Loading summary
Transcript72 lines
- [00:00]
Nick Cumming-Bruce
Foreign.
- [00:07]
Laurence Sierra
This is inside Geneva.
- [00:09]
Imogen Folks
I'm your host, Imogen folks, and this is a production from Swiss Info, the international public media company of Switzerland. In today's program, it started before dawn.
- [00:23]
Nick Cumming-Bruce
Ukraine woke to explosions around the capital, Kiev.
- [00:26]
Laurence Sierra
In the last several hours, Russia has invaded Ukraine.
- [00:32]
Nick Cumming-Bruce
We stand with Ukraine now and in the future. That starts on the battlefield tonight in a radical break with the past, the.
- [00:42]
Angela Saini
US And Russia agreeing to work together.
- [00:44]
Nick Cumming-Bruce
The two sides discussing how to end.
- [00:46]
Angela Saini
Russia's war in Ukraine, but doing so without any Ukrainian officials present.
- [00:51]
Nick Cumming-Bruce
We couldn't have imagined a better result after this, after this session. But today I heard, oh, well, we weren't invited.
- [00:57]
Laurence Sierra
Well, you've been there for three years.
- [00:59]
Nick Cumming-Bruce
You should have ended it. Three years. You should have never started it. You could have made a deal. How are you approaching this? Do you want just to stop the war or do you want to win it? And that's the point. We don't know even what President Trump would think is a win. One suspects it's a win that would be purely transactional in US interests, which is bad news for Europe.
- [01:20]
Laurence Sierra
Returning to Ukraine's pre2014 borders is an unrealistic objective.
- [01:26]
Nick Cumming-Bruce
The United States does not believe that.
- [01:30]
Laurence Sierra
NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement. Instead, any security guarantee must be backed by capable European and non European troops.
- [01:43]
Gunilla Von Hall
Europe is expected to be responsible for the reconstruction of Ukraine, having troops on the ground to oversee a ceasefire. So the US will take the decisions together with Russia, with Putin. But then who is going to do the real work afterwards? It is Europe.
- [02:01]
Laurence Sierra
Can you assure this audience that Ukrainians will be at the table and Europeans will be at the table?
- [02:08]
Nick Cumming-Bruce
The answer to that last question, just as you framed it, the answer is no.
- [02:11]
Laurent
We will never be able to talk about peace and sustainable peace as long as the Ukrainians are not associated with that, because the grievances will remain.
- [02:26]
Laurence Sierra
Hello again and welcome to Geneva for our very special episode. Three years since Russia invaded Ukraine. Events moving very, very, very fast. So we're recording this a few days before this podcast goes on air. Things may even changed when we go on air. But what we're going to try to do is explore where we are now with that conflict with three journalists here in Geneva that I've been talking to about this for the last three years. They are Gunilla Von hall from the Swedish daily Svenska Dagpladet, Nick Cumming, Bruce, contributor to the New York Times from here in Geneva, and Laurence Sierra of the Swiss news agency ats, also a longtime correspondent here at the UN and we're going to try to unpick. Is this really a peace deal or is it just a deal about money? Or is it even some kind of capitulation or a power grab by countries that are already very powerful? And we're going to have a look at where it leaves the United nations, perhaps also where it leaves European countries. A lot to talk about. Nick, I think I'll start with you. I do remember that when the day this war started, the day of the invasion, you, Laurent and I were discussing this. We know Western diplomats here in Geneva have told us privately, off the record, that they knew a peace deal would come in which Ukraine would lose some territory, and that maybe the NATO membership would have to go very far down the list of priorities. So why the uproar now about the United States saying this publicly?
- [04:13]
Nick Cumming-Bruce
Well, I think it was just extremely disconcerting to see Defense Secretary Hegseth casually discarding issues that could have served as levers in any negotiation on a peace deal. No NATO membership for Ukraine, which preempts their choice as a sovereign government. No deployment of US Troops to enforce post war security guarantees. Any European troops deployed would not be under a NATO umbrella. I mean, advertising hugely the rift between this position and the previous position of NATO members. And then perhaps an even bigger cause of Whiplash was Trump's 90 minute phone call to Vladimir Putin. You know, we know that Trump shoots from the lip and we can't prejudge the course of the negotiations. And we've heard people around him saying, you know, he's fully aware of all the levers he's got to pull. But contacting Putin in this way, after three years of isolating him as a pariah state for his invasion of Ukraine, chatting chumley about the great history of their nations putting up on truth social, this sort of very jolly record of the conversation celebrating the fact that Vladimir Putin had endorsed his campaign slogan of common sense, no sense at all, that he was dealing with someone who had violated the UN Charter, butchered thousands of people, violated, committed numerous atrocity crimes. None of that was evident or reflected in any of the comments. It was easy to understand really why the Kremlin is euphoric, why NATO states are dismayed and the sense of victory already in their grasp within the Kremlin is not going to make it easier to negotiate a deal that Ukraine and Europe would consider respectable. So I think a huge source of concern and dismay among America's former allies.
