Up next in 10
Moscow has threatened the UK with "consequences" after reports that British drones have been used to strike targets on Russia's mainland for the first time.
00:15 Henry Riley brings you the news that Russia has released a statement accusing Britain of 'escalating' the Ukraine war.
03:01 Andy Burnham responds to the accusations, saying that the UK will support Zelenskyy '100%'.
03:34 Former Captain in the Royal Navy, John Foreman, says there's something a bit 'Parklife' about the Kremlin's threat.
09:04 Caller Nick wants Henry to get a more 'rounded view' of the war, insisting that NATO actually 'provoked' Russia's invasion.
14:02 Caller David is a big supporter of Ukraine but feels like we've let them down since 2014.
17:17 Caller Rosie enters the fray to defend Vladimir Putin.
Ukraine used drones made by two UK companies as part of a so-called deep strike campaign, the Sunday Times reported.
Kyiv has stepped up its attacks on Russia this year, with long-range missiles and swarms of drones increasingly targeting military industries and energy facilities.
It has also targeted giant depots for Wildberries - Russia's largest online retailer - burning billions of pounds of merchandise and bringing the war home to the Russian public more than four years into Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Russia's embassy to the UK said in a statement on Monday that the reports "confirm that London is deliberately opting for an escalation of the Ukraine crisis" and accused Britain of "seeking to contain Russia and inflict maximum damage on it by proxy".
"London's actions will inevitably carry consequences for which it will have to answer," it added.
"The deeper its involvement in the conflict and the greater its support for Kyiv's terrorist machinery, the higher the price it will pay."
A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: "Britain stands shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine and we are committed to providing the equipment Ukraine needs to defend itself against Putin's illegal invasion.
"Russia should be in no doubt about the resolve of this Government to stand against Russian aggression, in Ukraine and against the UK and our allies."
Listen to the full show on the all-new LBC App: https://app.af.lbc.co.uk/btnc/thenewlbcapp
#worldnews #debate #LBC
LBC is the home of live debate around news and current affairs in the UK.
Join in the conversation and listen at https://www.lbc.co.uk/
Sign up to LBC's weekly newsletter here: https://l-bc.co/signup
Show More Show Less View Video Transcript
0:00
How do you explain Salisbury
0:01
How do you explain Litvinenko? Salisbury is something that is completely out of this world
0:08
in comparison to the world. So you think they were here to see the cathedral, do you, Rosie
0:14
We're used to this sort of bellicose language from Russia, but when it comes from their embassy in London
0:19
and I don't give it much credence, but I think it does merit talking about
0:23
There's this statement from the Russian embassy, which I'll read to you right at the start
0:27
I mean, it's complete nonsense, but I'll tell you what they have to say nonetheless. Reports that the Kiev regime is using British drones to carry out strikes
0:35
deep inside Russian territory confirmed that London is deliberately opting for an escalation of the Ukraine crisis
0:43
Oh, it's London that's opting for the escalation of the Ukraine crisis, is it right
0:47
While hypocritically professing a desire for peace, it goes on, in doing so, the United Kingdom is acting as an accomplice and co-perpetrator
0:55
of the bloody crimes and terrorist activities committed by Ukrainian neo-Nazis. I mean, where to start with that
1:03
Seeking to contain Russia and inflict maximum damage on it by proxy
1:07
London's actions will inevitably carry consequences for which it will have to answer
1:13
The deeper involvement in the conflict and the greater support for Kiev's terrorist machinery
1:18
the higher price it will pay. So it is basically a threat. And I'm keen to have a conversation with you this evening
1:24
about how we should respond. I'm very clear in how I think we should respond
1:29
I think this is a frustrated, murderous, dictatorial regime that is frightened
1:36
because they've spent the last four and a half years bombing the you-know-what's out of Ukraine
1:41
targeting civilians, and now, finally, Ukraine has that capability to strike back, to strike back into Russia
1:49
And without trying to simplify it too much, they don't like it. and this idea that you would pull back at this point this idea that you would view this Russian
1:59
warning with with any or you'd give it any credence for me is is absolutely the wrong approach
2:05
they have been inflicting sort of they have been going after countries including the United Kingdom
2:11
for decades they have you look at I mean for instance Salisbury we don't need to go all over
2:18
the Salisbury poisonings again, but look at the grey zone warfare which Russia has been inflicting
2:22
on the UK, targeting the UK in terms of our political systems, in terms of cyber attacks
2:26
including the disinformation wars that we've seen play out over the last few years in particular
2:32
And the idea that Russia, that the Kremlin are trying to tell us that we're the ones escalating
2:37
is obviously palpably absurd. The Ukrainians are fighting back, the Russians know we've been
