lewis :Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of Backstory. I'm Dana Lewis. This week, russia's President Putin in North Korea suddenly best buds with Kim Jong-un. What's the deal? A desperate Russia seeking more arms gets the audience. Artillery shells, millions of them, more missiles to attack Ukraine. But what is North Korea getting in return? Will Russia give North Korea the technical know-how to push its nuclear program to the next level? Tech for satellites and nuclear submarines too. Technical know-how to push its nuclear program to the next level, tech for satellites and nuclear submarines too. The West is worried, that's for sure. Our guests, the ever-clever General Ben Hodges, oleg Ignatyev from the International Crisis Group and, from Ukraine, natalia Drozd, on reconstruction of a war-torn country. Ben Hodges is the former commanding general of the US Army in Europe and he joins me now from Germany.
Gen Ben Hodges :Hello, general, good to see you again sir, thank you very much for the privilege again.
Dana Lewis :Let's hit the news. North Korea, Russia President Putin and Kim Jong-un had just met actually today, as we record this, a strategic cooperation agreement Cause for concern.
Gen Ben Hodges :Well, I'm concerned, of course, that North Korea is providing apparently millions of rounds of artillery ammunition to Russia and probably some other things.
Gen Ben Hodges :There's a lot of question about the quality of what's being provided, but nonetheless it's pretty clear that there is a lot of ammunition being provided, so there's nothing good about that. But I'm also concerned that we can't seem to do anything about it. I mean, I was just looking at a map before you and I started speaking of the route that this ammunition goes, how they transfer it by ship from North Korea to Russia and then it moves by rail the entire distance of Russia. I can't believe there's nothing we can do about that, that it can't be interdicted somehow along the way. I'm sure the Ukrainians are looking for ways to do that, but surprising that we seemingly are unable to do anything about it. And then, of course, this emboldens North Korea. They will, without a doubt, in addition to getting money from Russia for the ammunition, they'll also get some technology about their satellites, rocket and missile capabilities. That will increase the risk to our allies in South Korea and Japan.
Dana Lewis :I think the former ambassador, us ambassador to Russia, mike McFaul, put up a pretty interesting post today saying essentially you know this is a frightening situation because Putin clearly is never going to sign on to another arms control strategic arms control agreement America now is talking about maybe it should expand its nuclear arsenal. I mean, we are in a new arms race and North Korea probably stands to benefit from some of the technology that Russia has for missile platforms, that Russia has for missile platforms, launch platforms for the missiles themselves and delivery systems, including submarines.
Gen Ben Hodges :Well, you're right. And, of course, the Russians have not complied with or lived up to any other agreements for quite some time, so this is not shocking. And they don't feel any obligation to, they don't feel we haven't been able to impress on them or force them to live up to it. And so here we are, and I think it would be foolhardy to expect that they'll do anything else until we show that we are serious about these things, which means that all the other countries have to participate as well. It can't be something that only the US can enforce. So I think you're exactly right that this is not a good situation for us or for countries that see North Korea as a threat.
Dana Lewis :And this is not some airy-fairy geopolitical conversation. If you're a Ukrainian soldier sitting on the front line in one of those trenches near Russian forces because this translates into real ammunition that is being used on the battlefield ship from North Korea to the Russians do you think it's making a big difference in their campaign in this war of attrition?
Gen Ben Hodges :Well, you and I have talked about before how war is a test of will and it's a test of logistics. And so if it's so important that Putin is willing to humiliate himself, to go flying all the way to Pyongyang and hug Kim Jong-un in order to get ammunition, it tells you that they're in desperate need of that ammunition. And so much for the people that were wringing their hands. About 40% of Russia's economy is now on a war footing. That's the equivalent to 40% of Spain's economy. So put it in context. So we're not talking about 40% of the German or the American economy, but or the British. It's 40% of Spain's economy. That's the size of Russia. So they need this Now. This is also why it's important that US policy should not restrict Ukraine from using weapons inside of Russia. From using weapons inside of Russia, I mean, we know where the ammunition is going, we know exactly where it's being offloaded. The Ukrainians should be free to use any weapon they have, from whoever they receive it, to strike where these trains are coming in.
Dana Lewis :Okay, supposedly that rule. Can you help me pick through that? Supposedly that rule was changed. The Biden administration has said that Ukraine can hit into Ukraine, and in fact they have done so, but then the use of attackums is still restricted.
Gen Ben Hodges :There's two important caveats to that supposed lessening of restrictions, which is maddening anyway. I mean, if we were serious about helping Ukraine win, there would not be a restriction. So this is really, I think, unhelpful. But the first caveat is attackams cannot be used. So the weapon that would be most effective at 300 kilometer range, they can't use that. The second thing they can only use Americanided weapons across the border into Russia if it's proximate to Kharkiv or directly related to Russian troops coming across the border there.
