Frontline special - Colonel Mark Cancian
19:01 Share

We all want to enjoy food that tastes great and is sourced responsibly. But it's not always easy to know where your favourite foods come from. McDonald's works with more than 23,000 British and Irish farmers to source quality ingredients. Mike Allwood is a dairy farmer from Cheshire who supplies organic milk to McDonald's in the UK for its teas, coffees and porridge through Arla.

We're involved in a network which has been set up by Arla to look at the possibilities for farming regeneratively. One of the things we're doing here is moving our cattle and giving them a fresh piece of grass every day to help regenerate the soil. We're very lucky that we've had a long-term relationship with McDonald's and I think often people don't realise how seriously McDonald's take their relationships with farmers.

Change a little, change a lot. Find out more about McDonald's plan for change on the McDonald's website. This is an ad by BetterHelp. What's your perfect night? Is it curling up on the couch for a cozy, peaceful night in? Therapy can feel a bit like that. Your comfort place where you replenish your energy. With BetterHelp, get matched with a therapist based on your needs, entirely online. It's convenient and suited to your schedule. Find comfort this season with BetterHelp.

Visit BetterHelp.com to learn more and save 10% off your first month. That's BetterHelp, H-E-L-P, dot com.

Welcome to The World in 10. In an increasingly uncertain world, this is The Times' daily podcast dedicated to global security. I'm Alex Dibble and I executive produce the podcast. The World in 10 is partnered with Frontline, the interview series from Times Radio, available on YouTube, with expert analysis of the world's conflicts. At the weekend, we bring you Frontline interviews in full. Here's one from this week. I hope you find it interesting.

Hello and welcome to Frontline for Times Radio. I'm Louis Sykes. Today we're talking about the war in Ukraine with Mark Kantzian, a retired colonel with more than three decades of service in the U.S. Marine Corps. He's now a senior advisor in the Defense and Security Department of the Think Tank Center for Strategic and International Studies. Mark, thank you very much for joining us. Thanks for having me on the show.

I wonder if we could just start with your reaction to the killing of the Russian general Igor Kirillov. Well, on the one hand, this is not a unique event. The Ukrainians have reached out and assassinated personnel in Ukraine before, in Russia before, and have targeted senior officers before.

whether in the homeland or on the battlefront. So it's not a surprise. On the other hand, the United States is very uncomfortable with this. It's worried that

assassination campaigns can get out of hand and that there will be assassination attempts, you know, not just at the battlefield, but globally. And you say how quickly this can escalate. Certainly in Russia, their propaganda machine, if you like, has in a way gone into overdrive, trying to kind of frame the death as this unprovoked terrorist attack. Surely,

Considering it is Russia that invaded, this is to an extent an act of war as a consequence of both Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and its use of illegal chemical weapons. Well, it is. And it should not be a surprise to the Russians that the Ukrainians are using every tool that's available to them.

On the other hand, you know, the notion of an assassination makes a lot of people uncomfortable. You know, this is different than an attack on the front lines.

In part, this is a competition for global support and political support. And Russia is playing for that. And how worried do you think Putin will be that Ukraine will also have the capability to possibly assassinate him?

Well, he clearly will have some concerns about it. I'm sure he has increased security and of course that has been very tight in Moscow and I think getting tighter over the years as there have been incidents not just from the Ukrainians but also from Islamic terrorists. So security will likely continue to be very tight. On the other hand,

Russia has lots of generals. You know, this is not in itself going to change the course of the war. And Putin has taken a very cold-blooded attitude towards losses. You know, that is that they are going to continue, that losses can be replaced. And the significance here is, you know, trying to keep this contained and not the loss of this particular general.

And what response do you think we're likely to see from Russia? We expect that Russia will have some sort of response. It's conceivable that they will attempt an assassination of their own. There have been indications that they have tried to do that in Ukraine. They may launch some missiles at

command and control targets, headquarters, you know, trying to impose the same kind of loss on the Ukrainians. But it's likely they'll do something. The Russians have typically, when they've had some escalation or some attack from Ukraine, responded with some military action.

And Kirillov's death is a reminder of Russia's use of chemical weapons in Ukraine. Do you think that should receive more attention than it currently does? And should the West do more, even if it's just something like providing gas masks or more protective equipment to help Ukraine deal with those attacks?

