Transcript
Speaker: My bulky blender was such a pain to use, I ended up hardly ever using it at all.
Speaker: But the BlendJet 2 portable blender makes blending so easy and convenient, I use it just about every day.
Speaker: BlendJet 2 is portable, so you can blend up a smoothie at work, a protein shake at the gym, or even a margarita on the beach.
Speaker: It's small enough to fit in a cup holder, but powerful enough to blast through tough ingredients like ice and frozen fruit with ease.
Speaker: Blendjet 2 is whisper quiet, so you can make your morning smoothie without waking up the whole house.
Speaker: It lasts for 15 plus blends and recharges quickly via a USB-C cord.
Speaker: Best of all, Blendjet 2 cleans itself.
Speaker: Just blend water with a drop of soap and you're good to go.
Speaker: With over 30 plus colors and patterns to choose from, there's a Blendjet 2 to complement just about any style.
Speaker: I absolutely love the Lisa Frank edition.
Speaker: What are you waiting for?
Speaker: Go to Blendjet.com and grab yours today.
Speaker: And be sure to use the promo code ANALYTICS12 to get 12% off your order and free two-day shipping.
Speaker: No other portable blender on the market comes close to the quality, power, and innovation of Blendjet 2.
Speaker: They guarantee you'll love it or your money back.
Speaker: Blend anytime, anywhere with the Blendjet 2 Portable Blender.
Speaker: Go to Blendjet.com and use the code ANALYTICS12 to get 12% off your order and free 2-day shipping.
Speaker: Shop today and get the best deal ever.
Speaker: You are now listening to This Week Explained.
Speaker: Hello, and welcome to This Week Explained.
Speaker: I'm Tiana with Karvin as my co-host, and together we'll help you understand the complexities of our dynamic, ever-changing world.
Speaker: Let's get right into it.
Speaker: What topics are we covering this week?
Speaker: All right, we'll try to make this a quick one.
Speaker: But a lot of stuff has happened, so I don't know if that is going to be possible because we've got Russia-Ukraine, which Russia keeps stepping up their operations within eastern Ukraine.
Speaker: We have Israel-Hamas.
Speaker: We'll talk about ceasefire negotiations, where those stand.
Speaker: I want to get into this recent article from Antarctica, actually,
Speaker: where Russia has found oil within UK territory in Antarctica.
Speaker: And this could be a huge geopolitical mess going on there.
Speaker: Then there's some intelligence coming out from European nations about a possible Russian attack.
Speaker: or violent acts of sabotage within the European Union and the United States.
Speaker: We'll get into that and what to look for and how to protect yourself.
Speaker: Then we talked about the Georgia foreign agent bill.
Speaker: Well, that passed.
Speaker: So Parliament approved that foreign agent bill.
Speaker: We'll talk about all the implications of that.
Speaker: And then there was a little known exercise that went on in Taiwan between the U.S. and the Taiwanese military, and it's got China up in arms.
Speaker: right now.
Speaker: So we'll get into that.
Speaker: All right.
Speaker: Well, let's get right into it.
Speaker: What is the latest coming out of Ukraine?
Speaker: Yeah, so the situation in Ukraine continues to escalate.
Speaker: Russia has ramped up offensive operations in northern Kharkiv, which we talked about last week.
Speaker: Now, that has slowed down a bit, but it's because they're focusing on creating a buffer zone along the international border.
Speaker: And so this is a strategic move that would separate their operations from potential counterattacks and then control the flow of resources in person.
Speaker: Well, what is the significance of a buffer zone?
Speaker: So first, a buffer zone, for anybody who does it know, it's just a neutral area that lies between two or more regions.
Speaker: So in this case, it lies between Ukraine and Russia.
Speaker: Buffer zone, it's not just for show.
Speaker: It's not just to do something to show power or anything like that.
Speaker: It has quite a few uses, and they're both military, political, geopolitical.
Speaker: So it can help prevent violence in a region.
Speaker: It shields homes and businesses from maybe industrial accidents or in this case, a possible counterattacks from Ukraine trying to protect those Russian sites.
Speaker: Now, we're talking about military strategy.
Speaker: A buffer zone is like a barrier or a filter.