Gen Ben Hodges :So a logistics site that might not be anywhere near Kharkiv is therefore untouchable, at least using American systems. This is ridiculous. There's no legal, moral or operational reason not to allow this. This is 100% the result of the administration unfortunately still being excessively concerned that Russia might somehow escalate, which they're not going to do, or that the US policy really seems to be that we just want this thing to kind of grind to a halt, which is incredibly short-sighted inside of Russia, that in fact it's only about 15%, that all the supply and logistics and air bases, the things that are key to stopping the Russian onslaught, are in fact in that other.
Dana Lewis :What's my math?
Gen Ben Hodges :85%, 85% 85%, very good, yeah, I mean as General Breedlove describes it. You know we we are in effect, giving Russia a sanctuary from which they were able to kill innocent Ukrainians, civilians, strike civilian infrastructure as well as attack Ukrainian forces. So this is. You would think we would eventually learn from this. We allowed the North Vietnamese to have sanctuary in the Viet Cong during that long war. We allowed the Taliban to have sanctuary in Pakistan. So if you're going to be serious about winning, then you have to eliminate sanctuary, either through kinetic or economic or diplomatic means.
Dana Lewis :Do you think that this is one of those slow drips that's just bound to change anyway, that you know? Eventually the Biden administration says, okay, yeah, you can finally use some of the American weapons inside Russia, but only this far. Do you think that's just going to? You know it's going to change like tanks, like F-16s, like attack guns, like long range or longer range, of course.
Gen Ben Hodges :Number one, yes, number two there are no F-16s yet.
Gen Ben Hodges :I mean more than two and a half years into since the large scale invasion, or almost two and a half years, not a single F-16 is flying, and that's again because of our reluctance or our unwillingness or our inability to help train enough pilots to get them ready to go.
Gen Ben Hodges :These are bad policy decisions that come from the fact that there is no clear objective, from the fact that there is no clear objective. It's very difficult to come up with good policy if there's no strategic aim that gives reason for the policy. Policy is the how you implement what's needed to be done to accomplish the aim and the strategic aim the objective is still not clearly identified. They can't come out and just say we recognize it's in our strategic interest that Ukraine defeats Russia and therefore we're going to do everything necessary for them. Instead, you get this ridiculous we're with you for as long as it takes, which means nothing, and you get policies that make no sense. So the fact that Russian weapons and targets are given sanctuary in 85% of the region that Ukraine should be able to hit. A second lieutenant would not come up with something like that.
Dana Lewis :You've talked about the fact in some of your social media posts that Ukraine's doing a pretty good job in Crimea, that you're seeing a lot of things that maybe we don't take note of or we don't add up at the end of the day, and that is that Ukraine is slowly removing Russian defenses in Crimea and you paint what seems like a platform or a foothold for further action. What does that look like, do you think, in Crimea from the Ukrainians?
Gen Ben Hodges :Well, first of all, I would say too many casual observers assume that liberating Crimea can only be done with a Normandy D-Day type invasion. Crimea can only be done with a Normandy D-Day type invasion. Ok, and clearly Ukraine is not in a position to do that right now, but nor are they required to have to do that right now. Instead, I think liberating Crimea, which is the most important terrain of this whole war because of what it allows the Russians or the Ukrainians to do in the Black Sea economically and maritime-wise, is you take it in stages, and this is what the Ukrainians are doing. You have to isolate it, which means the three sort of main ways you get in and out of Crimea is the Kerch Bridge, ferries that come across Azov Sea or railroad. So the Ukrainians are already chipping away at the available ferries and Black Sea Fleet LSTs landingship tank that are used to move stuff back and forth. That bridge will be dropped when the Ukrainians are ready for it to be dropped and the railroad will be the easiest thing to hit whenever they're ready to. So the isolation part that's in the works.
Gen Ben Hodges :The other stage is making it untenable so that the Russians can't use it. That means using the weapons that have been provided, and even Secretary Austin now talks about how good it is that now the Ukrainians are using ATACOMs the 300-kilometer range ATACOMs, to hit targets in Sevastopol, which is the Navy base, and other places around Crimea. And then, of course, there was a report that came out, I think three days ago, that showed all the different air defense weapons that have been destroyed in Crimea. I think this is very clever targeting as well. This is exactly how we would do it we would eliminate the enemy's air defense so that then other systems can come in and hit the targets. So this is an important part of making it easier for drones to get in and strike, as well as, eventually, perhaps, manned aircraft.
Dana Lewis :Quick point why are they waiting on the Kirch Bridge. What's the point of waiting?
Gen Ben Hodges :Well, it's going to be such a massive undertaking. I mean, this is not a matter of a couple of Taurus. They ever get those or three or four attack them. I, I mean this, that's a huge bridge.
Gen Ben Hodges :I'm not an engineer, but I mean I've been looking at this now for the last couple of years and, um, the Russians have done a lot of things to protect it against, uh, maritime drones. You know, they've sunk vessels along the sides, uh, to prevent that. They've sunk vessels along the sides to prevent that. They've got a lot of air defense all around that place to prevent other drones from coming in.