I'm sure that the United States and other Western supporters have been giving gas masks. They've been providing a wide variety of support to the Ukrainians. Individual equipment, for example, as well as the large things that we hear about, HIMARS and ATACOMs and F-16s. The thing about

chemical attacks is that they are not very effective against prepared troops. Troops have gas masks, for example, they're typically trained on how to use them. So, you know, they are able to sustain operations in the face of chemical attacks. I mean, there'll be some casualties, but typically not very many. The chief effect on

troops is to slow down their level of operations. It's just very hard when you are in a gas mask and in a gas suit and gloves and the whole thing, you know, just to continue to do your job. It's possible, but it's difficult.

great vulnerability is with civilians. So we've seen that in Syria, where the use of gas has been devastating to civilians, even though it didn't make a large military impact. I think that for this instance, or these instances in Russia,

The West needs to do a lot of investigating and then be very clear about what happened and its revulsion. The reason I say that they have to investigate very clearly is that often these incidents are very difficult to prove. Some have been erroneous, whether intentionally or just by mistake.

The accusations need to be very clearly backed up. This is a serious accusation. And we saw that the Russians...

at least aided the Syrians in using chemical weapons in Syria. Some of that presumably will now be, how they cooperated on that will now be uncovered. Is what we learn about Russia's tactics in Syria and more of how they might engage with that regime going to have an impact on the way we view its war in Ukraine? I think that the investigations in Syria will give some insight into how the Russians have used

chemical weapons. I think there's a pretty good sense of that now. In Ukraine, as I say, the problem is with civilians. For military forces, I'm sure there'll be an emphasis on additional

chemical preparations, in addition to gas masks, there are wash-down trucks that you can have to wash down equipment that's been contaminated. There are suits. There are a large variety of things, and I think we'll see more of that, plus some training. But the impact will be on civilians, not really on the military.

And speaking of Syria, neither the Kremlin nor the new authority in Syria appear to be particularly sure or clear about what the future is for Russian troops and bases in that country. If Russia does lose control of those bases and that foothold, how significant of a blow will that be for Putin? I think that Russia is almost certain to lose control of those bases eventually. And the reason is that

You know, they use those bases to attack the insurgents. The insurgents are now in charge. I think it's very unlikely that they will allow the Russians to continue, although it's hard to say, you know, real, you know, realpolitik may take hold and the insurgents may decide that this is a potential ally. It will be...

a problem for Russia at two levels. I mean, the first is just psychological and diplomatic. That is, this was a major military effort of theirs. It was a significant regional foothold, and now it's gone. And that, you know, the feat, the psychology, the diplomacy, it's like the United States in

Afghanistan, you know, it may not be all that significant, the military blow, but, you know, the symbology of it is important. But, you know, there is also some real advantages to

to Russia for having air bases and naval bases in Syria. You have to keep in mind that to get to the eastern Mediterranean, the Russians either have to go through the Dardanelles, the Bosphorus, which is controlled by Turkey, and there are some regulations, the Montreux Convention about how

what can be done there, or they have to send a fleet from their northern fleet way up north, and then it has to sail all the way around to get to the eastern Mediterranean. And then they have to do something to supply them, to sustain them there, and having an anchorage in Latakia, for example, very, very helpful. Having some bases in the area where they can refuel and stage aircraft

even going elsewhere, maybe into Africa, also buried. So how much would you say that Russia's credibility, though, has been undermined by recent events in the Middle East? Not just the fall of the Assad regime, but also the failure of things like its S-400 air defenses that had been handing out it away to its allies in the region. I think it's been damaging. I mean, I wouldn't overemphasize it, but I think that the...

So, the total of the experience in the Middle East and in Ukraine has damaged Russia's reputation for having a highly competent military force and having effective weapons.

On the other hand, how the war in Ukraine comes out will be very important. In other words, if they win the war, in some definition of winning the war, then the disappointments in the Middle East will be less important. If it's a disappointing...

for Russia, outcome to the war in Ukraine, then that will be what's happening in the Middle East will be another piece of evidence that Russia is really no longer a great power. And we are, of course, coming to the end of 2024. It's December as we're speaking. That brings us quite close to the three-year mark since the beginning of Russia's invasion. What

Where is, you know, is Putin going to be happy with the position he is in hitting that three year mark? Do you think he ever really wanted to be in a three year long war with his neighbor?

Well, no and yes. Classic think tank answer. I mean, the no is, you know, he thought he was going to win this war in a week. So, you know, to have the war extended for three years is absolutely not where he wanted to be. And at each step, I think he wanted to bring the war to a successful conclusion.

