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