Gen Ben Hodges :So I think probably the most clever guy on the planet, general Budanov, he's got a team working on what would be required, what sort of operation will be required to get enough explosive to be able to inflict real damage to that bridge. But it'll be part of an operation distraction, deception, a combination of things. It might happen in phases, over hours or over days, I don't know, but it's not something you can do. Well, we didn't get it this time, we'll get it next week. It'll be a big operation, and so I think they will want the time to be right, when not only you get the benefit of the destruction, but it contributes to other things that are going on elsewhere as well.
Dana Lewis :I know I have limited time, but, general, what about NATO? You're in touch with so many people in NATO. What is the nervousness of a possible return of President Trump, of a return of a possible return of president trump, and are they more than just, you know, kind of chattering about it in the hallway? Are they laying the laying a foundation now so that support for ukraine, um and and other nato strategy as a will continue on, so that, even if Trump starts squeezing funding on NATO, or even talked about removing the US from NATO, which he talked about before, what's the plan? Is there?
Gen Ben Hodges :one. Well, the biggest danger with Donald Trump as president when it comes to NATO is that he constantly undermines the cohesion of the alliance. And that's always been. The secret sauce of NATO is that the Russians and others never doubted and the members never doubted that if it came down to it that everybody would be together, that didn't mean you don't have enormous arguments with allies, that you don't have huge differences on many different things. And of course, every president, as Truman, has complained that our European allies not just the Germans, but most of our European allies did not carry their fair share of the burden. So former President Trump was following the tradition of criticizing our European allies for not spending enough. But nobody ever questioned whether or not the US would be there that we would live up to our obligations under Article 5. And then the fact that he even talks about pulling out damages that cohesion and of course that's a signal to the Russians that hmm, okay, maybe we could do something and the Americans under Trump would not really react. And that's all the Russians want to do. They don't, unlike in the Cold War when they had a big red arrow that was aimed across Europe to conquer it, now they just want to break the alliance. And the way you break the alliance is to demonstrate that nations actually won't live up to what they said they would. So that's the biggest danger and it's terrible for the United States.
Gen Ben Hodges :We benefit so much from NATO. I mean, with less than 100,000 troops, I mean that's how many people can sit in Wembley Stadium or the stadium at the University of Michigan? That's not a lot of people. We have access for our Army, navy, air Force, intelligence, special forces all over Europe. That helps us in Africa and the Middle East and Eurasia, not just in Europe. So the benefits to us economically, a stable, secure Europe is essential for American prosperity. You know why would anybody want to put that in risk just because Germany doesn't spend 2%, or the French are not, or the Canadians don't?
Gen Ben Hodges :So I think at the end of the day, it was important that members of Congress, including Republicans, voted to change the law that says no American president can unilaterally withdraw from NATO. So even the Republicans recognize the idiocy and the danger of that. Now, of course, course, nothing forces the president to do anything. I mean, so he, he could stop talking about uh withdrawn from nato. But he's not forced to do anything, so he could just sort of okay, fine, um, but again that would hurt us. Uh, we'd be hurting ourselves more than anyone.
Dana Lewis :That's's why President Biden signed this bilateral agreement. There are other bilateral agreements with Ukraine that have been done, but a lot of people say that you know there's a clause in there that you get out of that within I think it was six months. So if Trump comes in, he can abandon the bilateral agreements as well, so he can support for NATO and he can also pull the bilateral support that America has for Ukraine.
Gen Ben Hodges :Well, that would be true of any president all the time. I mean, the executive thing is just that it's signed by the executive. So forget Trump, forget Ukraine. That would always be the case. I think these bilateral agreements are important. We have bilateral agreements with Germany, poland, all the other countries, other allies as well, and anything that helps improve Ukraine's ability to defend itself, to improve their training and education, their infrastructure, their modernization, I'm for it. But that should not be confused with as another step towards membership in NATO or that irreversible momentum. It's not that and it's also definitely not a security guarantee. The only security guarantee is Ukraine inside NATO.
Dana Lewis :Yeah, another conversation for another time, and we're not there yet, although they would like them to be. General Ben Hodges, what a great treat always to be able to talk to you when I get a chance. Thank you so much, have a wonderful summer, and I know you're going to the NATO conference so I'm sure you'll be whispering in lots of ears there, as generals generally don't whisper, but you'll. You'll be talking to people the way you think the war should be handled and where it should be going.
Gen Ben Hodges :I think it's it's too important to just I can't just sit in the bleachers and watch. I'm trying to help make sure that you know the United States doesn't turn us back on our, on our allies, and that the NATO does not turn us back on Ukraine. Thank you, sir, thanks Dana.
Dana Lewis :Oleg Ignatov is with the International Crisis Group and he worked as a political consultant in Russia for the United Russia Party, which I believe is the party that President Putin supports, Oleg, is it not?
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group:Yes, it was a long time ago when Medvedev was president of Russia. Actually, not, Mr Putin.