2:45
helping. We've been helping since minute one of the conflict. Perhaps, I mean, in my opinion
2:48
we could have done more earlier. There were times where Russia were particularly vulnerable. But anyway, we can get into that a little bit later on. This is bellicose bluster from the
2:57
Kremlin. And I think it means we should double down on our support for Ukraine
3:01
This is the UK doing what it has long said it would do, which is to support Ukraine 100
3:09
against this illegal war led by Vladimir Putin. We are providing support so that Ukraine can defend itself
3:20
And that's been the British position all the way through this conflict
3:24
by previous prime ministers. It remains the case with me. We are not fair-weather friends
3:29
We will be there in Ukraine's hour of need, and that won't change
3:34
I mean, I've been used to reading a series of wild inflammatory statements from the Russian embassy for years
3:39
under the leadership of Ambassador Kellen. But I thought, firstly, it was set as deja vu
3:47
It was like repeating sort of the top lines, threatening us again. And also, it was a bit of park life
3:52
You know, the sort of greatest hits of Russian propaganda spewed out in one statement, which was, as you said, nonsensical
3:59
And it does reflect the fact that Russia is the aggressor here. Russia started the war
4:03
Russia killed 12 people in Kharkiv today, conducted air raids on Kiev in daylight today
4:08
as well as clamping down on freedoms inside Russia. So I think it's an attempt to deflect from current Russian troubles
4:17
There will clearly be some people who understandably will be frightened because they know that Russia has capabilities
4:23
and they will say, well, is this a chance where the UK needs to maybe tone down our involvement
4:28
I mean, I say no, I say bring it on, but I'm keen to know what your response to that is
4:33
I think there's three reasons why Russia issued this statement. Firstly, it's indeed to intimidate and scare us and try and divide us and try and weaken our support for Ukraine
4:41
I was very pleased by the Prime Minister, our new Prime Minister coming out very strongly today and previously
4:46
and West Ruti said the same, as his predecessors and their predecessors have done to support Ukraine
4:51
This is a cross-party issue which I think unites most of the country. I think secondly, it was an attempt by Russia to shift the blame for these attacks
4:58
They say they can't blame the Ukrainians because Ukrainians are, quote, fascists and neo-Nazis
5:03
So there must be a secret hand behind it. So they're trying to tell their own population
5:08
don't blame the Ukrainians, blame the British, the dasties, the British. And thirdly, it's sort of tough talking to the Russian people to say
5:15
hey, we're facing, this is a lie that Putin puts out, the collective West, NATO, we're not just fighting Ukraine
5:21
Ukraine's a proxy of trying to bring Russia down, and we're standing up to the British
5:25
And I was trying to think about how our support for Ukraine has changed, John
5:29
and my sort of very sort of note-taking earlier on was that at the start
5:34
it was all these sort of short-range, mostly anti-tank missiles. That then progressed to sort of larger artillery
5:42
Challenger tanks armoured vehicles And now we have these drones which have completely changed the game where they can hit targets we understand or indeed have been hitting targets inside Russia including various factories oil refineries There was the Wildberry Warehouse story over the weekend
5:58
though I'm not sure it's the exact same drone, but nonetheless, they have these capabilities. So
6:01
how would you respond to that, the fact that clearly our support has shifted throughout this
6:07
campaign, throughout this war? No, I think actually our support's been pretty consistent across the
6:11
strategy first is political support you know through directly to ukraine through united nations
6:16
through europe and galvanizing european action to stand solid in solidarity with ukraine and
6:22
beginning the war and since i think we see that play out through nato and the european union i think it's economic support both direct to ukraine also putting sanctions on russia to
6:29
hamper the russian war machine and third i think is the approach on the military side
6:34
you know we've led the provision of defensive arms before the invasion to try and deter russia
6:41
and we spelled out the consequences of the Russian invasion to the Russians beforehand
6:47
But since then, I think we've led the way in terms of both defensive and then offensive arms
6:52
all in support of Ukraine defending itself in accordance with the UN Charter
6:56
So I think as the technology has changed, that's fine, but actually I think the strategy has been consistent
7:00
I mean, just on these drones, most of the drones being fired into Russia are Ukrainian produced
7:06
You know, Ukraine went from 10 defence factories before the war to up 1,500 now, and they've proven extremely innovative
7:16
The furthest strikes the Ukrainians have done is 2,500 kilometres east of Moscow
7:21
So the ones we talk about the British are complementary capabilities provided, but they're not the bulk
7:27
and it shouldn't really be secret for the russians because the russians we put out a
7:32
statement saying you know in june that we're going to fund 150 000 ukraine produced drones
7:40