- [06:19]
Laurence Sierra
I think that reflects a lot of what I've Been hearing from other people about this, that very important, not least Ukraine seem to be shut out of this discussion. Gunilla, you of course, have been traveling back and forth to Ukraine over the last three years. Now. The last time I saw you, you were just back and you said that people were very tired of the war. But is this a relief to them the way this is happening now?
- [06:47]
Gunilla Von Hall
No, I think it is what Nick is saying too, that this was coming as a shock. The phone call and these sudden talks in Saudi Arabia, and it's from Ukraine's point of view, is seen very much as a betrayal. It is partly what he's saying. But then the way it is done, that is so clearly that Ukraine is, you know, Ukraine and Europe too, for that the case. They are left outside this and they're basically told that we're going to give you a call and tell you what's happening so we can tell you the state of affairs. And Zelenskyy is just shut out. So I think for many Ukrainians today, they're feeling betrayed, disappointed. Some, though, are feeling a little bit. There's a slight slimmer of hope and a little, little bit of relief because who wants the war to end? People are so tired. A lot of people I spoke to said that we have these missile strikes and we have these air raid sirens all the time and the economy is falling apart. Billions of people who have lost their lives or are injured or they are refugees and we just want it to end. And some people said actually just a few months after the full scale invasion by Russia, that there is no way we can win against Putin, against Russia. We should just cut a deal now when we can, and then, you know, maybe we can, we can change things later. But if we continue this road, people will die, people will flee. Our country will be shattered. And this is what has happened. So mixture of feeling betrayed and feeling maybe that the end is in sight and whatever we have to give up, we have to give up in order to have some kind of peace and stopping the bloodbath.
- [08:40]
Laurence Sierra
Laurent, this seems really, makes me feel really depressed because I know the day this war started, you and I, you're Swiss, I'm half Swiss. Swiss and British. We suggested what Gunilla just said. Ukraine can't win this. Maybe it would be better to do a deal now and wait till Putin dies rather than the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people who will die if this war goes on. Now it feels like we're kind of back where we started. Ukraine can't win it. Hundreds of Thousands of people have died. I mean, how does this work now?
- [09:16]
Laurent
I think the diagnosis that we made at that time is still valid, but we cannot blame President Zelensky and the Ukrainians to try to defend their territory. I think they're still willing to do that. So there is no guarantee that even if a deal is secured by the US and by the Russians, the Ukrainians will just say, okay, we agree with that and we stop fighting. And some of the fighters are already saying that if President Zelensky himself sign a deal, they might be tempted to go on because they just don't accept the loss of the territories. But we always knew that a conflict can only end with the negotiations. So there is no surprise about that. The uproar, I think, is linked to two things, basically. The first one is that, yeah, the Western countries, apart from the us, will never admit publicly what we were discussing about, because that would give the impression that they let Ukraine down in. In a way, and they do not want to give that impression. So there is a moral component. And the difference is that Trump doesn't care at all about moral, and he cares only about that transactional approach. And the other thing is that now we felt that we really shifted from nothing about Ukraine without Ukrainians towards a new bilateral framework. And that's really. And terra incognita for Europeans. And they're angry for their own security, but they're also angry about a potential framework which could be used on other fronts. On the international area.
- [11:11]
Laurence Sierra
It strikes me this could set a really dangerous precedent where one country invades another, and then at the end of it, the people who supported the country that was invaded then go to the invader and say, yeah, let's do a deal. I mean, this is surely part of the problem. It's the way this is being done. Very transactional. I mean, I thought it was really, really significant that the one U.S. administration figure who went to Ukraine first was not the Secretary of State, it was not the Defense Secretary, it was the Treasury Secretary, Scott Besant. And he went to Zelensky and said, sign this contract, signing away your rare earth minerals, and then maybe we can do something for you. I mean, this is just not. I mean, I'm also wondering maybe somebody wants to come in there as well, where it is the UN's conflict resolution role in this? Nowhere. They've not been mentioned at all.
