156. Freezing the lines
45:58 Share

In the 2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee L, the journey from point A to point B isn't such a rush. In fact, with three rows of spacious comfort, thoughtfully crafted luxurious design, and an available premium Macintosh audio system, you'll find yourself seeking out the scenic route more often, even if it's just another lap around the block. Jeep. There's only one. Visit Jeep.com to learn more. Jeep is a registered trademark of FCA US LLC.

Ryan Reynolds here for, I guess, my 100th Mint commercial. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I mean, honestly, when I started this, I thought I'd only have to do like four of these. I mean, it's unlimited premium wireless for $15 a month. How are there still people paying two or three times that much? I'm sorry, I shouldn't be victim blaming here. Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash save whenever you're ready.

Travel is all about choosing your own adventure. With your Chase Sapphire Reserve Card, sometimes that means a ski trip at a luxury lodge in the Swiss Alps.

with a few of your closest friends. And other times, it means a resort on a private beach with no one else in sight. Wherever you decide to go, find the detail that moves you with unique benefits at hand-selected hotels from Sapphire Reserve. Chase, make more of what's yours. Learn more at chase.com slash sapphire reserve. Cards issued by JPMorgan Chase Bank and a member FDIC. Subject to credit approval.

Hello and welcome to the latest episode of Battleground with me, Saul David and Patrick Bishop. A week after the US Congress finally voted to release $61 billion in military aid for Ukraine, there are signs that Russia's recent advances on the battlefield are slowing down.

Less encouraging were reports in the Western media that U.S. officials have resumed discussing the idea of, and I quote, freezing the lines where they are because the latest package of U.S. military assistance to Ukraine may not be enough for Ukraine to regain all its territory. If we both sound a bit croaky this morning, it's because we were celebrating the launch of Saul's brilliant new book last night.

Sky Warriors. So bear with us, bear with us. Anyway, to get back to Ukraine, more news from across the Atlantic concerning the Donald. Donald Trump has doubled down on previous comments by insisting that NATO members are, quote, on their own unless they increase defense spending.

He said that if he regained the White House in November's elections, continued USAID to Ukraine would be contingent on Europe matching the contributions. We'll discuss the significance of all this. We're also going to be hearing from Pauline Amos, artist and filmmaker, about a remarkable film she's made on war in general, but with specific reference to Ukraine.

It's getting a lot of attention in showings around Britain. But first, Saul, what's been happening on the battlefield? Well, it's been one-way traffic, hasn't it, for the last couple of months, actually. And this continued for over the last seven days, with Russia continuing to make tactical gains, particularly near Avdiivka and Bakhmut. On Sunday, for example, Ukrainian forces withdrew from positions to the northwest and west of Avdiivka.

The main Russian offensive effort, as we mentioned last week, is west of Bakhmut, where they're trying to capture Chassiv Yar. But despite a total of 57 attacks here and 47 in the Avdiivka direction, there were no confirmed advances on Monday. And that's the first time there's really been a standstill for quite a while.

One day's worth of reporting is not sufficient to establish a pattern, noted the Institute for the Study of War, but it may suggest that Russian forces are somewhat slowing down the rate of attacks around Avdivka while recommitting to offensive pushes around Chassiv Yar.

as ISW recently forecasted they would. Now, given that significant quantities of US military equipment have yet to reach the battlefield, this is encouraging news, as are reports that Ukraine has launched another attack on targets in Crimea using long-range American attackams, and also that long-range drones have set another Russian oil refinery ablaze, this time in Ryazan, southeast of Moscow, which itself is hundreds of miles from the Ukraine border.

But it's scary, I think, Patrick, isn't it, that only a few days after the Congress vote to give more vital aid to Ukraine, U.S. officials are briefing journalists on the fact that Ukraine may have to concede territory in return for peace.

Their justification for taking this line, apparently, is that they don't think the Ukrainians, even with the extra aid, will be able to liberate all their occupied territory. But it's bizarre when you think about it. Even the most fervent supporters of the aid package never claim that this support alone will allow Ukraine to win the war.

