← Ukraine: The Latest
Ukraine: The Latest
Exclusive interview with Dmytro Kuleba - Ukraine's Minister of Foreign Affairs 2020-2024
01:02:59
Loading summary
Transcript117 lines
- [00:04]
A
The telegraph.
- [00:10]
B
Close your eyes.
- [00:11]
C
Focus. Listen to work getting done with Monday.com relax as AI does the manual work while your teams are aligned on a single source of truth? Feel the sensation of an AI work platform, so flexible and intuitive it feels.
- [00:29]
B
Like it was built just for you.
- [00:31]
C
Notice you're limitless.
- [00:34]
A
Now open your eyes, go to Monday.com.
- [00:37]
C
Start for free, and finally, breathe.
- [00:39]
A
Hey, it's Raj and Noah.
- [00:41]
B
And we're back with a new season of Am I Doing It Wrong? The show that explores the all too human anxieties we have about trying to get our lives right.
- [00:48]
C
Because we're still doing a lot of stuff wrong.
- [00:50]
B
But who isn't? That's why each week we're talking about the topics that we could all use a little helping hit with. Whether it's making new friends as an adult, managing our emotions, or even dreaming.
- [00:59]
C
We'Ll be talking to experts in their fields who are definitely doing things right.
- [01:02]
A
So the rest of us can be.
- [01:04]
C
A bit wiser and a lot better.
- [01:05]
A
Equipped to handle whatever life throws at us.
- [01:08]
B
Subscribe now and listen to new episodes of Am I Doing It Wrong? Dropping every Thursday starting January 1st, wherever you get your podcasts. And for the first time ever, we're.
- [01:16]
A
Going to have full video episodes on YouTube.
- [01:19]
C
Because as long as there are things.
- [01:20]
A
To get wrong, we're going to be right here to help you do them better. Love y'. All.
- [01:25]
C
Well, the holidays have come and gone.
- [01:27]
A
Once again, but if you've forgotten to.
- [01:29]
C
Get that special someone in your life.
- [01:30]
A
Gift, well, Mint Mobile is extending their holiday offer of half off unlimited wireless. So here's the idea. You get it now. You call it an early present for next year.
- [01:40]
C
What do you have to lose?
- [01:42]
A
Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch limited time 50% off regular price for new customers. Upfront payment required $45 for 3 months, $90 for 6 month or 180 for 12 month plan taxes and fees. Extra speeds may slow after 50 gigabytes per month when network is busy. See terms. I'm Adelie Pogman Ponte, and this is Ukraine. The latest. Today we talk about a Ukrainian attack in the Zaporizhzhia oblast and more hits on Russia's Ryazan oil refinery. We also discuss Keir Starman's announcement to increase defense spending, French President Macron's visit to Washington, and the possibility that France could use its nuclear deterrent force to help protect Europe. Later, we sit down with Dmytro Kuleba, the former foreign minister of Ukraine from 2020 to 2024 for an exclusive interview.
- [02:34]
B
Bravery takes you through the most unimaginable.
- [02:39]
C
Hardships to finally reward you with victory. It's the worst carnage that this world.
- [02:46]
B
Has seen since World War II.
- [02:48]
A
Absolutely fascinating.
- [02:49]
B
We are with you not just today or tomorrow, but for 100 years.
- [02:58]
A
Nobody's going to break us.
- [03:00]
C
We are strong. We are Ukrainians.
- [03:03]
A
It's Tuesday the 25th of February, three years and one day since the full scale invasion began. I'm joined by my colleagues, Dom Nichols, Associate editor for Defence, and Frances Dernley, Executive Editor for Audio. As usual, let's start with you Dom. What are the military updates of the day?
- [03:22]
B
Poland was forced to scramble fighter jets in the early hours of this morning after Russian airstrikes targeting western Ukraine threatened the NATO country's airspace. The whole of Ukraine was under air raid sirens from 0530 local as Russia launched a wave of missile and drones at Kyiv and other major cities. The Kyiv region's military administration said the air raid alert continues. Stay in shelters until the danger passes. 44 year old woman was injured, several houses were damaged near to the capital. Two people killed, six injured in Sumy region overnight, according to local officials there, but the full scale of the aerial attack is not yet clear. That attack came just hours after Donald Trump promised that Russia was going all out to end the war as he met with Emmanuel Macron to to discuss European proposals for peace. With growing fears of a transatlantic rift over Ukraine and fraying support from Washington, the French president warned Mr. Trump that a deal would not survive without American backup and substantial security guarantees. More on that from Francis shortly. Those airstrikes that I talked about were part of a very active day yesterday. Sumy Oblast came under repeated attack with at least 169 explosions recorded by local authorities. Two killed and six injured in the waiver of attacks in the town of Velika Pysharivka, Miropil, where six houses were hit, and the regional capital Sumy attacks across the rest of the country into dozens more. But thankfully, if that's ever the right word, only one other person was killed in Sloviansk in Donetsk oblast. The Ukraine Defense Ministry said seven cruise missiles were fired, six shot down, one causing injuries in Shtowmir. That's about 100 ks west of Kyiv and all but one of the 213 drones fired did not reach their targets, but the one that got through caused injuries. Now elsewhere there's extraordinary footage you'll see on social media. I saw it posted by the OZINT technical site. They're a trusted source of open source information. They're relaying a telegram channel showing the results of an attack yesterday by Ukrainian forces said to be in Zaporizhzhia Oblast. Now, Ukrainian forces said to have conducted a long range heavy drone bomber mission which successfully destroyed quite a rare piece of, piece of kit, sorry, capability, don't call it kit. A Russian 9A 83M Telar from an S300 SAM system. Surface to air missile system. Now, just as a slight segue, surface to air missile systems generally comprise a number of parts. They comprise the missiles themselves, a radar unit to see where they're going to be fired at and, and then a command unit to, well, command the whole thing. Basically they can all be on the same vehicle, but generally modern systems have those different components separated so that a strike doesn't destroy the whole thing. Then a telar is the transporter, erector launcher and radar. So in other words, it incorporates part or all of the radar system and the missiles themselves. So this S300, known to NATO as the SA10 grumble, it's pretty old, bit of kit, but still very capable. The V4 version has a range of about 400km, up to great altitudes as well. It's designed to take out the AWACS planes, the airborne warning and control system, the big sort of, I mean they're up at 30, 30 plus thousand feet. So this is a good system and a good thing to hit if you're able to. Now we're able to see what happened after the strike in Zaporizhzhia Oblast because after dropping off the drone that actually conducted the attack, this big bomber drone then landed and watched the SAM system, the S300, burning through its thermal sight, which was set to white hot. For those