Dana Lewis :What do you make of President Putin's visit to North Korea? I mean, they did a deal last September. We know that North Korea has been shipping them some missiles and millions of artillery rounds. What's the point of President Putin, who doesn't exactly like to travel, going to North Korea now, some 24 years since the last time he was there?
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group:First of all, he doesn't have a choice because Putin doesn't have so many friends right now. And the second thing yes, as you said, it's about military issues, it's about ammunition. Yes, it's about missiles. So it's about firepower. Yes, I think it's not the right way to say that Russia is dependent on the North Korea in terms of firepower, but I think that the help which Russia gets from North Korea makes difference and it helps Russia have advantage in terms of manpower over Ukraine on the front line. That's why it's very important for Putin so Russia could leave without the help from North Korea. Russia could still have advantage over Ukraine in terms of manpower, but Russia, without the help from North Korea, russia wouldn't have had such a big advantage in terms of firepower.
Dana Lewis :In terms of manpower? How does that work? No, in terms of firepower, sorry, Firepower, because they're not sending troops.
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group:Because North Korea doesn't send troops to?
Dana Lewis :Ukraine? Yes, Is that possible? Because we know that President Putin is about to sign a strategic partnership agreement. What is that strategic partnership agreement, which people seem to suggest would mean that one country would defend the other country's interests militarily.
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group:It means that Russia and North Korea will be strategic partners. It means that they will share more technologies. It means that their cooperation in terms of military cooperation will go deeper. Yes, it means that the North Korean army or North Korea will get more military technologies from Russia. It means that North Korea or Russia would use more North Koreans' capacity to produce missiles and munitions for the Russian army. So it just means that the cooperation between these countries will go deeper, but it doesn't mean that they will have to defend each other in case of a military conflict. What about nuclear?
Dana Lewis :weapons, other in case of a military conflict? What about nuclear weapons and the? I mean? North Korea already has nuclear weapons, but the development of platforms that can more accurately deliver those weapons, especially bringing them within range of the United States. Do you think that Russia is prepared to give all?
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group:It's a good question. Yes, you heard Putin's statements when he said that Russia is ready to respond to deliverers of long-range missiles to Ukraine from the West, and it's ready to send it. Or it's possible that Russia could consider the sending of its long-range weapons to different countries which are enemies of the West or the Western countries? Yes, we still don't know what Putin meant, but you know, I think, that in this situation, I mean in these relationships between China, oh sorry, between North Korea and Russia, there is one player which is hidden. Yes, and nobody is talking about this player, but everybody knows about this player and this player is China.
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group:And if Russia couldn't do anything without China's consent there in North Korea, and I think if North Korea sends missiles and sends ammunition to Russia, it means that China agrees with that. Yes, and if Russia wants to send to North Korea something critical I mean critical technologies, critical weapons which could hurt the West or the United States in particular, it means that China would have to agree on that. And we don't have an answer to this question. So that's why I would answer we don't know, but, of course, if the escalation continues and if China is getting more involved in this conflict on the Russia side, different scenarios are possible.
Dana Lewis :Will you share with me a scenario or two that you think is possible, because cooperation is one thing, but the standoff between north and south korea is getting worse. Suddenly, and especially in the last year, north korea is becoming much more aggressive with south korea. Do you think that russia is pushing North Korea towards an armed conflict with the South?
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group:Again. So it doesn't mean that Russia could push North Korea to the conflict with the South. It means that China could push North Korea to such a conflict. Yes, and we don't have an answer to this question. Yes, for now, I don't think it's true. I don't think that China is interested in changing the balance in its neighborhood. So, but of course, what is happening, as I said, between russia and north korea, it doesn't happen without uh china's consent. Yes, and it means that China agrees that North Korea helps Russia to wage war against Ukraine or to wage a proxy war against the West, as Russia is saying. Yes, it means China agrees, but China for now refrains from delivering ammunition and equipment to Russia. I mean tanks, armors and some kind of this stuff.
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group:Yes, I don't think that China has any interest to destabilize the Korean peninsula right now, but you see that the situation is getting more like it's not going their well, where? Yes, and there are a lot of expectations, and the fact that you're talking about this and the fact that the media are talking about this shows that there are expectations that scenarios, different scenarios of destabilization are possible. But again, I think everything depends on China there and Russia understands this, and I think that Russia alone can do anything there, I mean on the Korean peninsula. And yes, north Korea is Russian, is Russia's neighbor. But Russia understands this like rules of the game with China. Yes, and if China decides that the stabilization in its interest, russia would support China. But I don't think we are in the current situation.
Dana Lewis :I might be wrong, but in Putin's initial terms of office which are never-ending, I mean originally they were limited to five years or four years. Even he was careful with Iran and he was careful with North Korea. Russia even, you know, supported sanctions against North Korea in terms of UN weapons inspections and they didn't want nuclear armed neighbors on their border, on their border. So now, because this confrontation with the West is becoming so angry and Russia so threatening, what's changed, do you think, in the Kremlin's brain? Do you think?
