Speaker 1: Jelda. I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page,
Speaker 1: a daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. Ukrainian
Speaker 1: troops have strengthened positions an expanded territory in Russia's Kursk
Speaker 1: region nearly two weeks into their incursion. Ukraine says it
Speaker 1: seized more than eighty settlements since August six in the
Speaker 1: biggest invasion of Russia since World War Two. Coming two
Speaker 1: and a half years into Russia's invasion of Ukraine, why
Speaker 1: has Ukraine decided to return the favor and what does
Speaker 1: this incursion mean on a wider scale? Today on the
Speaker 1: front Page, University of Waikato International law professor Alexander Gillespie
Speaker 1: is with us to analyze this new twist in the
Speaker 1: long running war. First off, this incursion really came out
Speaker 1: of the blue. Can you explain to us why Ukraine
Speaker 1: entering Russian territory is such a significant deal.
Speaker 2: Well, in terms of strategy, the Ukrainians are trying to
Speaker 2: make the Russians feel a bit more weight of the
Speaker 2: war because the conflict so far has been almost exclusively
Speaker 2: on Ukrainian territory. In terms of the wider imiplications, The
Speaker 2: problem is that the war is contained if it stays
Speaker 2: within the borders of the Ukraine. But once you start
Speaker 2: finding incursions going into other countries, especially into Russia, the
Speaker 2: chances of more retaliation are likely. Your bigger risk is
Speaker 2: not that it goes into Russia, but that it spreads
Speaker 2: into neighboring NATO aligned countries around the Ukraine. There's also
Speaker 2: a lot of talk in Europe about the deployment of
Speaker 2: Western soldiers into the actual Ukraine, so Makron was suggesting
Speaker 2: that if the war starts to go badly, he would
Speaker 2: consider deploying French troops into the Ukraine. But once you
Speaker 2: allow non Ukrainian troops to go into the area, the
Speaker 2: risk of it escalating increases exponentially.
Speaker 1: What does Ukraine want to achieve by this incursion.
Speaker 2: I think they're probably trying to put some pressure back
Speaker 2: on Putin so he can see that his citizens will
Speaker 2: not feel secure and that the Ukrainians have the ability
Speaker 2: to push the war back into Russian territory. He may
Speaker 2: also be trying to use it as a leveraging point
Speaker 2: if peace negotiations start, but the chances of peace negotiations
Speaker 2: forthwith are quite remote.
Speaker 3: Zelenski spoke last night, but last night he give an
Speaker 3: indication of what's really the incursion into Russia is all about,
Speaker 3: basically denying Russia the ability to make war on Ukraine,
Speaker 3: destruction of the bridges, pushing back of Russian forces. But
Speaker 3: he also said that Ukraine cannot advance infinitely and forever
Speaker 3: into Russia, so at some stage they will pull back
Speaker 3: to a buffers while not expanding endless troops, endless material
Speaker 3: trying to move forward, which will just end up draining
Speaker 3: the Ukrainian military rather than achieving anything positive.
Speaker 1: What limitations are there on Ukraine as they undertake this incursion.
Speaker 1: They're currently getting arms supplied by much of NATO. Can
Speaker 1: they use those weapons in this incursion.
Speaker 2: A number of the weapons that they've got have been
Speaker 2: increasing in range, and the understanding was that as they
Speaker 2: were increasing in range that they would be able to
Speaker 2: strike territory which is outside of the Ukraine. And so
Speaker 2: this is particularly with regards to missiles, and the United
Speaker 2: States and Britain have both made clear that expanding the
Speaker 2: war more towards Russian territory is a decision for the
Speaker 2: Ukrainians to make, even though it's the western countries that
Speaker 2: are giving them the military kit to do this.
Speaker 1: We've currently seen Ukraine take hundreds of prisoners of war.
Speaker 1: They've also blown up several bridges and taken control of
Speaker 1: a number of towns in the region where they are.
Speaker 1: Where does this set within international law and does that
Speaker 1: even matter here when they're essentially retaliating against a country
Speaker 1: that's invaded them in the first place.
Speaker 2: The rules around the taking of prisoners are dealt with
Speaker 2: very explicitly, and there's been a general compliance by both
Speaker 2: the Ukraine and Russia with the taking in some cases
Speaker 2: the exchange of prisoners. That part of the conflict seems
Speaker 2: to be holding in accordance broadly with international law. Where
Speaker 2: you've got differences is where there's been targeting of civilian
Speaker 2: infrastructure in civilian areas, which is illegal. You've also got
Speaker 2: the major problem of the transfer of children for which
Speaker 2: mister Pewden has been indicted by the International Criminal Court.
Speaker 2: The actual invasion of Russia is a retaliation, which is
Speaker 2: because of what happened when the Russians illegally invaded the
Speaker 2: yuk It's kind of a quid.