It will certainly make the Russians think twice about the likely success of future operations, though. There has been until now, as we've mentioned, much talk about a major Russian offensive in the summer. And it is, of course, important to send a signal to Russia that the West's support for Ukraine will continue for as long as it takes. That's right. Just on the tactical position, Askel Krushelnitsky, our old friend,

sent an interesting report the other day to The Independent in which he quotes an anonymous colonel who said, he's on the general staff, this colonel, but he said, although they've been falling back recently in the face of these Russian attacks, he said, although that's not desirable, falling back from positions they defended so long and so tenaciously,

But it was a necessity because the supply of shells means that they could only fire one shell or rocket for every five or ten fired by the Russians. So the decision was taken to save lives and to relocate to positions they can defend more easily. Asgode also noted on his travels lots of

Very carefully prepared fallback positions, you know, concrete bunkers, anti-tank defences and all the rest of it, quite a long way behind the front line. So they're obviously thinking very far ahead and seem to be very confident they can hold those positions.

positions if it comes to the worst. And this colonel went on to say that if US weapons begin to arrive in numbers, they are trickling in at the moment. There is the hope that not only will the Ukraine be able to hold the line, but actually start taking back territory, even though they're going to be suffering losses in the meantime. He said, as we now anticipate that we will be supplied regularly, we can balance out and stabilize the situation and hope to reclaim the battlefield

initiative from the Russians on both a tactical and strategic level. So that's some positive thinking, you know, and positive sounds coming out of Ukraine, the like of which we haven't heard for a couple of weeks, if not months now. So what happens next, of course, depends on many factors in Europe, the Kremlin, and of course, America, where the possibility remains that come the end of the year, Donald Trump will once again be US president.

president, that prospect is receding slightly, as I'll mention later on, which is why the most recent comments from Donald Trump are particularly interesting. They were part of a wide-ranging interview in Time magazine, in which Trump was quoted as saying, if Europe is not going to pay, why should we pay? They're much more greatly affected. We have an ocean in between us. They don't. Well, this is very much a kind of echo of the old

isolationist arguments of the 1930s, isn't it? So he went on to suggest that he could withdraw US troops stationed in South Korea to serve as a deterrence against Kim Jong Un's regime in North Korea. He said, why would we defend somebody when we're talking about a very wealthy country? But say what you like about Trump. As far as I'm concerned, he's right on this one. Why should America shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden for Europe's defense?

Like I said, Trump's chances of winning the presidency seem to be receding a little at the moment, which is good news for Ukraine, I would say. But let's not pretend he hasn't done Europeans a favor by his line on NATO. It's put the wind up EU nations, hasn't it, and made them realize that the free ride that they've been getting on defense is coming to an end. And they're going to have to make good on their oft-stated ambitions to form a serious defense organization for themselves.

which until now has all been words and no action. But henceforth, I think, well, it's already happening. But for now, the new reality is they're going to seriously have to start putting their hands in their pockets. What do you think, Saul? Yeah, I'm with you on this one, Patrick. I think even if the Donald doesn't get in, and I think we're all united in hoping he doesn't, because there is a doubt that he is not going to be as supportive of Ukraine as the Democrats have been.

But even if he doesn't get in, I think he has done NATO a favor. He's certainly shaken up the European countries who, during this terrible kind of freeze on funding that's been going on for months now, have actually had to consider the possibility that they may have to pay for their own defense. And that's only right, of course,

In the long term, we hope that NATO stays together in its current form and that America still, because of its economic power, is always going to contribute the greatest share in real terms. But the fact that still, I think, what was the number when we last looked at it, Patrick, only eight members of NATO and there was something like, is it the late 20s members of NATO? Now, only eight are actually meeting that target.

you know, stipulation of 2% of GDP, we know the Brits have committed to go up to 2.5. But it's pretty scandalous, frankly, when you think about it. And I don't think France is anywhere near getting to that 2% metric. So I think in the long term, we will be thanking him for that.

On a separate matter, Patrick, I have to say I was amused to see that Russia has put on display at an exhibition in Moscow. It's captured Western hardware with signs that read things like, our victory is inevitable, exclamation mark. I mean, it's like something out of the Second World War, isn't it? Now, apparently, so what hardware has he actually got? Well, there's a British Mastiff.

also Saxon armoured vehicles. The latter were given to Ukraine in 2015, I think, taken out of mothballs. He's also got an American Bradley infantry armoured vehicle, a German Leopard tank, a Swedish CX-90 combat vehicle, French AMX-10RC armoured vehicle. And apparently, although it hasn't arrived yet, also an Abrams M1

battle tank, which is on its way from eastern Ukraine. On the M1 issue, I should mention the fact that reports have been coming out that five of the 31 sent to the US have already been knocked out, which is why Ukraine said last week that it's sidelining its remaining US tanks for the time being.