who like their thermal imagery geekery, you'll find that on social media. Otherwise, no move on the ground in Ukraine or Russia to speak of. Although as I've said before, that doesn't mean it's not incredibly active and violent at the front line. Ukraine's Defense Ministry said today that Russia suffered 1,300 casualties yesterday. Casualties being killed, wounded, missing and taken prisoner. Now then, into Russia. And a rather troubling update to yesterday's news about Ukraine's drone strike, the third one this year so far on Russia's Ryazan oil refinery. Russian authorities have detained a 17 year old boy suspected of gathering intelligence to help with the targeting operation. The boy is being investigated under laws related to terrorism and treason which carry a prison sentence of up to 20 years. According to Russian state news agency RIA this morning. RIA said the boy, whom it did not name, is accused of providing Ukrainian intelligence with information about the refinery and has been in the employ and been paid by Ukrainian intelligence since autumn of last year. He's said to have confessed under questioning. That refinery, you may remember, about 100 kilometers southeast of Moscow, about 400 kilometers northeast of Ukraine, it had to suspend operations after the attack by Ukrainian drones yesterday, according to industry sources and Reuters today are saying that the attack set the refinery's main crude distillation unit on fire. The site may partially resume operations within days by using two units that were not hit whilst that CDU 6 unit is repaired. The attack is said to have caused at least five explosions. Local authorities attributed the fire to to falling drone debris, a phrase I've mentioned before. I love the framing here. They want to leave us, and more likely the local Russian population, with the idea that Air Defence did its job, that it destroyed the threat and it was just falling drone debris that then blew up the oil refinery. But, you know, take that thought through and what they're not saying is that the Air defence, if that was the case, which I don't think it was, but if that was the case, the Air Defence was in the wrong place. It was too close to the refinery. If the falling debris could cause the fire. I mean, I think all that's rubbish. I think some drones got through, basically. If these massive oil refineries are extremely vulnerable to small pieces of metal and wood falling out of the sky, then they really have got a problem. Now, another couple of bits here, adli. Direct damage in Ukraine from Russian attacks has risen to US$176 billion worth. According to a new report by the World bank, the UN European Commission and the government in Kiev. About 13% of Ukraine's total housing stock has been destroyed or damaged, affecting more than two and a half million households, we are told. The study also showed the estimated cost to rebuild Ukraine's economy after the invasion has risen to US$524 billion, nearly three times the country's expected 2024 economic output. The report said that there had been a 70% increase in damaged or destroyed assets in the energy sector since the last assessment of a year ago. Then a bit on cash to finish off with. Norway has said it's going to give Ukraine three and a half billion Norwegian kroner. That's about US$315 million cash, but specifically for the procurement of military equipment for Ukraine from the Ukrainian defense industry. So not Sort of humanitarian cash to spend on whatever Kyiv wants directly into Ukraine's defence industry. So a you get. They will get military kit, but it keeps that industry going or the expansion and the development of the domestic defence industrial base going. And then on the, on the money. Just in the last half hour, in fact the last 20 minutes or so, Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced that Britain's defence budget is going to increase to 2 1/2% by 2027. He then did this weird fudgy thing and he's trying to include, or he did include, Britain's intelligence agencies and said, if we include security and intelligence, it's actually going up to 2.6%. I mean, forget that number. If you see that anywhere, that's a total fudge. No one includes their domestic security and intelligence agencies in their defence spending figures. So 2.5% is the figure to focus on by 2027. That means Britain's going to be spending an extra £13.4 billion worth on defense by that time. This is going to be paid for by a cut in overseas development, the overseas development budget from 0.5 to 0.3%. And he said the ambition, and I think that word's doing a lot of heavy lifting here, the ambition Is to hit 3% in the next Parliament, subject to economic conditions. So if you can wade through the caveats there, they're saying they're going to try and increase defence spending even further. Now, some of the things he was saying in his speech that, like, say he just gave it on the floor the House of Commons about 20 minutes ago. He said Britain needs to unite and deploy all its resources for its national security. So Russia was a menace in our airspace, in our waters and on our streets. European instability will always wash up on our shores, he said, and if Ukraine's peace is not lasting, then the threats to UK security will only grow. He said, I know that the current moment is volatile, but there's no reason why our fundamental strategy can't endure. He underlined that NATO was the bedrock of our security and said we must reject the false choice, as he put it, between allies on one side of the Atlantic and the other. He said the US is Britain's most important bilateral alliance because it straddles our nuclear enterprise, the Five Eyes intelligence sharing arrangement and orcas. He said, we must find courage in our history, courage in our nation, because courage is what this new era demands of us. And he then said, in the short term, defence spending can only be funded through hard choices. And then announced the cut to the overseas development budget. So just very briefly, that's me, Adley, but just a thought on that, if you want to chat later, very happy to, but I mean that's a good dollop of cash, not a huge amount and arguably not enough, depending on your definition of what's required at the moment. But that amount of money in only what, two years down the tracks is quite short term. So that's basically the first, the shallow end of that money. The near term of that money will need to be spent on stuff that already exists. So basically buy off the shelf. I'm thinking drones and existing things like artillery rounds, basically the back end of that. That will allow defence industry to plan if Britain's going up to 2.7% for the foreseeable future from 2027, that will allow industry to invest in building new plants for air defence, missiles, artillery production and plant actually to build tanks if we so wish. But yes, so yes, good. But in the short term I think we're going to be mainly adopting a COTS strategy, as in commercial off the shelf or motts, rather military off the shelf. What is available now on the open market to increase and he didn't say whether or not the near term spend is going to be for Britain or to go to Ukraine. So good news, but as ever there's a lot of devil in the detail. But that's us up to date, Adli.