and that comes on top of all the other aids we provided including storm shadow so i think we've
7:44
been consistent we've been in the lead and i think it's right thing to do just to bring it back to
7:48
the uk lastly john we've clearly stepped up a lot of support for ukraine you've laid it out there
7:53
very clearly. There are financial pressures with a whole host of different aspects of UK life
8:00
as you know. We often talk about the cost of living crisis. This has been going on now for four and a half years and we want to support Ukraine. There'll be those, though, who do argue
8:09
that how much longer can we sustain this support for Ukraine, no matter how much, even if they
8:17
believe and rightly believe in the fact that it's the sort of frontline defence for Europe. But
8:22
I know you don't have a particular answer to that, but how would you reassure people
8:26
What would you say when they're worried about the level of support seemingly not ending anytime soon
8:30
I'd say that we have a £3 trillion economy, and we're supplying about £3 billion a year to Ukraine as part of the overall package
8:37
So I think it's proportionate. I think our support is in our national interest
8:41
You know, a stronger Ukraine equals a weakened Russia, equals less of a threat Russia poses to us
8:47
But I also think it's in accordance with our principles that we stand up for our principles on the international area
8:52
We don't just, like other states in Europe, fear and haul and run away when the pressure gets tough
8:58
And I think standing by Ukraine for the foreseeable future is both affordable and the right thing to do
9:03
I'd personally like to say to you, could you please try reading a book called Provoked by a guy called Scott Horton to get a more rounded view about the Ukraine war
9:13
What do you mean by more rounded view? More rounded because you've got a very one-sided view that it's all bad on one side and all good on the other side
9:21
We can all argue that Russia... One country, yeah, illegally invaded. Well, I was just going to say
9:26
we can all say Russia should not have invaded, but there are reasons these things happened
9:32
So I would just like to suggest... Well, what reasons are they then? What reasons
9:37
The Eastwood provocation from NATO, but that isn't the reason I called
9:42
But what Eastwood provocation? What was the provocation? Yeah. I've just told you
9:49
the eastward expansion of NATO. But, well, yeah, because countries were afraid
9:55
about the Soviet Union and Russia, so they joined NATO. That wasn't the reason
10:00
It's to do with big country politics. It's for the same reason that there was nearly
10:05
a nuclear war over Cuba when Russia moved troops into Cuba. America said, no, not on our borders
10:13
You can't have one rule for one country, and when another country says
10:18
Because a few countries on the border joined NATO, that justifies, or that in some way..
10:25
All right, not justifies then, but explains. Well, you've just said it's part of the wider context
10:29
I'm provoked, then fine. This is why I'm asking you to try reading this book, Provoked
10:33
But if I could make the point... Are you on commission or something? I've heard... You've mentioned this book about four times
10:39
No, and I'm not a Putin apologist either. Right, they all do that, but go on
10:43
On the discussion of red lines. Yes. Do you believe red lines are a real thing
10:48
That is such a meta question. I don't even know how to respond to that. Are red lines a real thing
10:54
Technically not, I suppose, are they? Well, they are, because people, countries have red lines
10:59
In agreements, yeah, but they're not sort of physical objects, if that's what you're asking me
11:02
Well, in agreement, it's not physical. So if you want to talk about whether we should take Russia seriously
11:08
when they talk about their red lines, we should. because there were red lines that started this war
11:16
From 1992, Russian red lines were crossed where they spoke about the further expansion of NATO
11:25
which they ignored and they protested and there was formal protest and there was discussions between America and Russia over those red lines But they always said that the final red line would be Ukraine And they proved their point
11:43
because when Ukraine was in danger of becoming part of NATO, they said enough is enough
11:49
Now, you may agree or disagree with that, but it shows you that they had a red line
11:54
Now, I don't believe that Russia would attack Britain directly. I think it would be asymmetry
12:00
Like Salisbury, for example. Well, you could say like Salisbury, but you could also argue that about the Nord Stream pipeline
12:07
which Ukraine blew up. Again, and that was a German pipeline. Hold on, we're talking about the UK here
12:13
We're talking about the UK attacks, and we've seen a campaign of disinformation
12:19
We have seen other greyscale warfare, where we've seen political interference. We've seen people being poisoned in the UK
12:28
I mean, I would say that's a direct attack. Well, I would agree with you, though, with direct attacks
12:33
but would you also agree that there are many countries around the world... Well, we're talking about the UK, though, Nick, respectfully
12:38
Alexander Litvinenko. You don't believe that the UK has ever been involved
12:43
in covert operations around the world? Yeah, of course, but we don't..