There's no mention of a Challenger, interestingly enough, but all this underlines the point that we've made many times and our guest Justin Ling reminded us of last week, and that is that armour is uniquely vulnerable to drone attacks on the modern battlefield. But it's interesting when you look at this whole list of what he's actually got, there isn't really much there, Patrick. I mean, if this is his war booty, frankly, it's a pretty poor collection of kit.

If the Ukrainians were to do something similar, there would be enormous numbers of Russian armored vehicles and tanks to put in one place. But of course, they're not going to do that. They've got a few in independent squares we saw when we were there. But this is very much a Russian thing, isn't it? I mean, you're right to cite the Second World War. They were very big on, after the initial successes in Magratian in June, July 1944,

They had a parade through Moscow of some of the hundreds of thousands of Germans they've captured.

rather like a sort of Roman triumphal sort of display. These, you know, beaten, defeated enemy troops were paraded through Red Square, which didn't go down terribly well with the Western allies. They thought this was sort of bad form to humiliate the enemy like this, but that's the Russian way. Okay, well, we're now going to hear from Pauline Amos, who I spoke to earlier in the week, who'll be telling us about her new film.

We're going to go off-piste today and talk to someone whose work shines an unexpected but revealing light on what is going on in Ukraine. She is Pauline Amos, the multifaceted artist whose film Branded is a remarkable exploration of the deprivation of freedom and the descent of fear that follows occupation by a brutal repressive power.

It focuses on the experience of a single woman artist known only as She who is played by Corleen herself as she languishes in the cold stone cell awaiting a fate we can all imagine. It's an extraordinary depiction of suffering both physical and mental and is at once harrowing and uplifting as the artist refuses to accept the verdict of her oppressors.

The time and place of the setting are unspecified, but there are numerous collages of bombardments and urban wreckage that make clear the linkage with Ukraine. Pauline, welcome to the podcast. Please, can you start by telling us something about yourself and the origins of this remarkable film, which as well as acting in, you produced and directed?

Hello, yes, I am an artist. I've worked as an artist for 30 years. Performance works, painting, exhibitions around the world and the development of this. I was watching what was happening in Afghanistan in 2021 and I was watching and thinking, well, what happens to the people who've had freedom there? And what happens to the women and children who've enjoyed education? And I thought, well, then what happens to the artists, the writers, the poets, the singers?

Well, they are no longer able to freely express themselves. And a big part, in fact, probably the main part of my work has always been about freedom and the right to express. Artistic expression is not a luxury. It's a necessity. That's why I started Naked Performance Works and huge canvases that I would do as a performance because I

I was showing the openness and freedom and one can... I did a naked performance in a Moscow gallery in 2010 and

The point is, I was doing all of these works and I never, for myself, I never feared reprisals. I never thought I could be arrested. I just made my work. I just didn't think for a second, gosh, it's going to be a knock on the door. Am I going to be caught? Am I going to be imprisoned? Then I was watching what was happening in the world, 21, and thinking, this is changing.

We are watching human rights around the world being eroded and looking at the other repressive regimes like Iran, Chad, North Korea, China. But then we've got book burning happening in America. We've got the sensitivity police as well as the morality police

And censorship. And then I was aware that I was planning a new exhibition. And I was thinking, oh, could I get into trouble for making this work? And I'd never had that thought before. I've just made my work and never considered, could anyone point a finger at me? You cannot say that.

And I thought, God, this is really dangerous. So I was looking at other regimes in the present day and in the past, especially Nazi Germany. They did in Germany an exhibition called the Degenerate Art Exhibition, Entarte Kunst.

and it was held in Germany in 1937. And the Nazis basically had rounded up all the abstract artists or anyone who was making work that didn't fit into the Aryan blood and soil program.

And they showed this as a sort of, this is the work of the degenerates. And they called that born criminal. They didn't call it the Antarcticons, but the word born criminal came from a book written by Cesar Lombroso, who said criminals are born and you can tell a criminal by their facial structures or they're probably left-handed. And then that was developed by Max Nordau, who said it's not just criminals, it's artists born.

who will have atavistic minds, dangerous minds, especially if they're not working in a formulaic classical way.