- [14:32]
A
Thank you, Dom. Now to you, Francis, on the political updates. I think you're taking us to Washington today. Thanks very much, Adelaide. Yes, I am. But first of all, I just want to begin with the un. History is often marked in moments. The complexity of events and decisions often obscure the precise moments of transformative change to the actors as well as to the audience. So historians have to seek out symbols that illuminate changes behind the scenes that have already occurred. Well, yesterday, with the mere pushing of a button, we are able to clearly and undeniably mark a shift few would have thought possible. A few weeks ago, the United States of America voted with Russia against a UN General assembly resolution condemning Russia's war against Ukraine. That vote went against a Ukrainian and European backed resolution that noted, and I quote with concern, the full scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation that has persisted for three years and continues to have devastating and long lasting consequences not only for Ukraine, but also for other regions and global stability. It called for a de escalation, an early cessation of hostilities and a peaceful resolution of the war. It also demanded Russia immediately completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders. Now, that vote was still passed by 93 votes, but that is a much lower number than in similar ones in previous years. But then it happened again. The US then voted the same way on a US proposed UN Security Council resolution that did not call the Kremlin the aggressor or acknowledge Ukraine's territorial integrity. It implored a swift end to the conflict and further urges a lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia. It mourned the tragic loss of life throughout the conflict and reiterated the principal purpose of the UN as expressed in the Charter, to maintain international peace and security and to peacefully settle disputes. Now, as one can imagine given the lack of condemnations in there, the Russian ambassador to the UN commended that brief resolution as a starting point for future efforts toward a peaceful settlement. He said the text we passed is not an ideal one, but in essence it is a first attempt to have a constructive and future orientated product by the Council, which is talking about the path to peace rather than blowing the conflict up. Now, some are speculating today that this was one of the deals struck behind closed doors at the Saudi summit between Russia and the United States, that Russia requested the US adopt a more conciliatory tone at the un. That's one way of putting it. However, European counterparts have been very strong in condemning these moves. The French ambassador to the UN said as there will be no peace and security anywhere if aggressions are rewarded and if the law of the jungle wins. That summarised the view of many Western powers present, which felt the US could have simply abstained, but chose not not to. Now, today, as you allude to Adelie, was a big day for France on the world stage more broadly, with French President Emmanuel Macron arriving at the White House for critical meetings with Donald Trump. Now, say what you want about Macron, but he is exceptional in these situations. Deferential, respectful, but not afraid to, in a firm but friendly manner, call out the American president in to his face when he believes he is wrong. In one memorable exchange, which since went viral on social media, he interrupted Trump as he tried to claim that European countries were loaning money to Ukraine and would get their money back. Macron lent over to touch the US President's arm and carefully corrected him. No, in fact, to be Frank, we paid 60% of the total effort. It was through the like the US loans, guarantees, grants, we provided real money. To be clear, if any money was returned, it would come back from Russian loans. Trump then smirked and then shook his head, saying, if you believe that, then that's okay with me. It came after Trump's repeated false claims that the US has funded the majority of the effort to help Ukraine, not Europe. Macron also warned that a Ukraine peace deal will not survive without American backup. That's reiterating the lines that came out of Kyiv, of course, within the last couple of weeks, he said. A lot of my European colleagues are ready to be engaged, but we do need this American backup because this is part of the credibility of the security guarantees and this is our collective deterrence capital. Now, one casual remark by Trump in response to a reporter's question may prove especially significant. When the president said that Putin will accept European peacekeepers in in Ukraine, he said, I specifically asked Putin that question. He has no problem with it. Now, the Kremlin, unsurprisingly, has since denied that today in the strongest possible terms. Now, the other major French intervention is that Paris is allegedly ready to use its nuclear deterrent to help protect Europe. That's coming straight from our paper, the Telegraph. Fighter jets carrying nuclear weapons could be deployed to Germany as the US threatens to withdraw its forces from Europe. Friedrich Merz, expected to be the next German Chancellor, of course, after winning his country's elections on Sunday, has called on Britain and France to extend their nuclear protection as he seeks interdependence for Europe from Trump's America. Now, a French official told the Telegraph that deploying fighter jets would send a message to Putin, while diplomats in Berlin suggested it would pressure the British prime minister, Keir Starmer, to do the same. Now, if London does do something like that, rather than just this pledge Don was talking about, of changes in decimal points on defence spending that would be arguably more valuable and leave it less exposed to criticism from the Trump team. That said, though, we shouldn't underplay the major development of Starmer committing to raising defence spending. As Dom just covered, it is quite a significant moment for Britain, and it's happened in quite short order. But will it be enough? The Wall Street Journal reports that without US military aid, Ukraine has enough weapons to keep fighting at its current pace until the summer. But after that, Kyiv could find itself short of ammunition and unable to use most of its most sophisticated weaponry. Thus, Europe has to make more historic decisions very soon. There is some evidence that the eu, under Kyokallis influence, is seeking to be more robust, with the latest evidence of that being that the organization has proposed that Ukraine conclude a mutually beneficial deal for access to critical resources on more favorable terms than the version currently offered by the us. That was something that Dmytro Kuluba pointed out, which I addressed yesterday. The fact that actually, Europe already has stakes in the critical minerals that are currently on the table in those talks with Washington. So it's interesting to see that the EU has chosen this moment to pipe up about that. Now, if it's serious, Ukraine could walk away, in theory, from the US offer. Although I'll be frank, I think it feels unlikely, given the mood music at the moment, because of the strategic advantages for Kyiv of being tied economically, politically to the us, even on unfavorable terms. Indeed, it's widely reported that the US and Ukraine are closing in on that minerals agreement, which is considerably different to that one that we were talking about a week ago. That was, well, basically a kind of Versailles Treaty for Ukraine. Ukraine. It will be worth still, though, hundreds of billions of dollars under which the US could express its desire to keep Ukraine free, sovereign and secure, according to a draft obtained by Axios. But again, many will ask, how meaningful are those words without security guarantees? I should just add to conclude that the second Russia US meeting is set for today in Rhea following the February 18 talks led by Lavrov and Marco Rubio. That's coming from diplomat sources cited by Die Zeit German newspaper. And yet the Kyiv Independent are reporting Russian sources are saying that no such talks are scheduled for today. We will see whether any took place tomorrow. But to wrap up Adli, time is running out for Europe now to shape events rather than merely react to them. Watch this space. Thank you, Francis. I want to chat a little bit about some of these key updates and I want to pick both of your brains. Shall I start with your brain, Dom? I want to hear your thoughts on France and its complicated relationship to NATO. I think I may live to regret this, but let's see where that takes us. We know that in the second half of the 20th century, France has been a bit of a maverick on the defence landscape. It has shunned NATO for several decades before joining again under Sarkozy. It is still not part of NATO's military command and it's not declared its nuclear arsenal to NATO either. Now, if the transatlantic alliance is in trouble and potentially breaking down, is it France's moment where they can step up and provide nuclear cover for the rest of the continent?