- [12:18]
Gunilla Von Hall
No. I just want to add what you say here about the mineral agreement, the rare earth minerals. It is incredible how that came up from Zelensky, proposed a little bit that deal. But then when the US Came and said, you want to secure the guarantees, you sign this. And then Zelenskyy realized it's half of. It's basically an economic colonization of Ukraine, and he backed up. But the pressure is enormous on Zelenskyy to sign off and give away very, very important natural resources if he's going to get any kind of support from the U.S. it is blackmail.
- [12:53]
Laurence Sierra
Nick Laurent, where do you think this is peacemaking that Gunilla has termed blackmail? Where is Guterres in this?
- [13:03]
Nick Cumming-Bruce
I don't think the UN has any part in this at all. But I mean, I think what's so disturbing, which is the point that Laurent made earlier, was that Ukraine is indeed involved, but also Europe. I mean, it's hardly news that America's priorities are pivoting to Asia and away from Europe. We hear that Marco Rubio's first 10 international calls after starting as Secretary of State didn't include any of America's European allies. But the buildup to these talks could hardly have been less propitious. I mean, with Hegtsaf's very stumbling performance in Munich and Vice President Vance's extraordinary statement, the fact that he goes from laying a wreath at Dachau to cozying up to the hard right parties whose answer antecedents with the people who built Dachau and who are deeply anti Semitic. I mean, it was an extraordinary performance. And then a statement full of distortion and half truths and lies, actually, and lies, which really just opened up the divisions between Europe and the United States. And it's hard to see how demonstrating the gap between America and its NATO allies somehow strengthens America's positions when it comes to negotiating with Putin. And I think the other concern also is that although President Trump and his acolytes like to proclaim him the greatest deal maker on the planet, the fact is that his international record isn't very good. We saw the agreement that he negotiated with the Taliban, which again, was over the heads of the Afghan government. And that was a major contributor to the debacle that followed. We saw how he was kind of played in the rather fruitless negotiations or discussions with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. I don't think many people would bet on Trump coming out on top in a negotiation with Putin.
- [15:04]
Laurent
As you said, Nick, the basic of a negotiation is not disclosing to your interlocutor, the stakeholders you're negotiating with, the concessions that you're ready to make. And Trump already gave the impression to make concessions about everything President Putin would like to see happening for Russia. So what do you negotiate then? Because everything has been pretty much negotiated already by these concessions. And answering to the question of where could the UN stand with that? It's, it's really difficult because the only language that Trump is understanding is the language of the deal. And for him, deal means bilateral agreements between only two stakeholders. And if you look at what Marco Rubio said after the meeting in, in Riyadh, he just added that, yeah, at one point the Europeans and the Ukrainians will be associated, but the main framework would remain high level teams between Americans and Russia. So that means that there won't be any change in that boundaries because this is precisely the core component of a negotiation, the way it is understood by President Trump.
- [16:25]
Gunilla Von Hall
I think also that what is this deal going to be all about? Because in a way, from your point of view, it seemed like, I think the UN first of all is completely out of the picture. The UN is not going to have anything to deal with this. I think, unfortunately, unfortunately is going to be the US and Russia. They're going to make up, they're going to present this in one way or another to Zelenskyy, to Europe. And the really upsetting thing for Europe here is that we're going to be presented with almost a fait accompli. And at the same time, Europe is expected to be responsible for the reconstruction of Ukraine, sending troops to Ukraine, having troops on the ground to oversee a ceasefire. So the US will take the decisions together with Russia, with Putin. But then who is going to do the real work afterwards? It is Europe. So we are just being told basically, and then we're going to be expected to pick up the pieces. And this is very upsetting for Europe and for Ukraine, of course.
- [17:28]
Laurence Sierra
And also, I mean, there is another transactional element in there, this push for Europe to spend more on defense, which they can't make their own fast enough. So who are they going to have to buy it for? Guess where? America, particularly Britain. Their defense systems are already quite interoperable. Britain and the us. So this is again, it's all flowing back to US coffers. Well, maybe I'm very cynical about it, but I've never, maybe this is very subjective. I've never particularly felt that the transatlantic relationship that it's being portrayed now is that America has protected Europe for 70 years. It has always been a two way street. We were, when I was very young, a teenager, I was worried we were becoming the US's nuclear missile carrier in Britain with cruise missiles. We would have been the targets first. That was in America's interest. And I think this is, I think maybe reflecting the shock of what we heard from people like Pete Hegseth and JD Vance to speak so disrespectfully of a continent, the one in the world which still tries to really uphold and respect international law and human rights.