12:47
Including in Ukraine prior to the war. In what way? What do you mean
12:54
Well, we were involved in Ukraine from 2008, training soldiers and putting equipment into the Ukraine prior to 2014
13:03
What equipment? Well, you'd have to look more into that. Yeah. Is it in that mad book that you've been recommending me
13:10
Well, no. Like I said, I suggest you read a book that I told you about
13:16
and that might explain it better than I can because I'm not an expert
13:20
No, fair enough. The main point I'm making is when you look at red lines, you've got to be careful
13:24
A country will quite often put out multiple red lines, whether it's us, the Russians, America, whoever
13:32
Eventually there will be a red line that is the last one
13:37
This is one we will not tolerate. And I think if we're not careful
13:41
when we're talking about our weapons being used to directly attack the Russian mainland
13:48
that's a dangerous red line to cross. Okay. Okay, I would suggest that red lines have gone out the window
13:55
when you look at how they've broken the Minsk agreements, the Budapest memorandum
14:00
But Nick, I'm grateful you called in. It's important to hear the other side. I go back and forward to Ukraine
14:04
I've done, I think, 84 trips since they start the full scale
14:09
How come? Out of interest? Well, I take 4x4s, ambulances, fire engines to Donbass, to Kharkiv
14:16
and to front-lined areas for the military. sadly I'm too old to fight
14:23
otherwise I would have fought because I think we let down Ukraine
14:26
really really badly and sadly Ukraine's allies How have we let Ukraine, what since the
14:33
illegal invasion you're saying or Since 2014 yes 2014 we just said our hard luck guys
14:41
and all treaties that were signed ah they're not legal Certainly since February
14:48
2022 we've been one of the most prominent supporters of Ukraine, and I think we can be proud of that
14:54
Would you like to compare that support to North Korea's support for Russia
14:59
Oh, really? I mean, because there's a difference, isn't there? But I do, you know, I take your point
15:04
Yeah, it's a massive difference. We haven't deployed to the front line. Do you think that's the natural next step
15:09
I actually think somebody's got to man up, and the fact is we have numbers on our side, you know
15:16
Finland boasts about being able to raise 800,000 troops and 48 hours. Well, raise them
15:22
Put them on the border. And Sweden and Germany and the UK and Poland
15:30
And I'll tell you, the whole thing would be over within a few weeks of that happening because they would
15:36
be absolutely scared. But because everyone's standoffish, everyone's saying, do you remember Biden said
15:43
one step on NATO territory and that would be the end for you
15:49
And since then, we've had missiles, we've had drones, we've had all sorts of different threats
15:57
And nobody's responding. Let me put to you, I mean, Fred in Bristol's just texted in saying
16:02
it's mostly addressed to me, but given you largely agree with me, how many more must die in this entirely avoidable conflict
16:08
before we give peace and diplomacy a chance? Ukraine is caught between the gangster capitalists in Moscow
16:13
and expansionist NATO, which will shed any amount of Ukrainian blood to weaken it, to weaken what it sees as a strategic enemy
16:20
The likes of you are always willing to fight till the last drop of somebody else's blood, says Fred in Bristol
16:25
This idea that this is not going to end any time soon. Henry, I'll bet my mortgage that Henry..