On the other hand, at the three-year mark or where we are now, Russia has the upper hand. They have the initiative, they are attacking in several places along the front,

And the Ukrainians, although they moved into Kursk, you know, there's salient there, their enclave has been cut in half. You know, so Russia and Putin, they think that, you know, the momentum is with them. So this isn't where they want it to be. But when they look ahead,

They are relatively optimistic. And you hear that in Putin's statements as well as an analysis of the war on the ground. And on the opposite side of that, of course, how is Ukraine going to be feeling? And perhaps more widely, the West and NATO, we've heard a lot of quite concerned announcements coming from the Secretary General Mark Rutte. Well, Ukraine is clearly very nervous. Part of it is

Ukraine is clearly very nervous. Part of it is that the counteroffensive of last year failed. They haven't come up with a really good additional alternative approach. The incursion into Kursk was relatively successful, but that is not a complete path to victory. And then they're looking ahead.

potentially a war that's going to go on even longer. And they're going to have a new government in Washington. And that is a huge uncertainty. Many Republicans, President-elect Trump, particularly his

vice president, have been very skeptical about aid to Ukraine. And it's not impossible that they will cut that off or reduce it in some way. The other thing is, Trump has said he's going to solve this problem in 24 hours. Well, of course, he's not going to solve it in 24 hours, but he's made so many such commitments that it's almost certain that he will launch a peace effort of some sort.

And, you know, that could end up with an in-place ceasefire, which would be a partial Putin victory. Putin wants to take over the whole country, of course, but he would be allowed to hang on to the territory that he has seized. The Ukrainians would see that as a partial loss. So there's good reason for Ukraine to be nervous.

As you say, certainly the new administration coming in in the US is keen to see some sort of peace deal come in in Ukraine. But do you think either side here in Moscow or Kyiv is actually keen in a position where they want a peace deal? Up until now.

A peace deal has not been possible because there was just no overlap between the positions of the two combatants. Ukraine wanted all of its territory back, plus reparations, plus war tribunals. And Russia wanted the whole country and certainly was not willing to give anything up.

Trump has said that he would pressure both sides, that he would threaten Ukraine with withdrawal of support. He would threaten Russia with an increase in support. Whether that works is hard to say. I think we will see a

person-to-person effort here. Trump likes to meet with foreign leaders to make the deal. I think you will see him meeting with Zelensky and Putin, and we'll see whether that leads to something.

Seemingly in anticipation of some sort of talks going on, Russia has really been increasing the amount of manpower and materiel it's pushing into Ukraine. Its losses are at an all-time high in terms of people, in terms of casualties. This is presumably so that Putin can push Russia into a better negotiating position perhaps. But if he doesn't get the negotiations as

as early as he'd like, where does that leave Russia's invasion if they've taken such severe losses to get to that better position?

There's no question that Russia has taken tremendous losses, twice those of what Ukraine has taken. But they seem able to sustain those losses. They scramble to recruit manpower. They're providing all kinds of incentives to get people into the ranks. They're trying to avoid a second mobilization that is by involuntarily pulling people back into the service. But on the whole, I think

Putin believes he can sustain this war, that he can provide enough personnel, he can keep the attacks going, and that eventually Ukraine will crack, either that he will ask for peace, or perhaps even its armed forces will collapse and the Russians will be able to make major advances, as they did in the early days of the war.

And today, NATO's Mark Ritter and the UK's Foreign Secretary David Lamy are meeting with Zelensky. How important is it that this meeting is happening ahead of the Trump presidency, along with a lot of movement in Europe? I think this is part of Zelensky's effort from the very beginning of the war to maintain his foreign support. He's met repeatedly with heads of government,

in order to get that personal relationship. He's spoken to many parliaments, he's spoken to the EU, and I think this is a continuation of that effort. Now it comes at a time when the future of US aid is uncertain, so it takes on some additional significance, but this is part of Zelensky's strategy from the very beginning. Colonel Mark Kansian, thank you very much for joining us today on Frontline. Thanks for having me on the show. ♪

We all want to enjoy food that tastes great and is sourced responsibly. But it's not always easy to know where your favourite foods come from. McDonald's works with more than 23,000 British and Irish farmers to source quality ingredients. Mike Allwood is a dairy farmer from Cheshire who supplies organic milk to McDonald's in the UK for its teas, coffees and porridge through Arla.

We're involved in a network which has been set up by Arla to look at the possibilities for farming regeneratively. One of the things we're doing here is moving our cattle and giving them a fresh piece of grass every day to help regenerate the soil. We're very lucky that we've had a long-term relationship with McDonald's and I think often people don't realise how seriously McDonald's take their relationships with farmers.

Change a little, change a lot. Find out more about McDonald's plan for change on the McDonald's website. How can governments play a pivotal role as the world shifts?

From decarbonising the economy to sustainable care systems, bold government strategies are needed now more than ever. Get informed by listening to Government Insights, the new podcast from EY Parthenon. This series explores how government executives can transform their strategies into actions that are future-proof and sustainable. Government Insights is out now. Download today wherever you get your podcasts.