- [18:46]
Gunilla Von Hall
Yeah. At the same time though, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I think they have some points about Europe and I think there's something the Europe, EU and Europe realizes now we have to be more united, we have to pay more for defense, we have to contribute more than we do in relation to GDP per capita. So it's really Europe has to beef up the spending on defence there. I think there it's been a realization that we have more to do in Europe also uniting. I don't think though, you know, there's also this talk about having European force, European army and EU army. I think that though is far from being anything realistic.
- [19:26]
Laurence Sierra
Lauren, where does Switzerland sit in this? It being neutral. And the one European country that seemed not to express discomfort with what JD Van St. Pete Hegseth had to say in Munich was Switzerland's president, Karen Keller Suter.
- [19:42]
Laurent
I think there is a will by the Swiss government to try to keep all the channels open both with Moscow and Washington. And Moscow is already quite angry with the sanctions that were taken by Switzerland. So that means that the Swiss government doesn't want to make Donald Trump angry or the Trump administration angry with it. But the problem is that and the reaction of the Swiss president to GD Vance speech is a perfect example of that is that for now they haven't been able to clearly find a way to position themselves towards that new administration in a way that would both be appropriate with the goal of being that middle ground and keeping all the channels open and at the same time trying not to give the impression to endorse such speeches. And I think the comparison that the Swiss president made by saying that this was a typically Swiss minded speech and the plea for direct democracies is just a massive blunder and irrelevant because there is no direct democracy at the federal level in the US and there is no tradition of coalition government that you could find in Europe or the kind of government encompassing a lot of different political parties that we have have in Switzerland. And the other thing I would like to add on that is that the last weeks and months have been an important diplomatic defeat for Switzerland because Switzerland invested massively on that process that led to the Bergenstock summit last year. And all about that Was one, yes, to include Russia, but to have a framework that will be inclusive with all the different countries associated. And there, number one, we end up with a meeting in Saudi Arabia, not in Switzerland anymore as it was the case for Biden, Putin. So first defeat for Switzerland. And number two, all that work, that multilateral work that was done by Switzerland to have everyone on board and to try to build a consensus around a plan for a potential negotiation as just be reduced to nothing by Trump because he's not interested in that kind of format.
- [22:13]
Laurence Sierra
I did hear also though that of course one of the reasons the, the meeting of these two big autocratic beasts, Trump and Putin, it's for Saudi Arabia, is that, I mean, if Putin were to come somewhere like Switzerland, Switzerland would have to arrest him. Yeah. I mean he's an indicted war criminal. So I mean it would be quite a dilemma, wouldn't it, to say we are the, we're the peacemakers, but we're going to have to arrest you.
- [22:40]
Laurent
I'm not so sure about that because there are exemptions that can be granted by the icc. And actually the question was asked directly to the former President Viola Amert in, in the Bergenstock and she answered that if President Putin comes to Switzerland to negotiate a peace deal, these exemptions could apply and apparently there wouldn't be any reason to not letting him come to the, the Swiss territory and then arresting him. So he could come and he could take part to negotiation. That's the conclusion that the Swiss reached. But it seems that legally these exemptions are possible with the icc.
- [23:22]
Laurence Sierra
As we said at the beginning, the events are moving really, really fast. But people I've talked to who do know a bit about peace building and conflict resolution say over and over again this is not going to be easy. It's not going to be a snap deal. But if it is, it would set very bad precedents of might makes right for all sorts of despots and autocrats. I mean, we have conflicts all over the place. We have drc, we have Sudan. We can't predict. But just a final analysis. Do you think, Gunilla, I'll come to you first, that Ukraine is going to get a voice eventually in this. Can we get a stable peace out of this?