- [24:38]
B
Well, in a word, Adelaide, and I'm glad that there's two studios in between us when I say this, but no, I think, actually, no, I suppose it's a we. I mean they could do. I think there's an absolute snowballs chance in hell that they, that they ever would. So you're right, France has, has had a reasonably, well, a very French relationship with NATO. It's a little bit sort of shruggy, a little bit sort of hoofy, puffy. We're in, we're out, we like it, we don't like it, all the rest of it. France was one of the 12 founding members of NATO, but a little bit testy relationship since then. 1966 France withdrew from the integrated military command so it was still there politically, but not on the sort of heavy metal side. Went back in 2009 so is now part of the integrated military command. Has taken part in many peacekeeping operations. NATO and UN deployed lots of troops all over the place. You know, has stepped up, done its bit. I've served on operations with French forces. They do do turn up eventually. France has not declared its nuclear capability to NATO. And I don't mean declared as in admitted to it, but actually declared in the sense of offering it as a weapon system to NATO. The US and Britain have. So I just think it's not going to happen. So France's nuclear deterrent is contained in their submarines and they have an air capability as well. So yes, there are French fighters that can, that can deploy nuclear missiles. So this diplomat that's been quoted on the rounds of is in our paper. I think it's quoted elsewhere as well today that sending some of these planes to Germany for example or anywhere else could be helpfully ambiguous. Putin wouldn't know if they're armed with nuclear weapons and so on and so forth. Well, firstly I think Russia would know they would be able to spot them. They'd just tell if there had been a ramp up in posture such that France was moving nuclear weapons around the continent and secondly, to go from a position now where France has not even declared that is offered its nuclear arsenal to NATO to suddenly go to oh, but we're going to cover the continent in some kind of ad hoc arrangement. We'll make it up on the fly. We'll see what happens next week. It's just not going to happen. When it comes to nuclear diplomacy, nothing happens quickly and nothing happens without great thought and a lot of discussion even on this most sensitive of subjects. But the allies do speak. They don't talk about specific capabilities and readiness and that kind of stuff. But something as political as this, then I don't think France would take that move. They could do. Of course they could. But I really can't see it. I think it's somewhat fanciful to think that they'd suddenly make that leap. I don't. By this argument, people say, oh, the nuclear weapons, they're a political weapon. They're not a, they're not a sort of military weapon. They are political. It's like, no, they're bloody. They're a military weapon as well. Okay. Or you could say that everything is a political weapon. Every 5.56 round that you fire at somebody is a political act. I also don't really buy this idea. I'm sorry, a bit of a segue here, but I know you really wanted to know this idea that Britain's nuclear deterrent, it's worth the 60 billion quid or whatever dreadnought is going to cost the next generation of bomber submarines is going to cost because it's used every day as a deterrent force. It's used every day. I was like, okay, well has that deterrent force been used? Did it deter Putin from invading Ukraine? I know Ukraine is not covered by NATO, but as we, you could argue that he's using his nuclear deterrent every day because particularly under the last White House. But Europe, you're on the naughty step here as well. We self deterred and we bought into this escalation argument and we did pay close attention, as you should do, but perhaps too much attention to Russia's nuclear saber rattling and you could argue that he didn't pay any attention to ours. So is it a deterrent that's used every day? Questions on a postcard. I'm sorry, I've been a bit rambly there, Adlai. It's a long way of a very short answer, but I really can't see there's any way at all that France would take the step to unilaterally and with very little experience in this regard in the past, suddenly declare that they're going to cover the European continent with a nuclear umbrella. Just not going to happen.
- [28:43]
A
Thank you, Dom. I could be cheeky and say that indeed France's relationship to NATO is quite similar to the UK's relationship to the European Union. It's all very Je Taitai Moyne plus, I think. But let's turn to Francis. I want to ask you about Europe's mineral deal. Do you think it's worth it for Ukraine? And do you think if the EU offers a better deal than America, should Ukraine go for it? Well, history will judge, I think, Adelaide, it's very unlikely that the Europe deal will be accepted by Kyiv. I think the mood music is that the Ukrainians will sign a deal with Washington simply for, as I mentioned earlier, on strategic reasons. They think that having the United States have an economic stake in Ukraine's future is essential at this pivotal moment of the war. Yes, Washington has Ukraine over a barrel, but that is the reality of where we are. Until Europe can be more proactive, I think there's a chance that the reason Europe has put this deal on the table is that they know it won't be accepted. But it does put pressure on Washington to perhaps give better terms to Kyiv. I don't have any evidence for that, but it's just speculation on my part. But I think we just need to accept that the situation Kyiv is in at the moment is such that as long as it is not signing a deal, which is on that Versailles level, which we talked about last week, as long as it is fairly reasonable, and I use that in the loosest possible sense of that word, then it means it will be worth it for the strategic elements of it, rather than the financial economic ones further down the line, because it is absolutely pivotal from Ukraine's position at the moment that it has some buy in from the United States because the threat otherwise is that the US Will cut them off entirely or indeed use it as an excuse. I should say, though, that the other aspect of this is whether. Whether it's all really for the birds to think that Washington can be won round, that indeed the decisions have already been made, the philosophy already articulated, that the White House's sympathies are with Russia, and that actually it would be better placed to align with Europe, given the decisions that are already going to be made and have been made behind Kyiv's back. But I think the calculations in Kyiv are such that it's just too early to completely cement that severance. They've got to try and keep Washington on side, and I think that's what they're trying to do. On Friday, before an event organized by the Ukrainian Institute of London held at the Royal Society of Arts, Francis sat down with Dmytro Kuleba, the former Foreign Minister of Ukraine from 2020 to September 2024. As longtime listeners to the podcast will recall, he was one of the key players in the war, in charge of the diplomatic corps and the realization of Kyiv's foreign policy. It was he who is often speaking directly to Western leaders at the most pivotal moments of decision. You'll hear his assessment of where we are in the war, his assessment of key choices he made, and his memories of the first Hours of the four scale invasion. This is their conversation. I want to start, if I may, with a statement you made to the Financial Times in December. You said, do we today have the means and tools to turn the tables and change the trajectory of how things are happening? No, we don't. And if it continues like this, we will lose the war. Of course, those remarks were before the events of the past week or so with President Trump. How do you feel at this moment?
