[Theme music starts]

RUBY:

From Schwartz Media, I’m Ruby Jones, this is 7am.

For months, Russian troops have been amassing along the Ukrainian border.

Archival Tape – American Newsreader 1:

“NATO was alarmed about Russia's military build-up on Ukraine's borders…”

Archival Tape – American Newsreader 2:

“Now one hundred and thirty thousand Russian troops and heavy machinery stand ready...”

RUBY:

While in recent days some of those troops have begun withdrawing, officials in the Biden administration are still warning that Russia is on the cusp of invading Ukraine.

Archival Tape – Antony Blinken, United States Secretary of State

“Our information indicates clearly that these forces are preparing to launch an attack against Ukraine in the coming days.”

RUBY:

But Russia has repeatedly rejected that claim, accusing the US of “nonsense and melodrama.”

Archival Tape – Vladimir Putin

“Do we want it - war - or not? Of course not.”

RUBY:

The immediate crisis stems from Ukraine’s desire to join the international security alliance NATO - a move Russian President Vladimir Putin considers an existential threat to Russia’s security. Today, former head of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Michael Costello on the real origins of the dispute between Russia and Ukraine, and what the US and its allies are getting wrong.

Archival Tape – Peter Dutton

“I think we're just on the cusp now of an all out conflict, and I think it's tragic and we'll see terrible scenes unfolding”

RUBY:

This is the first in a two-part series from 7am examining rising geopolitical tensions between the world’s superpowers.

It’s Monday February 21

[Theme music ends]

RUBY:

Michael, you wrote an article for The Saturday Paper about the situation in Ukraine. While I was reading it, I couldn’t help but think about your perspective on how you think we should be considering the crisis - it’s very different to a lot of what I've been reading and hearing in the Australian media recently. Can you tell me about your views on what’s playing out?

MICHAEL:

Well, I was engaged in diplomatic service for many, many years and foreign policy advising and one of the things I learnt very, very early on, which I think applies to all negotiation and mediation issues. An absolutely crucial part of it is you have to try and put yourself in the shoes of the person in the country you're talking to. And this was very good advice given by Sir Winston Churchill in the late 1950s. And it's advice I always follow. Before you jump in, think “How will this look from their point of view?”. If you were Russian, how would you see the last 30 years? Which began with the collapse of the then Soviet Union and the dismemberment of effectively an empire. And Russia assuming its former role in the world. So that was my starting point. And I don't think there's much doubt that there was a triumphalism about the West and understandable after all those 40 years of Cold War.

RUBY:

Mm ok so Michael - as I understand it - your perspective is that we need to try to see this current conflict through Russia's eyes - you're saying that’s important, when you consider what happened after the Cold War ended. So what did happen? And what do you mean when you refer to the ‘triumphalism’ of the West, in the wake of that victory?

Archival Tape – George Bush Senior:

“Good evening and merry Christmas to all Americans across our great country.”

MICHAEL:

Well, I think. There was an understandable view of “My God, we did it, we triumphed” in the contest between the Soviet Union empire and the West.

Archival Tape – George Bush Senior:

“The Soviet Union itself is no more. This is a victory for democracy and freedom.”

MICHAEL:

But instead of saying, well, how do we consolidate this? How do we take advantage of the peaceful collapse of an empire and try and ensure that this doesn't happen again. And even though there clearly was on the then-Soviet side, a clear understanding that NATO would not extend itself beyond its existing boundaries. That is not what happened.

RUBY:

Mmm - and so NATO is very important here. So that is the military alliance between various European countries and the US. It has its origins in the aftermath of the Second World War, but it’s significance here begins at the end of the Cold War, because that's when NATO started to grow, become more active in Eastern Europe… more countries began to join. So tell me about that expansion… and what it meant for Russia?

MICHAEL:

So gradually countries from the former Soviet Union were incorporated into NATO.

Archival Tape – George Bush:

“Today, we proudly welcome Bulgaria… Slovakia and Slovenia.”

MICHAEL:

Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland,

Archival Tape – George Bush:

“Latvia, Lithuania, Romania”

MICHAEL:

And then of course, the three Baltic states Lithuania, Estonia actually border on the Soviet Union but are very small, they joined NATO.

Archival Tape – George Bush:

“We welcome them into the ranks of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.”

MICHAEL:

So it's much bigger than it was. And that never was the plan when it was established. And if you were in Russia's shoes. How would you feel about this?

Archival Tape – Journalist:

“NATO's expansion has angered Vladimir Putin”.

Archival Tape – Vladimir Putin:

“We won't move one inch towards the East. They told us in the 1990s and what happened? They deceived us. They brazenly tricked us.”

MICHAEL:

They are instinctively, historically paranoid about their borders.

Archival Tape – Journalist:

“On NATO, Russia is looking to the future and the past. It wants NATO to promise that Ukraine will never join.”

MICHAEL:

Russia has a border with Ukraine of over 2000 kilometres. And the idea that NATO, which is expressly designed to deal with Russian, what this perceived as a Russian threat, should be actually on its borders. You can understand why they might be alarmed at that.

RUBY:

And so one of the precursors to this current crisis in Ukraine is Russia’s unwillingness to allow Ukraine to join NATO, you’re saying that unwillingness, it stems from this fear of encirclement. On top of that, there is also this issue of the promise that Russia says was made, the promise that would stop this from happening - the promise that NATO wouldn’t expand. But is that accurate?