And so I was looking at that and they started developing the writing and I wrote it from the perspective that I have been arrested as an artist. I am arrested and I'm in a prison cell and I'm sitting there thinking, how can they do this? And what's going to happen to me? What happens to art? So that's how the script developed in the first place.

And in the first instance it was directed at Afghanistan, wasn't it? You were thinking about what had happened when the Taliban moved in after the US and Allied forces left in disarray. And I think it was prompted by what happens to all those people who've enjoyed some measure of freedom, the women particularly, in the years that the Taliban were absent. Yeah.

We didn't want it to be, we didn't want the film to be in any particular country or at any particular time because the strap line of the film is we didn't believe it could happen here, did we?

Because in Berlin 1938, they didn't believe it could happen there. You know, I'm saying to people, this kind of repression could happen in this country. It can happen anywhere. And it can happen very quickly. It takes three or four years to jeopardize a democracy and a civilization in a country if the wrong people get hold of it. So that's why we said we didn't believe it could happen here. And the film is like, it's a comment and a statement on what's happening around the world. And it's also a warning.

It's a warning that freedom, freedom of speech, you can't relax. You have to protect it and you have to be aware that freedom has to be protected and maintained at all times.

How did the focus then move to Ukraine? Because I want to make clear, this is a Ukrainian, Anglo-Ukrainian, I suppose you'd call it, production with Ukrainian voices. The text is actually in Ukrainian with British subtitles. So explain how that came about, that the whole focus shifted to Ukraine. So we made the English film, and the English film was screened in London in November 2022. Bear in mind, your show had invaded Ukraine in February 2022.

And at that screening was a human rights lawyer called Jason McHugh. And Jason was about to launch his campaign called Payback for Ukraine, which is about taking the Wagner Group to the Court of Human Rights, which is about getting the reparations for Ukraine, seizing Russian assets back.

And they were going to launch and he asked if the film could be used in Kyiv as part of their conference and press call. And I said, yes, I'll get subtitles done, of course, because the film is about human rights and freedom. And he said, no, actually, we've got another idea. And he introduced me to a producer in Ukraine called Jane Alieva.

And Jane had an idea that I didn't know whether it would work or not, but her idea was poetic. And she told me about Katerina Polishkuk. So here's a story about Katerina Polishkuk. Katerina Polishkuk is a painter, an artist and a singer. And when the Russians invaded Ukraine, she was 19 years old and she joined the army. She trained to be a paramedic and she went to the front line.

Kateryna was seized in the siege of Mariupol and because she was a soldier she was held in a prisoner of war camp for four months. The Russians killed her fiancé, they killed her friends. She suffered all the indignities a young woman would have being a prisoner. To keep her morale up and the morale of her fellow soldiers she would sing and I think of Kateryna, she's like the Gracie Fields of the Ukraine war.

She became known as "Petashka of Azastal" because her recordings of her singing were then sent out to the internet. And when she was released, she did get an award from President Zelensky.

Petashka means bird, by the way, you should explain to our listeners, she's the bird of Azovstal, Azovstal being the steelworks where the defenders were besieged for months. That's right. And bird was her call sign. And she went into Kiev, she did a rehabilitation, she turned around and she went back to the front line. And she is now in the Donbass region. So she's still fighting? She's still out there, yeah.

So we got her the film. She doesn't speak any English, but through Jane and translation, she watched the film. And I was a bit concerned because obviously I'm the woman in the film and she's so much younger than me. And I thought, number one, should she do this because she's been through so much already? You know, she's suffered so much. And number two, her voice will be so much younger than my voice. But when we spoke to her on a Zoom call yesterday,

Number one, she was so determined and said, yes, I want to do this. I want to be the voice of the film. You have told my story. And number two, as soon as I heard her voice on a Zoom call, I heard the weight of the earth on that young woman's shoulders. And I heard the gravitas in their voice and everything that she's been through, she carried. And I just said, yeah, yeah, let's do this. Let's do it.

So we sent her, we got the script translated and we sent her the script and then we had to get permission from her commanding officers so she could be in Kiev for five days and record. And I was on a Zoom call in London directing and I watched Katerina pouring her real life experience into the film. Every second of that performance, she relived being in a prison cell and she'd never done anything like it before.

And it's absolutely stunning performance. Yeah, so the film, I see it now, it's Katerina's film, it's her story.