- [24:11]
Gunilla Von Hall
I think maybe Ukraine will get a very, very, very small piece of this cake. I think basically they will have to, unfortunately, I think they will have to accept what Russia has occupied so far, 20% of the country. I don't think it will be part of the Russian Federation formally, but I think Ukraine will have to give that up. I do not think they're going to get any promises of NATO membership. I think there will be some kind of massive security guarantees given from Europe, perhaps also with the US Perhaps in exchange of an agreement about the minerals. I think there could be a demilitarized zone somehow in Ukraine. And who will be guarding that one? Europe, probably, perhaps soldiers from troops from Arab countries or from India. Unfortunately, I think this is going to be the case, and Zelenskyy has to accept that. Then it's going to be an election also probably in Ukraine. And then Zelenskyy risk really losing it, because his people might feel also that he went into this war and he didn't win anything, and he might just be ousted. And then the scary thing could be that there is someone else who's going to be in power in Ukraine who is pro Russian. And this is what Putin would like, because then he could increase his. His influence. And then, of course, me being Swedish, we just joined NATO. We're very worried about Russia. Scared people in my country are scared of Russia. We feel like we are in a hybrid war situation with Russia today, like Finland is feeling too. We have incidents in the Baltic Sea every other week. There's a big, big worry. And if there is this deal that I think that I'm just outlining, just speculating for Ukraine, there is a worry in the Baltic states especially, but also in Finland and Sweden, what happens next? Is this going to encourage Putin to do something similar in the future?
- [26:17]
Laurence Sierra
Nick. And then, Laurent, where do you see this going? What are the perils and pitfalls?
- [26:21]
Nick Cumming-Bruce
Well, I think it's really hard to say. I mean, it's very difficult to second guess how the Americans are going to negotiate this agreement. People around the Trump administration emphasize how aware he is of the economic muscle he has to bring to bear on the Kremlin, particularly in relation to oil prices. But it's, you know, it seems to vary from day to day during the election campaign. Vance said, I don't care what happens to Ukraine one way or the other. But then in his interview with the Wall Street Journal last week, he said, we do care about Ukraine having sovereign independence. Trump's special envoy for Ukraine said in Munich that the US Wants a sovereign Ukraine. But there was an interesting moment where in one of the meetings in Munich, where a Ukrainian MP asked Keith Kellogg, who is Trump's special envoy to Ukraine, how are you approaching this? Do you want just to stop the war or do you want to win it? And he said, keith Kellogg replied, well, it Depends how you define a win. Well, and that's the point. We don't know even what President Trump would think is a win. One suspects it's a win that would be purely transactional in US Interests, which is bad news for Europe. And then I think another point that one has to bear in mind is that this is not the only issue that that is going to complicate European relations with the US in the next few years. I mean, we have America's withdrawal from the climate accord. We have America pulling out of the who, we have America declining to participate in the Human Rights Council. We're seeing it essentially turning against the multilateral system. We see President Trump endorsing a solution for Gaza that would absolutely flout every known international law. So you begin to wonder really, what is left of the multilateral system and the international legal protections that have been so carefully built up since World War II. And I think it's very, very difficult to see how Europe and the US Align on these issues.
- [28:29]
Laurence Sierra
Laurent, it is going to be very hard to kind of trust the United States, isn't it, after this? It's so unpredictable. The suggestions, some of them come across as so outrageous.
- [28:41]
Laurent
You're right. And the thing is that if you want to try to trust the US and to be trusted by the US you will have to play by Donald Trump's playbook, which is trying to show him what the added value in terms of investment could be for the US and once again this afternoon, the conclusion of the Russian US Meeting in Riyadh is that we want to launch again a great cooperation in order to open ways for investment. So they don't even talk about setting the conflict just for peace. But it's already in the narrative setting the conflict to open investment, US Investment in Russia again. So the European countries will have to play by that, that playbook. But I would say that we will never be able to talk about peace and sustainable peace as long as the Ukrainians are not associated with that, because the grievances will remain and the question of the security guarantees will not be answered so easily by both the US And Russia. And I think the bet of President Zelensky is probably to try to secure that middle deal in order for Trump to consider that that if he wants to be sure to benefit from it, he will have to send some troops to secure Ukrainian soils, where he gonna get some, some, some earnings with that. But for now, they really maximalist in that approach. They say, we want some troops. The Russians now say we don't want any European troops and the Europeans are divided. So for me, that's the biggest concern. Who's gonna be in charge of these security guarantees if all the stakeholders are going in opposite directions regarding that particular question? And I would end by enlarging the scope of the analysis. If we don't deal in an appropriate way with that situation, what will happen next?