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group:Russia didn't support proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group:That's a fact. And Russia supported the sanctions against Iran, and Russia was against Iran having nuclear weapons, as Russia wasn't happy that North Korea could have nuclear weapons. That's the fact. There are different rumors about this, but for now I would say that there are no signs that Russian position has changed, because proliferation of nuclear weapons is not in Russia's interests, because it means that there will be more players on the international stage which could possess nuclear weapons and which could pose a threat, including to Russia. So we don't have any signs that Russia's position has changed here. But if any country like any Russia alien, yes could have nuclear weapons and of course Russia wouldn't help an elite to have such weapons, it doesn't mean that Russia would do against this country. So I would say the policy is like this Russia wouldn't help, but if this country manages, or any country manages, to obtain such weapons, it doesn't mean that this country would have any problems with Russia. It means that Russia would have to live with this and would have to cooperate with this country based on these realities.
Dana Lewis :Last question, mr Ignatov, if you don't mind, because you consulted the united russia party. Um, and as you, as you said, it was a very long time ago, uh, probably when they were moderating, moderating influences in russia. Uh, there was a liberal side to that party. There was western leaning members in in united russia that saw europe as a friend and somebody to do business with. Are all those moderating influences now gone, and do you see the Russian intelligence services now, their takeover of the power circles around Putin, as all-encompassing, and what does it mean?
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group:I would say that there are no. The Russian power is now how to say it? A combination of security officers and technocrats, and actually it's a union between these security officers, maybe some oligarchs and technocrats. And there were a lot of technocrats in the United Russian Party. They didn't have a lot of. They were not liberals, I wouldn't say that they had liberal ideology. At least this ideology was not the main how to say it? Force in their life, the main moving force in their life and their intentions.
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group:I would say that they're more technocrats, yes, or pretended to be technocrats, and there's still a lot of technocrats there. They don't have a lot of ideology. They are not against the confrontation with, they are not in favor of the confrontation with the West, in favor of the confrontation with the West. So a lot of people still consume Western products, western culture, and they look at the West in terms, for example, of the future of their children. But, as I said, they are in situation when they have to accept the reality, because they are fully dependent on these people who are in charge of security and they're afraid of these people and they have, like legitimate concerns about the power of these people, that influence, or they their possible influence, uh, on their not everyday life? Yes, and and unfortunately there are no visionaries in Russian power, I mean Western-like visionaries but there are technocrats with whom the West could negotiate, maybe not now, but in the future.
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group:Yes, and I think the future of Russia, I mean the future of Russian power, the future of Russian state, will be dependent on these relationships between security people and technocrats who will be in charge, if we look at the situation from like midterm perspective. In any case, if in Russia, if you want to take power or if you want to rule this country, in any case you will have to rely on people who are in charge of security, I mean on the security services, on military or on technocrats, if we are talking about the security or on technocrats, if we are talking about the security, and I think this union or this coalition between technocrats and security will continue to exist and the West will have to accept this situation. Yes, it will have to manage the future relationships with Russia based on understanding of these relationships inside the Russian power.
Dana Lewis :And if there are anybody, as you say, that are pro-European or look to the West for some kind of future, they either stay silent or face prisoner of war.
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group:They all could change their mind, even if now they are saying that they are patriots or orthodox Christians or hardliners. They could change their mind. It will depend on their situation. It's not possible to predict right now. Yes, look, I worked with the United or at the United Russian Party when we had a reset with the United States.
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group:Yes, when Obama and Medvedev tried to promote a different policy yes, tried to establish a different policy between these countries, we had a completely different situation and people. They were thinking in completely different terms. Yes, we were talking about modernization in Russia and Medvedev wrote a famous article about the modernization of Russia. Does it mean that Medvedev was a fake person? Because we know what he's talking about right now. Maybe we could say like this but maybe we could say that he's just adapting to his situation. Yes, and if this situation changes, medvedev could also have a different position. Yes, it's not. The system is very different. Yes, it's not a democracy and they have to play, they have to be, to adapt to their problems, to adjust their own position to the environment. And that's Russia. Yes, it's very different. Yes, it's authoritarian, it's closed, but you still have to deal with Russia because it's very big and it's very influential still.
Dana Lewis :I mean Medvedev especially appears to just not go along with the situation but promote the situation, and you know he's pretty rabid in tweets and postings on Telegram.
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group:I have my own fears about why he's behaving like this, but I don't want to be public on this For the next interview, oleg Ignatov, with the International Crisis Group.
Dana Lewis :Thank you, thank you so much.
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group:Thank you.
Dana Lewis :Natalia Drozd is the chairwoman of an NGO called Dobrocin Center, which is involved in recovery efforts in Ukraine, and that is a very big, very big conversation people are having around the world right now. Natalia welcome.
Natalia Drozd:Yeah, good afternoon. Very happy to be here and to have a voice at this platform. Thank you.