And that's how the film became Ukrainian, Ukrainian with English subtitles. I must say, it works brilliantly. It's a very wonderful piece of serendipity that the two came together in this way. There's a second voice in the film. Tell us about that. This is a male figure you see as sitting, you don't actually see his face, you see him sitting with his back to the camera. As I understand it, this meant to be

Francis Bacon talking to Xi, the unnamed artist. Tell me about the voice behind that figure.

Yeah, so in the prison cell when she's been captive for a long time and she's obviously losing her mind and she starts hallucinating and to escape the prison cell she's imagining her previous life and then she starts imagining people visiting her in the cell like Leonardo da Vinci and then later Francis Bacon and

They're all hallucinations, but we did put Francis Bacon into the prison cell with her. And the voice of Francis Bacon is Nazar Graba. Nazar Graba, before February 22, was a very successful model, dancer and actor in Ukraine. Very handsome guy, very, very talented actor.

He and his brother Ilya immediately joined the army when the Russians invaded. And on the same day, later in the year in 2022, Nazar was wounded in action and his brother Ilya was killed. So it's Nazar's voice is the second voice that you hear in the film. Again, you know, he wanted to do this.

He wanted to bring attention to Ukraine and attention to the charity he's developed in his brother's name and remind the West about what was happening in Ukraine. And he knew this film would be on tour in the UK. So that's why, you know, he said yes. And he again got permission from his commanding officer to be in the recording studio. And we recorded him and Katerina together.

probably last June, July, June I think it was, no, July 2023 we recorded them. So how did Katerina react to the vinyl version of the film when she saw it? So with the editor Natasha Westlake, we had all the recordings and Katerina singing

We worked on the film in August and September, the Ukrainian version of the film, and we added Ukrainian footage because the news channel in Ukraine called Online UA, they gave us permission to use their actual footage from the Ukrainian war. So we had to re-edit major parts of the film and add footage and then of course change all the audio and add the new voices.

So, Katerina, we sent her a link so she could watch the film. And when she watched it, she sent me a long email that was translated for me by Jane. And I'll just read to you just the last few sentences because it's a very long email that when I read it made me cry. Dear Pauline, every second of the film reminds me of my story. Every word I spoke was sincere. Every word.

Thank you on behalf of my fallen husband, my mother, my friends, my country. Thank you. I am shocked to the depths of the fragments of the soul that remains in me. Russia has destroyed my life, my body, my mind, but it will not destroy our spirit and our freedom. Thank you for your concern, for your big heart.

I have no more words. I only have tears, hugs and the warmth of my wounded heart and boundless gratitude. You've changed my life and given me hope that the world will hear me and will hear us in Ukraine. Thank you, Kateryna, the voice of the prisoner.

Very moving. Now, is there anywhere that our listeners can actually access it online? Not yet. The trailer is online. You can look at branded Pauline Amos and you'll see the trailer on YouTube.

There's lots of links online writing about the film. Whilst the film is going around cinemas and festivals, we will not be putting it onto an online platform. But maybe towards the end of the year or early next year, it will be on Amazon Prime or something like that. Okay, it was wonderful to talk to you, Pauline. Keep up the good work. Thank you very much indeed for coming on the pod. Thank you so much. Well, that was fascinating. Do join us after the break for listeners' questions.

Travel is all about choosing your own adventure. With your Chase Sapphire Reserve Card, sometimes that means a ski trip at a luxury lodge in the Swiss Alps.

Why wait for Labor Day to save big on window treatments? Save now at Blinds.com's Labor Day Early Access Sale.

Blinds.com is the better way to shop for custom blinds, shutters, and shades. 100% online with upfront pricing and free shipping. And Blinds.com has covered over 25 million windows, all backed by their 100% satisfaction guarantee. Shop Blinds.com's Labor Day Early Access Sale now for up to 45% off. Blinds.com. Rules and restrictions may apply.

Overnight, Dunkin's Pumpkin Spice Coffee has sent folks into a cozy craze. I'm Lauren LaTulip reporting live from home in my hand-knit turtleneck that my nana made me. Mmm, cinnamony. The home with Dunkin' is where you want to be.

Welcome back. Well, we got an email this week, which is related to what Pauline's just been discussing. And I'm just going to read out a little bit of it. It's from Antonina Ria, and it relates to Russia's looting of artifacts from Ukrainian museums. She writes, Ukraine's Ministry of Culture estimates that Russia has looted over 480,000 artworks depriving Ukraine of its culture and history.