- [32:26]
C
I'm afraid I have to stick to the words that I used back in November or December last year. There is very little that could be said in addition to what has already been said by key stakeholders on this over the last two weeks. Except that it is also Europe now that is on the same trajectory with Ukraine. It found itself despised by the new U.S. administration and following the famous, or rather infamous, speech by Jay Lewen's vice president at Munich. So now I feel that Europe feels itself to be in one boat with Ukraine more than ever. It's not that it wasn't, but now this bond seems to be as strong as ever, and this is the only addition to where we were a couple of months ago.
- [33:21]
A
That being the case, therefore, what options do you see as being available to Europe that you think are actually politically possible?
- [33:31]
C
Well, politically, everything is possible. The politics is the art of possible. It's always about the will. When there is a will, there is a way. We've seen Europe act bravely, courageously, and over the last three years, we've seen Europe dragging on some crucial decisions as well. We've seen different Europe, but today the difference is that Europe does not have luxury of endlessly discussing matters anymore. Clock is ticking and decisions need to be made. Now, one of the most obvious decisions, of course, is to take advantage of the Russian frozen assets. Not with windfall proceeds from the assets, but the body of the assets themselves. I heard tons of arguments why this is impossible. But listen, when there is a political will to do something, lawyers and bankers will always find a way to do it. And this is the reality. And the vast majority of these assets is in European hands. They do that. They basically out the money argument from Trump's toolkit of leverages. The second thing that must be done immediately is investing, spending money on producing and purchasing weapons, not only for Ukraine, but also for Europe itself. We have to be absolutely clear. Today Europe is disarmed not because of Ukraine, but because of 30 years of negligence and ignorance of the fact that the time of war may be back one day. And it is. So I would advise my unsolicited advice to our friends from the European Union, from Britain and Norway. Ukraine appreciates everything that you did, everything that you've done so far. But war is at the gate and America is gone. Ukraine is fighting, but its resources are not endless. So the best you can do is to start making decisions in order to save Europe from the war. If you change these optics, if you begin to feel that the threat is physical, then we will see completely different set of policies. My concern is that, that now this is the moment for Europe to escalate. But this is so much against the nature of European politics. This is the turning point, the sink or swim moment when Europe has to go against everything it knows about itself and realize that playing down the being nice to Trump is not going to help. Trump respects strengths. You do not have to go at war with him, but you have to show that you possess the quality, the feature of strength that makes him respect you. This is the only way forward. If Europe does not pass this test, we are doomed, all of us, Ukrainians and Europeans, because Putin will take it as an invitation to probe the defending the defense lines not only of Ukrainian army, but also of Europe.
- [36:47]
A
You speak of Europe, but of course there are many Europes. And I wonder whether you see this as needing to be led within, say, the European Union, or whether this needs to be a separate coalition, perhaps orchestrated by Jeff or something. Even that hasn't been thought up yet. But I wonder what is the instrument for this to take place? Or do you think that it needs to be led back by France and Britain and then other countries joining later? What would you like to see the steps to be to get to what you were just describing?
- [37:16]
C
As regrettable as it is, times of multilateralism are gone, I'm sure. And I would be on the side of these people who would counter me and say that there is still room, a potential for using our institutions to deliver. But see the result of the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, to streamline the work of the Commission on Defense and supporting Ukraine. But current procedures give too many temptations to countries like Hungary, Slovakia, to simply play down, to slow things down. And that's why I have to say again, clock is ticking. We cannot do that anymore. With all my respects to procedures of the Commission. But if they do not find the way to avoid unanimity on the decisions that are pending, the only way out will be the so called coalition of the willing. And then whoever it is led by, it will bring together those countries who are ready to act, because this is the time to act. And what we've seen recently is the leadership of France and the United Kingdom. But there are many more countries who are willing to continue their contributions. Norway, I'm sure that Germany, following the elections, will remain steadfast in its support. Italy, Baltic countries, Poland, Nordics. I mean, there are plenty of countries that can make a difference.
- [38:47]
A
It's very interesting what you're saying there about these big organizations, whether perhaps it be the European Union or indeed NATO. That in a sense, because there are now partners in them that can, can block certain processes, it means it can be a lack of progress. I wonder if looking back to when this war began in the sense of a full scale invasion, whether you felt that you had similar stumbling blocks then. Was it the institutions like the European Union that were driving what Ukraine required, or was it actually acts of individual countries with those bigger entities slowing down the process?
- [39:22]
C
Again, if the European Union finds solutions to the problems of slowing down or blocking decision making process, I would be more than happy to see the continued action of the European Union as a whole. But they have to find a solution to that. And we cannot wait months or two until that solution is found. Let me speculate without providing any hard evidence that Ukraine has resources, its own production, European supplies and continued supplies of American assistance which was dispatched by the previous administration. And there is a third certain equation that lets you count, allows you to count for how many months will these resources will suffice. So what the European leadership has to do is a simple math exercise, do the calculation and say by our estimate, Ukraine will begin to run out of resources by, let's say, mid summer. It means with due regards to our decision making process, it means that we have to make all the decisions within one month and that's it. And then you get the answer of how to proceed, whether to proceed through EU mechanisms or a narrower coalition. Again, for the third, and hopefully the last clock is ticking faster than ever. It's time to make decisions and nations have to go for the solutions that allow quick decision making.
- [40:59]
A
You're speaking this evening at the Ukrainian Institute of London about the global consequences of the war in Ukraine. I wonder if you can just speak to that. We've got many listeners, of course, who are in Canada, in New Zealand, in Australia, many other places around the world. What do you, what was your message to them about the significance of what's going on European continent at the moment?
- [41:19]
C
If Ukraine loses, or if Ukraine is imposed, or if hugely unfair peace terms are imposed On Ukraine, this will be seen by the rest of the world as a manifestation of the weakness of the west, which will embolden countries who want to change borders by force or to impose their will on neighbors to follow in Russia's footprints. Because basically the message that will be out is this. It's difficult to grab someone else's land or the land that you believe is yours. It's painful, you're going to pay a price, but in the end, you're going to get it. So this will trigger disturbances, conflicts and humanitarian crisis globally, in different parts of the world. For the last three years, the world has been watching what is going to prevail, whose might is going to prevail. And if Russia succeeds in its efforts, the lesson will be clear. Russia, the effort of Russia, China, North Korea, supported by Iran, with some economic and political backing by China, wins. So why shouldn't we try the same? This is the real strength, this is the real power which takes us to the next level. Your viewers and readers or listeners may not agree with me on this, and they're welcome to argue their point, but the wealth of the west essentially comes from the outside of the west, from the good trade deals concluded by European nations, by the United States, although President Trump would definitely question how good these deals were from the relationship that the west has built over centuries, especially since the Second World War, and from the institutions it has constructed. And all of this will be gone if the rest of the world sees that the west is weak. So ultimately, first the west will begin to lose prosperity and then security will vanish as well. I understand that someone listening to us today may think that this is not going to happen within a week or months. True, that's a good point. But this is going to happen. Losing credibility in the world will be the beginning of the end of the West.