Dana Lewis :Oh, you're very kind. Two years have passed since the beginning of a full-scale Russian invasion. We're more than that now. We're three years into this. You don't have to watch the news every day to understand. Houses, hospitals, schools, cultural institutions, energy, infrastructure which is a key thing the environment have all suffered enormous damage, and I've seen some figures that put it at you know, four, 400 billion. Some say it's closer to a trillion. What, what do you put it at?
Natalia Drozd:What do you mean? What kind of dimension? Moral, ethical, physical?
Dana Lewis :In terms of dollar.
Natalia Drozd:Yeah, it's our everyday life, Because if we feel every day frustrated or if we feel every day like victims oh my God, another school is destroyed or another hospital there is no way that we will win or we will survive. Yes, we are very angry, we are very frustrated reading every news. You know, we are living with the telephone. We have special applications, websites. You monitor every 10, 15 minutes because, for example, my family in Chernihiv region, my daughter in Kiev, so my friends and colleagues all over Ukraine. So all of a sudden, even if you have a very high official meeting, if you hear air raid siren and you look that missiles hit the city somewhere in Ukraine, you just call your friends, you just stop any event whatever. Where in Ukraine, you just call your friends, you just stop any event whatever.
Natalia Drozd:But at the same time, we transfer our anger, our frustration into action. We do not allow ourselves to feel so pity, so sorry that we are in this war. It's like you know, it's our choice. This war it's all about people. It's about their choice how we do react to this everyday news. And every morning you make a choice to stay in your own country, to stay in your own city, in spite of all this horrific news people dying, wounded, some western help, for example, detained for a while. You have to wait one more month. So you have to pick up more volunteers' car to bring to Ukraine. So you know, we have now very diverse life in Ukraine and you have to switch among various activities simultaneously your job, your volunteering, your family, international level, not to forget and to stay and accept this as a long marathon, to have our resources and to be resilient again, to wake up every morning and have force to continue. It's very difficult, but it's our choice indeed.
Dana Lewis :A grim marathon, a longer marathon than anybody would have predicted at the beginning of this. But some people are saying $10 billion in damage to Ukraine infrastructure every month. What do you put it at? What's your figure?
Natalia Drozd:Now we are tired of counting the figures and billions dollars, trillions. Counting the figures and billions dollars, trillions. Because after two years of full-scale invasion it seems for many citizens same same senseless. Yes, maybe the finance will come, one mechanism through EU facility, the other mechanism Now we are back again for survival and our resilience.
Natalia Drozd:Why we should make all these plans? For example, in my own city of Chernihiv we have 34 schools. During the first months of invasion, 29 were destroyed. Can you imagine? Nobody cares. Everyone cares about people. Yes, much more schools again could be destroyed. For example, the university where my husband works. It already, during two years, was destroyed twice. His cabinet totally destroyed, no notebook, nothing. Happily, people are all survived.
Natalia Drozd:So we are now talking about more defense, survival and resilience. What point and what is sense to talk about billions? It will be trillions. The next month and, and maybe in a month, on a year, there is no ukrainians left because there will be full occupation. Many people will go to west. So lots of ukrainians, especially civil society, organization, local communities, national uh, national authorities, they all ask for air defense and for ammunition and for weapons.
Natalia Drozd:Because it's third year, it seems seamless now to talk about figures. It could be trillions, what would make the difference? 10, 50, if no Ukrainians left, there is no defense. Twice rebuilding, okay, people, it's not caring about, you know, winter, yes, what we now is caring is how we will go through winter, energy surviving, how we can make this decentralization of energy generation now as much as possible. So it looks like that during two these years of full-scale invasion, we're in a starting point Survival and resilience. We're now again a civil society starting talking about not recovery, about resilience and survival, because it's no way to plan, because, yes, all this assistance, what we hear, as long as it takes. How long? 10 years, 20 years, till Ukrainian ends, what does it mean? Till it takes how long? 10 years, 20 years, till Ukrainian ends, what does it mean? Till it takes, how long it takes.
Natalia Drozd:So we need more concrete dates because you know, it's not only a war between Russia and Ukraine, it's not only bilateral, it's already the globe on the map who are involved in this war. Because if, for example, west and USA, they perceive themselves not as a part of this war, it's just bilateral, the Russia, they perceive that this is the war of West and they, in their propaganda, telling that they are fighting West people in Ukraine, that Ukraine has no subjectivity at all. It's only Western money, western ammunition and everything is fighting in Ukraine. So all Russian people believe that they fight in the West, in Ukraine. So now we see this more dilemma in perception of our war, how it will go, because talking about figures, it's not more so actual for us now we are ready to live without electricity, as we did, for example, in my house, in my city. There is no electricity, warm water, because our city was underseed. Can you imagine it's like street fighting. So, okay, we are ready to live again, but we have need. Okay, I will talk for you for a long time.
Dana Lewis :Please ask no, no, no, I don't think anybody would um not appreciate what, what, what you're going through and in terms of the fatigue of this you more than two years into it, the emotional loss of people that have been killed and the way of life that has been hijacked by the invasion Putin's invasion of Ukraine and people I can certainly hear in your voice that you've just had enough. You want it to end. Does that change the way that Ukrainians support their president or their government? Do they want this to go a different way? Are they willing just to keep sending young men and changing the ages of recruitment and just feeding this assembly line of people to the front line, or do people want a different solution now?