Once again, as of December 31, 2023, according to the third rapid damage and needs assessment, the total damage caused to Ukrainian cultural heritage and cultural objects is estimated at 2.85 billion US dollars, said Irina Mudra, Deputy Minister of Justice of Ukraine. The crimes of the Russian Federation against Ukraine's cultural heritage may qualify as crimes against humanity, and they also relate to genocide and the crime of

of aggression. Ladislav Hamran, head of Eurojust, said, the theft of Ukraine's cultural heritage is one element of Russia's larger genocidal policy, as the aggressor is taking away and appropriating Ukraine's cultural objects that constitute its long-lasting history. Now, Antonina goes on to say, if we're interested in looking into this topic in any more depth,

then we can actually speak to Irina Mudra, the Deputy Minister of Justice, and also various other people who are relevant to this story. So we're certainly going to follow this up and hopefully bring you some of those interviews in episodes to come. Okay, questions. Here's one from Chris French in Fairfax, Virginia. And he writes, it seems to me the only way to understand Russia's current strategy in Ukraine is to think of it as another Verdun.

In 1916, the chief of the German general staff, von Falkenhayn, attacked Verdun in the belief that France would have to defend it at all costs, bleeding itself white in the effort.

Falkenhayn believed that German losses would be lighter than French losses and Germany anyway could afford more casualties than the French. So he goes on to say, I think the Russians are doing something similar. They keep attacking Ukraine until the Ukrainian army, they hope, collapses due to losses. But as in World War I, this strategy will not work. Unlike Germany, who could afford the losses in World War I, Russia today cannot. You

Ukraine can exchange land for time and men and women. As long as Ukraine has Western support, it will get stronger and stronger, while Russia will get weaker and weaker. It will be Russia that will eventually run out of men and equipment, not Ukraine. Russia's Verdun strategy, as he puts it, is the opposite of what it needs to do. And as far as I'm concerned, that's perfectly fine. So, Patrick, what do you think of Chris's reading of the situation?

Well, it's astonishing, really, isn't it, that we should be making modern parallels with Verdun, which, you know, for more than a century now has stood as a monument to the futility of war. I don't know if you've ever visited it, Saul, but it really is a haunted place, even now after all these years have passed.

And when you go out onto the battlefield and the ground's still churned up, I mean, the grass has grown over it and all the rest of it, and the trees have grown back, but you can still see that the land's really been gouged up by these millions of shells that fell there. And when you come away from it, you're weighed down with a profound feeling of melancholy. So, yeah, a haunted landscape. But you're right, Chris. I think that the Russian strategy is essentially the same as the

Falkenhayn strategy. The difference is, of course, that the Ukrainians, I think, are too smart to fall into the trap of doing what the French did in 1916, which was to accept the challenge, accept the place of battle and to turn Verdun, which didn't have any particular purpose.

strategic significance. It became really a sort of symbol of victory or defeat. It was a kind of macho standoff by both sides. And so the French did pour endless resources into defending it, thereby nearly breaking their own army in the process.

But the Ukrainians, OK, I think they made a few missteps by, for example, hanging on too long in defending Bakhmut and arguably Avdiivka. But they seem to have learned the lesson and they seem to have understood that, as you say, Chris, there's more to be gained from ceding territory when necessary, while exacting a very high price in Russian currency.

which one day will have an effect. We'll see whether this trend continues during the coming months, I suspect. Yeah, you read out some quotes from Asgore, Patrick, and it's fascinating, isn't it? Because it absolutely underlines this change of trend

tactics really on the part of the Ukrainians to not just dig in and fight almost symbolically for ground in the way that, of course, happened in Verdun, as you say. It's interesting, isn't it? Because we talked about the World War II comparisons with Bakhmut. The obvious one, of course, was Stalingrad. But

Probably Verdun is a better comparison. And ultimately, it was an own goal for the Germans because that was the point at which they lost the initiative. And that was the point at which they incurred so many casualties that ultimately was to prove their downfall. I think if you look at any of the great turning points of the First World War, Verdun is probably the biggest single moment. I mean, some people look at the Somme now, don't they, Patrick, which is seen as a kind of absolute, you know, acme of British folly. But the latest scholarship says, no, this was the

the real turning point, because even though the Germans technically won the Battle of Somme, they incurred so many casualties that they couldn't afford. And of course, that continues. And that continues, of course, in Verdun, which is happening at the same time.