16:32
Fred, I'm Henry. Fred in Bristol. Has not been to Ukraine. He has not spoken to the people of Dunbar
16:39
But I've been to Ukraine, and I've got a view. Yes, yeah, but I'm saying that view would not be a view
16:44
having spoken to Ukraine. I see, right. It wasn't Americans who caused the 2014 revolution
16:51
It was the people of Ukraine who were fed up of the Russian corruption in the country
16:57
They wanted to take their own lives, their own choices. The prime minister, the president who was in power at the time
17:07
was only in power because he said he was drawing closer to Europe. At the last minute, he changed his mind and said
17:13
no, we're going to draw closer to Russia. and at that point people started to protest
17:17
I just wanted to kind of have a few points You and most of the speakers who are obviously representing this country from the past and so on what they completely dismiss i think that this this uh people who are one was um
17:38
um you're you're representative of ukraine and russia no i'm not oh sorry uh just just um so
17:48
So basically, there is a lot of high degree of dismissal. And you use the words like ridiculous what they are saying or it's stupid Russia
18:00
I'm not saying stupid Russia. I'm saying the stupid Kremlin in London who are making this statement
18:06
No, but this is all connected. I don't mean the Russian people, just to be clear. OK
18:13
But even if it's not Russian people, it's the government. Because you and most people agree that this country and the United States in the past, mostly
18:25
was actually directly involved in this. It is a proxy war starting from 2014
18:35
Right. The coup, you know. You're talking about when Russia took over Crimea
18:41
Yeah, because this was after the coup, not before, you know. because when they realised what would happen with Ukraine
18:51
then they said, well, this is the Russian territory. It's always been... Because you need to inform yourself a little bit more about history
18:58
and then things will be more clear. It's not right to... Just go back to the statement, Rosie
19:05
Why was I wrong to dismiss this statement as Belico's bluster? Well, it's not because Russia is not a paper tiger
19:15
like people would like to depict it. You know, if you do some things that are not right
19:23
according to them... But we've seen that already. We've seen that already. Yeah, but there is a round line
19:28
One of your callers said, you know, they were tolerating it, tolerating it
19:32
But when it comes to attacking now... But if Russia wins this, Rosie, are you seriously..
19:37
If Russia prevails in Ukraine, are you seriously saying that they won't be emboldened
19:41
They're emboldened regardless. So you're basically saying whatever they do, we have to attack them
19:48
If they do this, they will be involved. And if they win, they will be there
19:52
While they have an illegal war in Ukraine going on, then yes, I don't think we should let it go
19:57
and turn a blind eye when it's the frontier of Europe. But if you have this attitude
20:03
then you should not be surprised if there is a response to Russia
20:07
They're doing it regardless, Rosie. How do you explain Salisbury? How do you explain Litvinenko
20:12
is something that is completely out of this world in comparison to the wall
20:19
So you think they were here to see the cathedral, do you, Rosie? We don't even know
20:23
Somebody's mentioned on your text that it's not being found. I mean..
20:27
For sure. Right. But anyway... What about Litvinenko? Alexander Litvinenko? Can you interrupt me
20:32
No, I will interrupt you because I'm asking you a question. Okay, I tell you, Rosie, fair enough, those examples are in the past
20:38
But if you are an open-minded person, could I get you to condemn today Russia jailing one of their political leaders, Lev Schlossberg, who is now no longer able to stand for election, the deputy chairman of the Yabloko party
20:52
Do you condemn that? I believe, I believe, you know, obviously this is, we have information in this country that we get and we have information that we don't get
21:02
Yes, but I'm talking about a Russian political leader who's been jailed
21:07
And I'm just very curious to know if you think that's right. I believe that he was perceived as a traitor because we are in war
21:16
He is the only anti-war party and he's been jailed. And you cannot find it within yourself to say that's wrong, Rosie
21:24
No, no. I don't really know much about it. I think because the West is only..
21:28
That's funny because you were so well informed on everything else. but as soon as an anti-war leader is arrested in Russia
21:33
there's a blackout. It seems like the representatives and LBC are doing these programs
21:39
as a propaganda war against Russia. No, no, no. See, Rosie, we have a free press here
21:44
whereas if you go to Moscow, there's no free press there. Would I be allowed to say what I've just said in Russia
21:52
do you think, Rosie? You know, there is statistics. You can't say yes, can you
21:58
No, no, no. You can't say yes or no. I don't know. I don't know. I'm not Russian. I haven't been there
22:02
But why do you assume? Do you know about Russia? You don't know if I'd be arrested for being critical of Russia
22:10
I think you do know the answer, Rosie. I think you know that it's very dangerous that political leaders are being arrested
22:16
I think you're a complete denial when it comes to Salisbury and Litvinenko. You're a complete shill for Russia, Rosie
22:22
You're shouting me down. Because you've spent the whole call disputing... You listened to Nick
22:28
You listen to Nick and I'm expressing similar views. But you are shouting me down
22:34
Maybe because I have an accent. And the British people and the British government
22:39
have an attitude to other nations as inferior to them. No, an attitude to Russia, Rosie
22:47
An attitude to a bad faith actor that is up to no good
22:52
How do you... You're taking all these views from the government. from the..
22:57
Yeah, because we have a free press. You are not supposed to say anything else
23:01
If you were, you wouldn't be on LBC any longer. Okay. Well, that's obviously not the case
23:06
But I'd much rather get a job on a UK media company than I don't think I would get a job
23:11
on a Russian media company or be allowed to say half the things, do I, Rosie
news