Natalia Drozd:I started that in Ukraine we do not use Putin's war. We use Russian's war because Russians do support Putin and this by reality, they interrelate. It's not only Putin. Russians strongly support him. So we call it not Putin's war, because if we change Putin for someone else, it won't work. It's Russians that want this war.
Natalia Drozd:So about the attitude of population yes, the majority of population still want to continue and they are ready to decrease the age for soldiers to be mobilized. They are ready to discuss women, to be at the front line, and we are still considering President Zelensky and all elected deputies national, local to have their legitimacy, to continue their work. We are steady on this. To have their legitimacy, to continue their work. We are steady on this. It's very difficult, painful, but you know. Otherwise, we know what will be. We saw this. There is no Ukraine. You will be killed. You have no option. You have the option. So in which way? You will be killed In dignity or you're under occupation or you know it's a choice of most Ukrainians.
Natalia Drozd:So the majority, they do not want to join Russia, do not want to have this false peace, as we call this false peace deal. For example, if we give some territories and, for example, we'll stop a war. We do understand it will be for a while. It could be one year, five years, ten years. Russia just needs time to collect all his resources again to recreate, because it's not just the war, it's not about quantity resources, it's the task of empire to expand, it's not about the border.
Natalia Drozd:If you give four regions, then four regions next, then the appetite will be Baltic countries and Poland as well, because the Soviet Union would like to be a subject like Russia now, as the Soviet Union would like to be a very powerful game player on the globe. And now China has more power than Russia and Russia is trying to restore its power during the Soviet Union, just influence on the half of Europe. So Ukraine. It's very painful, you know we have very painful discussions, even in parliament, in between neighbors, but at the end what do we have? Nothing. We have to stay because nobody wants to be in occupation.
Natalia Drozd:It's awful, it's awful Because we have our colleagues in territorial communities that were. So their stories. They are so horrifying that we are in CH under shelling. We feel much better than they are in occupation, because you can imagine this fear, this torture that they did. It's unbearable. So it's better to continue and be ready to substitute men as women. For example, we have now many training programs for women, for example, for big trucks, for economy, because we already have lack of men in many professions in economy. So we're already trying to substitute these places, but we are ready to continue to fight.
Dana Lewis :Okay, so you just talked about the fact that a lot of human capital has to just keep flowing into the war effort and the defense of Ukraine, but you also, in some of the things you've written, have talked about human. You need human capital for reconstruction, does that? Because reconstruction doesn't involve just the international community coming with a bunch of money and sending construction firms. You actually need human capital in every center, in every town, in every village, on every roadway to rebuild. Do you think it's way too early to talk about recovery efforts in Ukraine? No, then what's being talked about right now?
Natalia Drozd:We are in the recovery process already. In rebuilding and recovery we are defining two different directions. It's like early recovery that you rebuild straight away the critical infrastructure hospitals, water supplies, whatever energy supplies and just rebuilding now with the help of other territorial communities, international partners. But they are doing now. And if we talk about recovery, it's more about strategic vision. For example, all communities near the border with Russia and Belarus will they be the same even if the war stops? No, the border will be closed If, for example, they have transit potential. Now it's a dead end for logistics for a common enemy. So now it's a role of civil society to rethink the future of such a community, to think what kind of economy could be there and to prepare people there, because if we have people still even now 10 kilometers from Shelling from the border, so we do so, it will be our loss if we do not rethink now their strategic vision and include them into this process. So now this is mostly the role of civil society because, as local authority, are totally busy with all this early reconstruction, critical infrastructure, schools, education services, medical services. That is very urgent. And so now we have excellent collaboration between local authorities and civil society because we like partners and we do this job for them. So we strategically and we involve all kinds of stakeholders on local level, especially youth, to talk about this. Not only that it should be some kind of a plan from Berlin or London or whatever. No, we promote Ukrainian ownership of recovery, especially on local level, that only people that live in these communities should decide how it will be.
Natalia Drozd:So we are doing recovery now, simultaneously these fightings. So it distracts us. You know you are planning recovery and missiles hit, so you again have to clean the space and again continue planning recovery, for example. So you again have to clean the space and again continue planning recovery. For example, some economic incentives should be for this business in border region, because you know logistics long way, for example for supply. So yeah, lots of work are doing now, even now in recovery, because you know we are a lot. We are talking much.
Natalia Drozd:If we win the war and we lose the country, especially democratic values. What's the sense if we became the same as Russia? So we keep an eye on all democratic procedures, values, citizen participation, that they keep as much as possible Now, even now during the war. So tools for local democracy that should be embedded into local regulatory acts. Now we have a lot of laws on the undersigning in the parliament. It's like on accountability, on the transparency, on integrity. So we're trying to make all these democratic reforms that will allow us accession to EU, because it's not only signing documents and legislation, it's all changing of behavior, of everything let me ask you about that.