Speaker 1: Pro quo, and am I right in thinking that this
Speaker 1: is the first kind of incursion on Russian territory since
Speaker 1: World War II.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that would be correct. There's certainly been concerned around
Speaker 2: former Willstall Bank countries in nineteen fifty six with Hungary,
Speaker 2: and there were disturbances in Czechoslovakia in the late sixties
Speaker 2: as well, but not think in actual Russia itself. It
Speaker 2: changes the dynamic and it challenges the idea that Putin
Speaker 2: can completely protect his own citizens. But so far, even
Speaker 2: though they've destroyed bridges, they seem to be trying. It
Speaker 2: appears to fight quite clean and keep civilians and certain
Speaker 2: civilian technologies out of harm's way. How much this will
Speaker 2: be able to be contained in the future is.
Speaker 1: Unknown in terms of this incursion. How is the rest
Speaker 1: of the world feeling about this kind of escalation.
Speaker 2: Everyone's nervous. It's because the more the war spreads in
Speaker 2: terms of other countries getting in, the technology changing and
Speaker 2: allowing people to strike at greater distances, or actually invading
Speaker 2: other people's countries, it expands it. We've managed to keep
Speaker 2: it contained so far because it's been kept tightly within
Speaker 2: the borders of the Ukraine, but the Ukrainians are now saying, well,
Speaker 2: it's unfair that it just falls on us. We want
Speaker 2: to push back. Your risk is that Putin responds with
Speaker 2: overwhelming force if he considers it to be a strategic necessity.
Speaker 1: Well, Russia's continue to advance in eastern Ukraine despite this incursion.
Speaker 1: Does that show the incursion has kind of done little
Speaker 1: to slow Russia's progression.
Speaker 2: Well, it's opened up a different front, and the thinking
Speaker 2: will be that as you open up one front, the
Speaker 2: Russian to have to redeploy their troops from an offensive
Speaker 2: position to a defensive position, and so that may slow
Speaker 2: the attack in the Ukraine.
Speaker 1: What could the consequences internally be for President Vladimir Putin
Speaker 1: in the fact Russia's borders have now being breached on
Speaker 1: his watch. Doesn't this defeat some of his narrative about
Speaker 1: Russia's strength.
Speaker 2: I think it certainly challenges the idea that his country
Speaker 2: is immune from foreign incursions. But his strength as a
Speaker 2: leader of Russia is almost unprecedented. There's no one who's
Speaker 2: going to challenge him. There may have been a time
Speaker 2: previously when we had the mutiny last year, but right
Speaker 2: now he is the undisputed leader of Russia and I
Speaker 2: can't see anyone trying to threaten that position.
Speaker 1: And on the other side, I guess does Ukraine need
Speaker 1: to be careful about how far their soldiers actually go
Speaker 1: that they don't risk turning the Russian public against them
Speaker 1: as well.
Speaker 2: I think it's not just the Russian public, it's also
Speaker 2: the NATO public that they have to be concerned about,
Speaker 2: because no one in Europe wants this war to expand.
Speaker 2: As bad as it is for the Ukrainians, your worst
Speaker 2: case scenario is it a palls in other countries. In
Speaker 2: every kilometer more you advance into Russia, the greater chances
Speaker 2: are that you will get a significant retaliation against the Ukraine.
Speaker 1: What do you think the risk is that Putin and
Speaker 1: Russia could retaliate in some extreme way for this incursion?
Speaker 1: Is this this sort of incident that could push them
Speaker 1: over the edge?
Speaker 2: Do you think it depends how successful it is. I mean,
Speaker 2: the Russians, wind they've annexed those two areas in the
Speaker 2: eastern Ukraine, have made very clear that if these were
Speaker 2: recaptured in total by the Ukrainian forces as assisted by NATO,
Speaker 2: they would consider this justification for a nuclear strike. And
Speaker 2: so right now I expect that they're waiting for the
Speaker 2: Ukrainians just to retreat back around their border, not actually
Speaker 2: trying to entrench that territory, but to actually take Russian
Speaker 2: territory is a fundamental objective that will not be allowed
Speaker 2: by Russia. They won't allow any of their territory to
Speaker 2: be occupied permanently, and that includes now also the annex
Speaker 2: territory in the Euston part of the Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Do you think that this is a turning point in
Speaker 1: the war or do you think it's kind of like
Speaker 1: a more of a precursor.
Speaker 2: I think the turning point in the war will happen
Speaker 2: on November the seventh, which is the American election, and
Speaker 2: that's when you're going to either see mister Trump come
Speaker 2: to power or Miss Harris will remain in power. And
Speaker 2: that's where you will see the determination, because Trump's made
Speaker 2: clear if he achieves the White House, he wants to
Speaker 2: have a pie steal cut very quickly. Whereas if Harris
Speaker 2: retains to the White House, then you're going to see
Speaker 2: a continuation of what's already happening.