Okay, we've got one here from Alan in Denmark. I mean, I've got to say, Patrick, it is rather lovely, the fact that, you know, you and I spend our times talking to our contacts and reading English language sources in relation to the Ukraine war, but it's lovely getting all these questions coming in from all over the world.

foreign climes in which, of course, people are reading all kinds of other foreign language sources. But anyway, Alan asked the question, do you have an assessment in relation to the Western leaders approach that if Russia gains more ground due to the support being inadequate or even wins the war, the rest of Europe may face a Russian decision to turn Ukraine's

and part of the Russian army westward with that consequence? I mean, it's a fascinating question, isn't it? Because it's something, I mean, I've always looked at this as the loss of Ukrainian, you know, effectively support and ingenuity and technical ability, take that away from NATO. But the idea that it may actually be added to Russian ability has never really occurred to me. But what do you think, Patrick? Is that a real worry? Yeah, well, I think in the broader picture of whether, you know, a victorious war

Russia or Russia claiming victory will then become a menace to Europe is a very speculative, isn't it? And I was interested to see the other day that Air Vice Marshal Sean Bell, who's a retired RAF officer, who I had the pleasure of hearing speak the other day to a forum of sort of defense type people, has come out and said that he believes that the world has become a safer place since Russia.

invaded Ukraine. So that's very much against the grain of the alarmist reporting or analysis that's been dominating the airwaves and the newspapers, really, since the beginning of this latest phase of the conflict. Now, Sean's 32 years in the RAF. He knows what he's talking about. He commanded a fighter squadron at Harrier Force. He's also a defence analyst now, I should say. And he reckons that after two years of war, Russia was, quote, in no fit state to pose a threat

to Europe for at least a decade. Well, like I say, he's a very sound thinker, and I'm tempted to agree with him on this one. We don't really know what

Russians, the Russian population, think about this war, but the indications are that there's no great enthusiasm for it, and people have more or less just resigned to it. So I think whipping up a narrative to prepare public opinion for a new invasion of the Baltics or Poland would be a pretty hard task, even if the armed forces were actually capable of carrying it out. And of course, they would then be facing the combined might of

of NATO in that case. And, you know, you look at the big picture, Russia's going to have its hands full with lots of other threats.

internal threats or threats from the near abroad as they call it. Loads of them, just think Chechnya, what's going on there, it could descend into violence when Ramzan Kadyrov, who was basically holding the place together for the Russians, finally shuffles off this mortal coil, which could be any day now if reports of these pancreatic cancer are accurate, which they seem to be.

that what's happening in Georgia, you know, the last few days, protesters in Georgia have been barricading politicians inside the parliament building all because of a Russian-inspired law, which is trying to block, you know, widely popular ambition to join the EU. So to sum up, I think that as long as Putin or someone like him is in the Kremlin, Russia will always be a menace, and the chances of a Ukraine attack

Mark two are nonetheless limited. And that's not to say, though, I'm sure Sean Bell would agree with me that this is any reason to take the foot off the pedal of significantly increased defense spending and maintaining a united front against Russia. Yeah, I'm slightly disagree with you on this, Patrick. And I think it's I think the

argument, while you can make a reasonable case for it, it's also a dangerous case to make because it will encourage Europeans who will grab hold of it in the way that they've been absolutely delighted that the US has paid for their defence to say, actually, no, we don't need to get up to 2%, 2.5% or anything else. Because in reality, once Ukraine's gone, Russia's appetite will be sated. We don't know that, of course. And there are an awful lot of Russians in other places. The

which they may decide if they're prepared to wait a little while to replenish their forces, so to speak. I mean, use the analogy of the Second World War, Patrick. It's a bit like arguing. I know it's not a direct comparison, but it's worth making nevertheless. It's a bit like saying Hitler would have been sated once he'd got, you know, what he wanted, Danzig and the Polish corridor in the Second World War. I think the problem with military victory is it does whet the appetite and there will always have been another justification for

for Putin sooner or later to make further advances, particularly if he sees the weakness of a West that is not properly arming. So you could be right. Sean might be right. But I think it's a very dangerous argument to go down. And you could also be wrong. And the consequences, of course, are quite dire.