Dana Lewis :Let me ask you about that because there have been resignations from even the Ukraine government now that have talked about red tape, um, the inability to get things done, corruption, and money's disappeared. How do you manage that? And that's very important for the international community too, because if they think that that money is going to go sideways into people's pockets, it's going to dry up pretty quick.
Natalia Drozd:Indeed, and this case is very often used by Russian propaganda as look how many corruption cases do they have? They are totally failed state. But we see this as democratic procedure. We have all institutions in place and they are doing their job. What country during the fighting war can reveal corruption cases, make them public and investigate them? It's our strength that we can see and we can prevent. So Ukrainian society sees this as one of the successes.
Natalia Drozd:During the war, we find corruption, we detect corruption. It's not like Russia and we can deal with this no-transcript and our judiciary system as well. But it's not very easy, even in a country without war. But with the war it's complicated. But with the help of civil society and push from civil society and international partners, I think that we will succeed in this way, because Ukrainian society is really red tape and according to the last investigations, sociological research, corruption was named, not war. Corruption was named by citizens as the first challenge to be tackled and to be done something for the Ukraine. So we see this as our strength, because we reveal, we continue, we try to have a competitive bidding. Yes.
Dana Lewis :Competitive contract bidding yes. If you were to come back to reconstruction specifically, what would be your top five areas that are the greatest need right now in Ukraine?
Natalia Drozd:First energy, then reconstruction. I don't know if it's directly, but we consider it's like demining. Also reconstruction, because you couldn't do nothing if your land and forest are mined, and sea as well. So energy demining, then support of small and medium business. Direct support of small and medium business, direct support of small and medium, not big companies like industries, metal, but small because it's our backbone of our democracy and resilience small communities and small and medium business. So support directly should go directly to them.
Natalia Drozd:Then I don't know, it's human capital. Then I don't know it's human capital. I even couldn't count five. Maybe agriculture, but you know we are living in such harsh conditions and we also get used to cope with everything. Then, in comparison, yes, okay, agriculture is surviving, it's exporting wheat, so maybe not so good, it's not so bad. But of course also agriculture and we have a very good industry like textile industry. I don't know, but first of all, first of all, by default, it's human capital, it's people and I suppose, roll in their schools and hospitals and housing, because apartment buildings have been destroyed and theaters have been destroyed.
Dana Lewis :So it's just all of the infrastructure that's been damaged.
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group:But as we speak.
Dana Lewis :I assume a lot of that takes place very quickly, like windows are replaced in buildings. If a building is still standing, they try to repair it and they do it pretty rapidly in some cases. In other cases, I assume, they abandon it.
Natalia Drozd:Yes, and by their own resources and not by international. If we talk about these new houses instead of destroyed millions of flats and houses, it will be impossible to provide after war to everyone. It takes years and years and people have to live now. So it's better to have economy now and it's better to have people to earn money and they repair on their own. For example, from my colleague nobody asks for small damages in their flats or houses. If you can do it for repair for yourself, you know it's if your house is totally destroyed, okay. So even in that case, nobody claim for money for, for example, if he can repair.
Natalia Drozd:So we see this like we need economy. We do not want to be like victims and then send us humanitarian assistance. We need some technologies or I forget about technologies and innovation for reconstruction because our communities that were under occupation. They saw how important not only to grow up food, but processing is processing. Now they would like to make product with added value. So we have this shift in our consciousness. So we have we would like also for reconstruction technologies and innovation for new process, for example, for to be more sustained and more resilient on the local level. It's also very important for the reconstruction not only bridges and buildings, but means for people and for the communities to sustain their economy and to be resilient, not to be a burden for the European Union and to live on loans and subsidies.
Dana Lewis :I don't think anybody would say the Ukrainians haven't been resilient, that's for sure. So, natalia Drozd, I know I've taken a lot of your time so, uh, hopefully I can talk to you again and good luck to you and thank you so much for what is, you know, talking about huge damage and huge infrastructure problems in a monstrous war with so much more unfortunately ahead.
Natalia Drozd:But thank you, thank you that you raised this topic and keep on agenda on the international level, because it's incredibly important for us to be heard, because we are resilient, but we are human as well, so thank you.
Dana Lewis :Best to you, thank you. Thank you, natalia. And that's our backstory. This week, ukraine is said to be doing better than in the spring. It stalled the Russian advance in the north. It needs to beef up its recruitment of new soldiers. A lot of them are just tired on the front. F-16s will reach the battlefield or airspace within weeks and, of course, all eyes on Washington and the US elections ahead and two candidates with very different ideas on how to handle Russia's invasion of a sovereign nation. Putin likes to accuse America of colonial expansion, but he's the one who ordered his army to attack Ukraine to reclaim some dream of a Russian empire. And, as we all know, putin won't stop there unless he is stopped by the Ukrainian army. No-transcript.