MICHAEL:

Well, there is this learned argument about whether the promise was made or whether it wasn't. What is undoubtedly clear is it is the Russian thought I did have that undertaking And it's not a bunch of left wing Soviet lovers who say that to the contrary, Dr. Owen Harries, a very distinguished conservative foreign policy intellectual who worked for Malcolm Fraser as his foreign policy adviser and was very, very highly regarded by Kissinger and others, well he said it was undoubtedly the case that such undertakings have been given, even though there was nothing in writing.

Now it's true that Ukraine has a perfect right to apply and NATO has a perfect right to accept. I don't doubt that. But there are consequences for your actions. I use the analogy.. If Russia and/or China asked Mexico to join in an alliance with them and situated troops in Mexico. What do you think the Americans would do? Would they regard that as a threat? Mexico would have a perfect right to do it? And Russia and China would have a perfect right to do it. But would there not be unbelievable apprehension on the United States?

There was, I remember, some time ago talk of China trying to get at Port, a naval base in PNG. Imagine if that happened to us, what would our reaction be? Would we regard that as hostile? Of course we would. And I think you see that with Russia.

RUBY:

We'll be back in a moment.

[ADVERTISEMENT]

RUBY:

Michael, you’ve just been telling me about the ways in which you think that Russia’s fear of NATO, fear of invasion is somewhat justified - if you think about the history and the ways in which other countries would react in a similar position. But - I just want to push back on this a bit - because is NATO really a legitimate threat to Russia at this moment in time? Because no one is suggesting that NATO is about to invade Ukraine or even Russia. But Russia is positioning troops on the Ukraine border and has invaded Ukrainian territory in fairly recent history. So can that comparison really be made?

MICHAEL:

It's an exact comparison. What you've said is correct, I don't believe for a moment that NATO has any plans to attack Russia. So I agree with what the Americans are doing at the moment, negotiating hard, trying to find a way through this. All I'm saying is in doing so, you need to have an understanding that there may well be genuine fears on the part of the Russians about all this, given their history. Now you can pooh pooh that and say, oh, it's ridiculous to think that the West would invade them, but it has!! Not as the West, but as individual countries, Germany, France, Sweden, for God's sake had all invaded Russia successfully. Wherever you look, you find that countries live their history. History doesn't happen and then disappear from the mind.

I worked in Yugoslavia before its dissolution in 1971 - 73. It was in the embassy there. And I can tell you the various Serbs, Croats, Bosnians would talk to you about events, and upi would be thinking they were talking about something that happened 20 years ago, but they weren't. They were talking about things that happened 700 years ago as though they were real alive today. And when the Russians think about themselves, they think about the invasions that have happened to them. When Britain thinks about itself, It has obviously a nostalgia for its great empire, and that's a living thing for many of them. And it also has a huge nostalgia for the Second World War, in which they played such a prominent part in the defeat of Hitler. They live in people's minds. They're not something “well, that's over. Why do you think that”, they're real and it's real for Russia. Right now, the dominant theme in a large part of the American population is Make America Great Again. They look back on the history and think they're not what they were. So I think you just have to have this in mind when you're trying to negotiate with people that they see things from a very different perspective to yourself. You try and work a problem through sometimes you can't, but you certainly have a much better chance of doing so if you acknowledge that the other side might have a different history and different way of looking at the world than yourself.

RUBY:

Hmm. And Michael, you are the former secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, which is an incredibly senior role when it comes to Australian diplomacy and to foreign affairs. I just want to put to you that the kind of argument that you're making it could be interpreted as appeasement of Vladimir Putin. So what do you make of that?

MICHAEL:

Well, the argument I'm making is that if Russia invades Ukraine, there should be the most incredible sanctions put on them, sanctions that have never been seen before. I don't think that's actually appeasement. And I don't think there's anybody that I know of, not in the United States or anywhere else, that says we should go to war over an invasion of Ukraine, that we should fight the Russians ourselves. I don't think there's something appeasing about that.

RUBY:

Mmhm ok so if you don't think that the US should go to war - what do you think it should do, what would be an appropriate response right nwo?

MICHAEL:

Well, it may be negotiations won't work and there is an invasion, and that's perfectly possible. It's also perfectly possible that these talks, which have begun. And where Americans have put forward alternative propositions, which are significant ones about trying to modify Russia's concerns about its security, as well as meeting their own interests, those discussions are still alive. What I'm saying is in those discussions, it would be sensible to approach it with a sense that the apprehensions the Russians expressed may seem outlandish to yourself, but if you're Russian seem very real. And that reality is something that you need to try and find a way to deal with to satisfy them. I'm not suggesting for a moment that you should say ‘Sure! take over Ukraine, reincorporate in Russia, not for a second. Quite the opposite. How do you find a way where the interests of the Ukraine, Russia and NATO can be properly and decently met.

RUBY:

Michael, thank you so much for your time today.

MICHAEL:

I hope it helps.

RUBY:

Tomorrow on 7am - we explore the rising tension between China and the US and its allies, including Australia.

[ADVERTISEMENT]

[Theme music starts]

RUBY:

Also in the news today…

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has said that Australia will follow through with sanctions on Russia if it invaded Ukraine.

Morrison said Australia had “always stood up to bullying and coercion”, but he confirmed the government would not be sending troops to Ukraine.

And a modelling agent with close links to Jeffrey Epstein has been found dead in a French jail cell.

Jean Luc Brenel was being held while being investigated for rape and sex trafficking of minors.

An investigation into his death is currently underway.

I’m Ruby Jones, this is 7am, see ya tomorrow.

[Theme music ends]