Speaker 4: As Vice President Kamala, Harris has been a strong supporter
Speaker 4: of Ukraine and met with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky at
Speaker 4: least six times since the war began. Former President Donald
Speaker 4: Trump is less full throated in his support of Ukraine.
Speaker 4: Trump has frequently complained that the US spends too much
Speaker 4: on the war in Ukraine and threatened to cut AID.
Speaker 1: I know that we speak about this often, but New
Speaker 1: Zealand is often in the sideline of kind of minor
Speaker 1: nations around the world listening and looking in from Afar.
Speaker 1: But is there anything more that we can do other
Speaker 1: than what we've already done.
Speaker 2: We have done exceptionally well. I wouldn't say we've got
Speaker 2: a minor role. I'd say that we are definitely not
Speaker 2: neutral in this conflict. We provide assistance, we provide training,
Speaker 2: we help with refugees, We give as much support as
Speaker 2: we can to the Ukraine. We support the International Criminal Court,
Speaker 2: we support the International Court of Justice. Our voice is
Speaker 2: loud and it's being heard.
Speaker 1: What would happen if France does in fact send its
Speaker 1: troops in, you.
Speaker 2: Would then have a potential conflict between NATO and Russia.
Speaker 2: And that is a nightmare scenario because if foreign troops
Speaker 2: were involved, if NATO troops were involved, and then Putin
Speaker 2: decided to strike at the base of those countries or
Speaker 2: the transport of those troops. You might find that an
Speaker 2: attack against one NATO member is an attack against all,
Speaker 2: and you would get an overwhelming response. It's a nightmare scenario.
Speaker 1: And in terms of Russia, is there always a threat
Speaker 1: of something catastrophic like the use of nuclear weapons.
Speaker 2: It's in the background. It seems to have calmed down
Speaker 2: a little, but the rhetoric of Putin towards the end
Speaker 2: of last year, when you had the first Ukrainian offensive
Speaker 2: was very much that he will consider the use of
Speaker 2: these if it's in the strategic interests of Russia, and
Speaker 2: the strategic interests of Russia involved not losing territory.
Speaker 5: The use of nuclear weapons is possible in the event
Speaker 5: of an exceptional threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity
Speaker 5: of our country. In exceptional cases. I don't think this
Speaker 5: is such a case right now. There is no necessity
Speaker 5: for that.
Speaker 2: And so you're almost in a situation where you want
Speaker 2: the Ukraine to be able to itself, but not too
Speaker 2: much because if it provokes Hotin and he's pushed into
Speaker 2: a corner. He's certainly made clear in his rhetoric he
Speaker 2: would consider using nuclear weapons. That's correct.
Speaker 1: Do you think he actually will though, I don't know.
Speaker 2: I think my guess is it's very unlikely because there's
Speaker 2: no winner if that situation happened, because it would escalate
Speaker 2: very quickly and to have global consequences. I think it's
Speaker 2: more likely that you will find that both sides will
Speaker 2: eventually tire, because right now the war is unsustainable in
Speaker 2: terms of manpower and the amount of soldiers being killed
Speaker 2: on both the Russian side and the Ukrainian side. It's
Speaker 2: looking a little bit like the First World War in
Speaker 2: terms of attrition. The hard part when you come to
Speaker 2: what a peace steal look like, which would be a treaty,
Speaker 2: and the questions are what is a number of questions
Speaker 2: that The first one is what territory would go where,
Speaker 2: because if you allow some of the eastern Ukraine to
Speaker 2: go towards Russia, you've allowed an annexation, which is illegal
Speaker 2: and international law. You've got the question of what would
Speaker 2: happen with the war criminals, because mister Putin right now
Speaker 2: is indicted and he's very unlikely to be willing to
Speaker 2: surrender himself to the Hague. And then finally you've got
Speaker 2: the question of what will happen in terms of security
Speaker 2: alliances because the biggest issue of all is whether the
Speaker 2: Ukraine would be allowed to join NATO, because mister Putin
Speaker 2: is saying there's no way on earth he will let
Speaker 2: them join NATO. But for the Ukrainians, NATO is the
Speaker 2: only security blanket they would accept.
Speaker 1: Thanks for joining us out that said, for this episode
Speaker 1: of the Front Page, you can read more about today's
Speaker 1: stories and extensive news coverage at zat herold dot co
Speaker 1: dot z. The Front Page is produced by Ethan Sells
Speaker 1: with sound engineer Patty Fox. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to
Speaker 1: the Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts,
Speaker 1: and tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.