- [44:00]
A
Well, if you're listening to this 20, 30 years time, it may well have taken place.
- [44:04]
C
Internet remembers everything.
- [44:05]
A
So indeed, what I wanted to ask next then, about thinking of historians of the future, your time in office, and indeed the full scale invasion and your memories of it. If you could just take us back to that time three years ago, almost to the day. What was your reaction when you heard the news that the full scale invasion had begun?
- [44:28]
C
I had prepared myself to this news. So I knew what I had to do. I had confidence in my people. I literally sent three messages. So basically how it all unfolded, I boarded a plane in New York on the night of 23rd February, which was already deep into the night in Ukraine And I connected to Wi Fi. And the first news I saw on one of the social media is that a commercial plane that was about to take off from Brisbil Airport was ordered to return to the parking position. And I realized that this is it. Airspace is closed. There is something else in the air that is more dangerous, that poses a threat to civil aviation. So I didn't have to wait until the first Russian missiles hit targets in Ukraine. I realized what happened and I sent three messages. The first one was to my parents asking them to pack luggage, bring my son to their apartment with his luggage, and prepare for an evacuation from Kiev. The second was to my assistant asking to rebook my ticket because there would be no flight from Istanbul, where I had to catch a connecting flight to Kiev. So I went to Warsaw instead. And the third message went to the woman I love. I told her that the war has begun and she has to make sure that she stays in connected with me. My people knew what to do. So I spent a couple of hours just messaging to my deputies, ambassadors, and giving instructions. But I cannot say that it was shocking because I had lived in this reality for some time, and personally, I prepared myself for this. What I wasn't prepared for is when I boarded the plane from Istanbul to Warsaw, there was a woman who approached me on the plane and she said, I recognize you. We were supposed to take the flight to Kyiv, but now we are flying to Warsaw instead, and our children and babysitter are in Kiev. So what would you advise us to do? To go to Kiev and pick them up or to order them to leave Kyiv right now? And you know, you can be a diplomat, you can make big decisions, but when you are confronted with a life, with an issue of life and death of a specific family, child, this is where the value of your words becomes particularly unmeasurable. And at that point, I realized that I found it very difficult to give an advice, because giving an advice would be assuming responsibility. But then I said, so for a second, I turned my face away from her just to pull myself together. And then I gave her the advice. And I realized how many more painful decisions we will have to take in the days and weeks to come. And realizing that lives of people will depend on the decisions I will be making was a burden I had to come to terms with.
- [47:51]
A
Could you tell me some of those decisions that you made that you still think about as being perhaps particularly important decisions that you made, decisions that you're particularly proud of, or indeed, mistakes that you reflect upon?
- [48:05]
C
Listen, let's be Honest, if the war begins, diplomats have very little reasons to be proud of themselves because it means that diplomacy failed. We can dwell on whether diplomacy could have succeeded at all in deterring Russia and preventing the war from happening. But by definition, if there is a war, it means that diplomats failed. So this is something that I keep very clear on my mind and my consciousness. But while trying to remain humble, I think I made the right decision by focusing on weapons and sanctions and not on negotiations with Russia in the very early days of the war. So I threw myself fully into the issue of getting weapons for Ukraine and imposing more sanctions on Russia, not in negotiating with Russia. And I did it. It was a difficult decision, but I did it because I came to the conclusion that Russia will not negotiate in good faith. Russia came to destroy us, and they will use negotiations as a smoking scream. As it turned out later, my decision was not wrong. So I'm glad that I could be helpful in strengthening Ukraine's resistance to this invasion by negotiating not with Russia, but with our partners in France and making them deliver. That, I think, was the right thing to do. The biggest mistake that I made over the first years of invasion is that I should have spoken out more loudly inside of the team on some specific occasions. But when you at war, when you become a wartime diplomat, you should never forget. You still cannot ignore domestic diplomacy. And while being in the middle of it sometimes it seems that letting some things happen is a way out. But as time shows afterwards, you should have been more resolved in pushing for specific solutions or avoiding some of the mistakes made. So I'm speaking here in more generic terms because I'm of the position that mistakes should be analyzed internally during the war and publicly after the war. The goal today is not to blame anyone for anything. The goal today is to unite and learn lessons and make yourself stronger. So even although I'm not the minister anymore, I'm not part of the team, I believe that certain level of political culture should be maintained.
- [51:09]
A
There were many arguments made by the Ministry, and indeed by Ukraine generally in the first three years of the war. And one of the ones which I think is striking, that it hasn't really resonated in the same way that perhaps many expected is the subject of war crimes. And I wonder if you could reflect on that whether it was something that there was ever a decision made that we need to emphasize and focus on the geopolitical implications for individual countries, for the west, or whether actually there was never a decision, or that the evidence was that people weren't really that Concerned with the war crimes. It just seems staggering to me. And the reason I ask it now is, of course, you've got President Trump's people meeting with the Russians, and in a sense, you could argue that's mandated war crimes behavior. I wonder whether you think there was ever the possibility in a parallel, parallel universe where it would have been impossible for that to happen because Russia would have been seen as being so egregious morally. But I wonder. I'm very interested in your reflections on that.