Yeah, no, as I said, I mean, this is no reason to actually scale down or to step away from the current policy of increasing defence spending. But I think just on the historical analogy, I mean, the reason that the Wehrmacht was up for more and more conquests was because the first phase of the war had gone extremely well. And that was all on from the direction, direct direction of Hitler. So professional generals who, in

In the first phase of the war, thought, okay, you know, France, yeah, that seems to be doable. But we're deeply skeptical about the idea of then turning against Russia. But they were so buoyed up by the successes of the first phase of the war, the war in the West, that they were prepared to accept Hitler and his own assessment of being a military genius.

And it was indeed, again, the first phase of Barbarossa was extremely successful. And it was only when things started to bog down and go wrong that they then had second thoughts. So I think that Russia has suffered basically setback after setback in the first phase of the war. It's only now that it actually can claim any sort of military progress. So I think the analogy is not very exact. Yeah.

Okay, I've got one here from Mark Strathern, who is an old friend, brother of Paul Strathern, the author, and he writes,

Is this a backdoor way for the EU and NATO to get feet on the ground without appearing to do so? The US in particular seems to be giving major intelligence support. Is this a way for the administration to bypass Congress and funding issues? Or is it authorised and costed into the finance that's already being committed? I mean, it's a very good question because in a sense,

They are. You know, this is a way of getting Ukraine support by the back door without literally having boots on the ground. And the specific answer to the question about is it getting help in its cyber warfare efforts? Well, we know from David Alexander, who we've quoted many times on this program, that there is direct support from NATO's cyber warfare capability to Ukraine.

support Ukraine in this. So they don't physically need to be in Ukraine to do this, of course. That's really the point here. This is going on in the ether, so to speak. And so there is a lot of support. And of course, we know that there's direct intelligence support, satellites, presumably even human if they have any that is being passed on to Ukraine. So

It is a strange scenario, Patrick, isn't it, where we say that NATO is not directly involved in this war when, of course, it is. What's the analogy? I suppose probably closest to the Second World War before the U.S. actually physically came into the war. That is before Germany declared war on the U.S. and brought it directly into the war after Pearl Harbor, when it was doing everything but actually.

actually fighting with boots on the ground. So I think we're in that kind of Len Lee scenario here, aren't we, Patrick? And, you know, one or two listeners have even made that analogy. Yeah, no, I absolutely agree with you on that one, Saul. I think that's a very sound analogy. LAUGHTER

We've got one here from Tom, who says, love the podcast. We always like to hear that. He says, I saw reports this week that America has purchased a sizable number of Soviet-era jets from Kazakhstan. What do you make of this? I didn't see this, but it does sound intriguing, doesn't it? He wonders, will this be for spare parts or to service them so the Ukrainians can put them into action, presumably that's spare parts for the Ukrainian Air Force?

And do you think it symbolizes that the F-16s are still a way off from arriving in Ukraine? And he gives us the link there. Did you look into this story? Did you get any purchase on this story? Yeah, I did look into it. And it is a genuine story. It sounds a bit...

hair brain, doesn't it? The Ukrainians are saying, give us the latest, you know, fifth generation fighters or at least third or fourth generation fighters. They're not quite getting typhoons and thunderbolts. But, you know, F-16s will do very nicely. And this report effectively is saying, well, we're going to buy stuff

from the 1980s and 1970s and 1980s. But it is a genuine story, actually. It appeared in the Kyiv Post, which is a very sort of respected publication covering the war and what seems to be happening. I think that's right. The question that Tom asks is, is this for spare parts exactly what seems to be going on? So this is kit, you know, as I say, this is old Soviet kit that was

will be used to replenish some of the planes that Ukraine is still flying. So I don't think it's an either-or situation. I think the F-16s are on their way in relatively limited numbers. But the F-16s, to be truthful, Patrick, and we've bigged them up, we've got various people on talking about what they can do. They will make some difference, but they are not a war-winning weapon, frankly, any more than the main battle tanks have proven to be a war-winning weapon.

weapon because technology has moved us on from that. The F-16s will make a difference though, but they're also clearly thinking the Ukrainians for a while yet are going to have to fly their original kit. So let's get them as many spare parts as we can. Okay, that's enough from us for one week. Do join us on Wednesday for Battleground 44 and then again on Friday when we'll be looking into the latest from Ukraine. Goodbye.