- [31:04]
Imogen Folks
So many questions, so much concern and uncertainty. And caught in the middle, a country, Ukraine, which was invaded by its neighbor, has lost territory, lost loved towns, villages, theaters, parks and homes, and of course, tens of thousands of lives. A country that thought it had an ally in the United States and now feels abandoned. What does that mean for future aggressors? What does it mean for old alliances, for respect for international law? We've tried to answer some of your questions here today, but it's an unstable world out there and things are moving very fast, not necessarily in the right direction. My thanks to Gunilla, Nick and Laurent for their time and perspectives. If you've got another burning international topic you'd like us to discuss, drop us a line at Inside genevaissinfo ch. And just before we go, here's some news about a new podcast series out now from swissinfo.
- [32:14]
Angela Saini
Hi, I'm Angela Saini, a science journalist and author. I've written four books exploring humanity's fascination with science as a solution to social problems, and I'm the host of Lost Cells, a thrilling new investigative podcast that will make you question the promises behind private stem cell banking. This gripping podcast follows the stories of families from Spain, Serbia, Italy, and many other countries as they embark on a global quest to find the one thing they need the most, life itself. Will they succeed in their search for the stem cells that they pinned their hopes on? Tune in to Lost Cells, an original Swiss info podcast. To find out, listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [33:08]
Imogen Folks
That does sound pretty interesting. Do join Angela Saini when listening Lost Cells comes out. And of course, do join us next time on Inside Geneva. We'll be back with our occasional series of books to make you think, talking to renowned human rights defender Ken Roth about his new book, Righting Wrongs, and international law professor Andrew Clapham about his book called Simply War. It has just won the prestigious Paul Reuter Prize for major contributions to our understanding of international humanitarian law. That's out on March 4th. Before that, if you want objective clarity about conflict, climate change, human rights, international law, or any other of today's global challenges, then take a look at our previous episodes and subscribe to us wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Imogen. Folks, thanks for listening to Inside Geneva.
- [34:21]
Angela Saini
What would you do to protect your family?
- [34:24]
Laurence Sierra
Becoming a parent definitely is a very emotional thing.
- [34:27]
Angela Saini
How far would you go to protect them from future disease?
- [34:31]
Laurence Sierra
You suddenly care about something more than you care about yourself. And we live in a world that is filled with things that can go wrong.
- [34:40]
Angela Saini
And what if there was a solution? From the second your child is born.
- [34:45]
Laurent
When you decide to preserve your baby's cord blood, you are making an incredible investment in the future of your entire family's health.
- [34:52]
Laurence Sierra
They would all tell you you're doing.
- [34:54]
Gunilla Von Hall
This for your child.
- [34:55]
Laurence Sierra
It will maybe help them later on.
- [34:58]
Angela Saini
That's the promise of stem cell research, a future in which your baby's stem cells can be used to cure serious diseases.
- [35:09]
Laurent
Today, newborn stem cells found in cord blood are being used to treat over 80 conditions.
- [35:14]
Laurence Sierra
We'll keep those amazing cells safe for you. Frozen in time.
- [35:19]
Gunilla Von Hall
We saw life at the end of the tunnel that was our daughter.
- [35:22]
Angela Saini
Every breakthrough brings hope and new promises.
- [35:28]
Laurent
With our child's stem cells, we can cure my illness. It made sense to decide for the bank that had its headquarters in Switzerland. It gives some additional credibility.
- [35:38]
Angela Saini
But promises can be broken.
- [35:41]
Laurent
That's why the marketing is so clever, because the idea is that you will forget about it because hopefully you kids will be fine.
- [35:47]
Gunilla Von Hall
We felt like we had failed our.
- [35:49]
Laurence Sierra
Daughter in a very important way.
- [35:51]
Laurent
The idea that a part of their kid is out there is frightening. They feel that in a way they failed their kids by doing something in which they were trying to protect them.
- [36:01]
Angela Saini
This is a story of how hope can turn sour and spark a global quest to recover the cells and the most precious thing they contain. Knife.
- [36:16]
Gunilla Von Hall
I don't know if it was the biggest mistake of my life, but I do know that if today I knew all the things that have happened to me, if I knew then I wouldn't have signed with them.
- [36:27]
Nick Cumming-Bruce
If you store money, you can go.
- [36:29]
Laurent
On next day and take it out with stem cells. It's much more complicated.
- [36:33]
Laurence Sierra
And then they said, well, we don't have a legal department. And I just started laughing and they said, don't worry, you will have one very soon.
- [36:41]
Angela Saini
Lost Cells an original Swiss info podcast in collaboration with Piers Gloria Productions, Future Prosch and Studio Orcenta. Listen on Apple podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.