- [52:12]
C
Well, there is a famous saying that truth is the first victim of the war, and I'm afraid justice is the first victim of peace. So this is where we are heading and we should all prepare ourselves for that. Some crimes will remain unpunished throughout this whole war. There was only one night that I spent sleepless. I could not close my eyes, and that was the night following the revelations of the recovery of the Bucha massacre. Because I felt the pain of these people, how they were tortured, killed. I felt how they had felt hopeless because no one would come to help them, to save them. And I've seen some very scary things and dreadful things in these two and a half years of my office as the minister. But nothing deprived me of sleep more than this night. So I take the issue of crimes very close to my heart. And we really tried our best. We fought for the ICC International Criminal Courts prosecution of Russia's leader, Russian leadership. We've been fighting for the Special Tribunal for the crime of aggression against against Russia. We've been fighting for strengthening Ukraine's law enforcement capabilities to register and prosecute war crimes for these crimes to be also prosecuted by the nations who have jurisdiction to do so. We've been fighting relentlessly for all of this. Now, we had a major breakthrough success with International Criminal Court when it issued a warrant for President Putin. We stumbled in the creation, on the path to creation the Special Tribunal because of the position of G7 countries who did not want to set up a precedent. A group of countries prosecutes someone for the crime of aggression because we're concerned that it may backlash at certain point. And we built an efficient mechanism of registering and investigating war crimes. But it's very difficult to get to the perpetrators. And as long as people do not see someone specifically punished for the for committing that crime, the sense of justice cannot be guaranteed. And to end where I started, I'm afraid that Russia will do everything possible. And it seems it is in a good position to achieve what it looks for, to waive itself of legal responsibility because the Russians are very diligent when it comes to legal issues, and I'm more than certain that escaping responsibility, remaining unpunished will be a big deal for them in any peace agreement that may come to life.
- [55:27]
A
One final question before I give you the opportunity to talk about anything that we haven't addressed. You said in September 2022, we know how to win and we will. Do you still have that same optimism?
- [55:38]
C
This is my most famous line from Stephen Colbert's show in New York. It was said in a completely different context in September 2022. Ukraine has just liberated substantial parts of its territories. We were on the rise and we would have been able to put ourselves in a much stronger position. But unfortunately, our friends decided that Russia should not be cornered too much. So, as our partner said, don't corner the red. I believe that sometimes it is worse. Sometimes there are moments in history when cornering the red is the only way to peace. But this opinion was not widely shared. I will stick to my words of 2022, not because I'm stubborn and I cannot realize accept the reality, but because if we are not going to win, than what was it all for? So I do not want lives and pains and wounds and sufferings and tears of loss and joy of so many people to be left in way. We have a chance to win as long as we keep fighting one way or another, militarily, diplomatically. But you do not lose when you are crushed. You lose when you accept the inavidability of losing. And we shouldn't be doing that. That's exactly what Putin wants us to do. He wants us to accept that we cannot win, and we should tell him we will, whatever it takes and doesn't matter how long it takes.
- [57:28]
A
Thank you very much for your candor today. Is there anything that we've not talked about that you would like to discuss?
- [57:35]
C
No. I can only make one last point that really came to my attention over the last weeks. I believe we are in a very peculiar moment when politicians and generals all realized that Russia poses not only a hybrid threat, but a real physical threat to the entire continent of Europe. And it's time for public opinion to accept this reality as well. Because there will be no big decisions to defend Europe unless politicians see that the need to defend Europe resonates with their voters. And it seems to me that the peoples are lagging behind their leadership. They have to understand that the time of peace is gone. As unimaginable as it is to think of the war on the streets of Britain, Germany and other countries, I'm afraid war is a normality again, has become a normality again, and people have to understand that and to support those politicians who try to to defend them and avoid the worst case scenario.
- [58:56]
A
Thank you very much for your time today.
- [58:57]
C
Thank you.
- [59:14]
A
Hey, it's Raj and Noah.
- [59:16]
B
And we're back with a new season of Am I Doing It Wrong? The show that explores the all too human anxieties we have about trying to get our lives right.
- [59:23]
C
Because we're still doing a lot of stuff wrong.
- [59:25]
B
But who isn't? That's why each week we're talking about the topics that we could all use a little helping hit with. Whether it's making new friends as an adult, managing our emotions, or even dreaming.
- [59:34]
C
We'Ll be talking to experts in their fields who are definitely doing things right.
- [59:37]
A
So the rest of us can be.
- [59:39]
C
A bit wiser and a lot better.
- [59:40]
A
Equipped to handle whatever life throws at us.
- [59:43]
B
Subscribe now and listen to new episodes of Am I Doing It Wrong? Dropping every Thursday starting January for every wherever you get your podcasts. And for the first time ever, we're.
- [59:52]
A
Gonna have full video episodes on YouTube.
- [59:54]
C
Because as long as there are things.
- [59:55]
A
To get wrong, we're going to be right here to help you do them better. Love y'. All. Well, the holidays have come and gone once again, but if you've forgotten to get that special someone in your life a gift, well, Mint Mobile is extending their holiday offer of half off unlimited wireless. So here's the idea. You get it now, you call it an early, early present for next year.
- [60:15]
C
What do you have to lose?
- [60:17]
A
Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch limited time.
- [60:20]
C
50 off regular price for new customers.
- [60:22]
A
Upfront payment required 45 for 3 months, $90 for 6 month or 180 for 12 month plan taxes and fees. Extra speeds may slow after 50 gigabytes per month when network is busy. See Terms.
- [60:31]
B
Hi, this is Matt from P1 with.
- [60:32]
A
Matt and Tommy, and this episode is sponsored by ebay.
- [60:35]
B
The cars you'll find on ebay are just different. They come with a story that you can't wait to share.
- [60:40]
A
Like this 1973 Dodge Charger on ebay.
- [60:43]
B
That has been tucked away in an Arizona Barn for over 40 years. Only 55,000 miles and somehow in great running order, it even has a rare sunroof. Suddenly, a car that was hidden for decades is being delivered in just a few clicks with ebay's secure purchase. All the paperwork handled. There are thousands of cars on ebay from unique finds like the Pont Pontiac Grand Prix SJ to daily drivers.
- [61:07]
A
And now with a new way to buy them. EBay, things people love. Well, final thoughts then. Dom, do you want to take the lead?
- [61:28]
B
Yes, thank you, Adley. I'll point folks to an interesting article by Mark Wallace in the I paper. This is on the theme of the frozen Russian assets that Emmanuel Macron spoke of in the White House yesterday. Basically, Mark Wallace is saying that if Trump. This is in his words, in Mr. Wallace's words, if Donald Trump has pulled the rug on Western security guarantees and told us to fend for ourselves, then as he said, let's start using the hundreds of billions in frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine and rearm our own defenses. You may remember some of the $300 billion worth of frozen assets were used to back a loan for Ukraine late last year. The V these assets, $200 billion, are held in Europe. They're not in the US or anywhere else. So Mr. Wallace says they're resource uniquely available to the nations being told by Washington to fend for themselves. He says, on defense, Donald Trump's message is that the USA is shutting up shop and calling time on the security structure which has kept the west at peace for 80 years. He says we must look out for ourselves and make provision for our own defense. Very well, then let's do so and make the Russian or and the Russians can pay for it. So an interesting idea there. Now, if you caught yesterday's podcast, you'll have heard Colin Freeman's exclusive interview with Boris Johnson in Kiev. They spoke about these frozen Russian assets and the idea of using not just the access to any interest on the assets, but the assets themselves. And Boris Johnson was a very firm supporter of that. If you got 10 minutes, I think that's all. It was 10 minutes or so. Worth a listen yesterday. So interesting idea on the back of that obviously came before today's announcement by Keir Starmer about increase in defence spending, although I see Ben Wallace, former Conservative Defense Secretary, is very, very critical of that, saying it doesn't go anywhere near what it should do. So numbers are doing the rounds at the moment. Don't be surprised if this issue of the $300 billion worth of frozen Russian assets comes back into the debate.
- [63:27]
A
Thanks, Dom. Francis, over to you. Thanks very much, Adlie. Just a very brief one from me to say thank you to everybody who has listened to our Ukrainian and Russian translations of this podcast. If you missed it yesterday, using cutting edge technology, we're thrilled to be able to reveal and start launching every episode of Ukraine, the latest in Ukrainian and in Russian so that it can be listened to by audiences on both sides of the battle lines and indeed in the wider region including the Caucasus and Central Air Asia. Lots of you have written in to say how impressed you are with the quality of the translation. I should say that the AI does a large part of that, but we're also extremely lucky to have fantastic producers who are native Ukrainian and Russian speakers who are able to check that for us and make edits where appropriate. So thank you to everybody. The links will be in the show notes to those who missed it yesterday and want to check out the technology. And please do spread the word to people who would be find that valuable. We've had many people who've written in say I can now give Ukraine the latest to my parents for instance, who can now listen in Ukrainian. And that's all part of it. So do please check that out in the show notes. And if you've seen the advertisements for the podcast in Kyiv at the Gulliver Mall or indeed on the Metro, please do send us photographs because we've not seen the ones on the Metro yet and we would love to. So thank you very much again for your support. Do check it out in the Show Notes. I think you'll be mind blown as we were if you haven't had a chance to listen yet and you missed that yesterday. Ukraine the Latest is an original podcast from the Telegraph created by David Knowles to support our work and to stay on top of all of our Ukraine news, analysis and dispatches from the ground. Please subscribe to the Telegraph. You can get one month free, then two months for just one pound and at3w.telegraph.co.uk Ukraine the latest deploying cutting edge technology, we also release Ukrainian and Russian versions of this podcast. These translations retain our voices and delivery so that it can reach listeners in every region of Ukraine and in those parts of Eastern Europe where Russian is still widely spoken. Links to those can be found in the podcast description to this episode. We regularly have a Ukraine Live blog on our website where you can follow updates as they come in throughout the day, including insights from regular contributors to this podcast. We also do the same for other breaking international stories. If you appreciated this podcast, please consider following Ukraine the latest on your preferred podcast app and leave us a review as it really helps others find the show. And please also also share it with those who may not be aware we exist. You can listen to this conversation live at 1pm London time each weekday on X Spaces. Follow the Telegraph on X, formerly known as Twitter so that you don't miss it. You can also get in touch directly to ask questions or give comments by emailing ukrainepodelegraph.co.uk we do continue to read every message. You can also contact us directly on X. You can find our handles in the description for this episode. As ever, we're especially interested to hear where you are listening from around the world. The latest was today, produced by Rachel Porter. Executive producers are Francis Darnley, Louisa Wells and David Knowles. Hey, it's Raj and Noah.
- [67:06]
B
And we're back with a new season of Am I Doing It Wrong? The show that explores the all too human anxieties we have about trying to get our lives right.
- [67:12]
C
Because we're still doing a lot of stuff wrong.
- [67:15]
B
But who isn't? That's why each week we're talking about the topics that we could all use a little helping hit with. Whether it's making new friends as an adult, managing our emotions, or even dreaming.
- [67:23]
C
We'll be talking to experts in their fields who are definitely doing things right.
- [67:27]
A
So the rest of us can be.
- [67:28]
C
A bit wiser and a lot better.
- [67:30]
A
Equipped to handle whatever life throws at us.
- [67:32]
B
Subscribe now and listen to new episodes of Am I Doing It Wrong? Dropping every Thursday starting January 1st, wherever you get your podcasts. And for the first time ever, we're.
- [67:41]
A
Going to have full video episodes on YouTube.
- [67:44]
C
Because as long as there are things.
- [67:45]
A
To get wrong, we're going to be right here to help you do them better. Love y'. All.
- [67:50]
B
Finding a hoodie that lasts through the season can be tough.
- [67:52]
A
The American Giant Classic Full Zip Hoodie.
- [67:55]
B
Is made to last a lifetime, so.
- [67:57]
A
You can count on it year round after year.
- [68:00]
B
The iconic Classic Full Zip hoodie is the jacket that started it all for American Giant. Custom heavyweight fleece and side panels for mobility make it the best hoodie ever. Every American Giant piece is made in America and designed to last. No exceptions. The result is durable clothing like the Premium Slub Crew Tee, no bs, High Rise Pant and slim Roughneck pant that.
- [68:22]
A
Become part of your life.
- [68:24]
B
Snag the hoodie that will bring you comfort for life.
- [68:27]
A
The American Giant Classic full zip.
- [68:29]
B
Save 20% off your first order at american-giant.com when you use staple 20 at checkout. Acast powers the world's best podcasts. Here's the show that we recommend.
- [68:44]
A
The Real Housewives is a guilty pleasure for most, but if you're looking to not feel guilty about that pleasure, tune.
- [68:50]
B
In to everything iconic with me, Danny.
- [68:52]
A
Pellegrino where I break down all the.
- [68:54]
B
Messy moments and behind the scenes antics.
- [68:56]
A
Of Bravo's popular franchise.
- [68:58]
B
On Everything Iconic, I also interview celebrity.
- [69:00]
A
Guests like Kelly Ripa, Keke Palmer, Drew.
- [69:02]
B
Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and more about their.
- [69:04]
A
Guilty pleasures, their past work, and so much more. So if you're pop culture obsessed and.
- [69:09]
B
Find yourself watching way too much reality.
- [69:11]
A
TV like me, tune in to Everything.
- [69:13]
B
Iconic with Danny Pellegrino. Wherever you listen to podcasts, ACAST helps creators launch, grow and monetize their podcasts everywhere. Acast.
- [69:25]
C
Com.