Speaker: So it keeps people out of key or protected areas that they're not supposed to be in, but it also allows for safe movement of the forces of that region, and it can act as a corridor connecting protected areas to each other.
Speaker: So this way, it prevents the resident populations from becoming isolated, which is what Russia's trying to show for those populations in Ukraine.
Speaker: Now, in this war in Ukraine, when the Russian forces create a buffer zone,
Speaker: along these international borders in northern Kyrgyz.
Speaker: It's a strategic move.
Speaker: They're essentially creating a separation between their operations and potential counterattacks from Ukraine.
Speaker: Russia's trying to protect their own citizens from these attacks.
Speaker: Plus, it also helps Russia control the flow of resources and personnel, their resources and personnel.
Speaker: So it's a common military strategy.
Speaker: They do it to secure the region and then protect it from their adversarial invasion.
Speaker: Interesting.
Speaker: And what about the recent reshuffling in the Russian government?
Speaker: Yeah, that was a big story this week.
Speaker: So as this new offensive started, in earnest, I would say, Russian President Putin made significant changes to his government.
Speaker: So he replaced Sergei Shoigu.
Speaker: If you listen to this podcast, we've talked about him quite a bit as the Minister of Defense.
Speaker: So he's been replaced by Andrei Belisov in that role as Russian minister of defense.
Speaker: Now, Shoigu didn't just get fired and thrown off to the side.
Speaker: He was actually put in the position of security council secretary, which on paper is a promotion, but it's really a demotion within the war in Ukraine.
Speaker: And so I say that because this reshuffle suggests
Speaker: Putin's efforts to mobilize the Russian economy and the defense industrial base.
Speaker: So it has nothing to do with the troops on the ground.
Speaker: It has everything to do with providing more money for the military.
Speaker: And that's because this is a prolonged war.
Speaker: It's a protracted war in Ukraine, and they need the finances.
Speaker: And he's also signaling that there's potential future confrontation with NATO.
Speaker: Well, what can you tell us about the new defense minister, Andrei Belisov?
Speaker: Because I've seen some articles that are claiming they're shocked that he got elevated to this position because he doesn't have any military experience.
Speaker: Yes.
Speaker: And just like in the U.S. with the, you know, the Secretary of Defense, it doesn't have to have a military background.
Speaker: But a lot of times we want someone with a military background in that position.
Speaker: Especially when you're in an act of war.
Speaker: Right.
Speaker: So that's why it's very interesting that you would put an economics guy, a finance guy, in this position.
Speaker: And that's what Andrei Belisov is all about.
Speaker: He brings a decade of involvement as the economic minister.
Speaker: He's also got a connection in domestic defense industrial projects.
Speaker: So he talked about
Speaker: Has there also been some activity on the Ukrainian side of this conflict?
Speaker: Yeah, and sometimes we forget that there's two struggles going on, and the Ukrainians are doing so.
Speaker: Don't say we forget.
Speaker: I just think the media has totally forgotten.
Speaker: Well, yeah, I do do that sometimes when I talk about the media.
Speaker: I say we.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: Yeah, we talk about it all the time, you and I. Right.
Speaker: But yeah, to your question on what's happening on the Ukrainian side, Ukrainian forces continue to strike Russian oil and defense infrastructure.
Speaker: That's the reason for the buffer zone.
Speaker: But they are limited by Western policy preventing them from using Western-provided systems to target Russian military sites because the West knows if one of those missiles or, you know, munitions reach Russia, Russia can say, well, now we're at war with NATO because you're using those weapons.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: Right now, Ukraine has to rely on their limited and depleted stock of indigenous weapons, the weapons that they create on their own.
Speaker: They've also pulled back troops near several villages in the northeast where Russian forces have been advancing since as early as last week.
Speaker: I saw an article today with Zelensky claiming that this change in the war efforts, it's the world's fault that they aren't doing as well.
Speaker: That they aren't doing as well.
Speaker: And he, you know, I think he even explicitly calls out the U.S. for holding back some of the aid for a lot of the issues that they are going through right now.
Speaker: And he had to cancel a trip to Spain and go...
Speaker: No, no, to go into Kharkiv.
Speaker: For some reason, something called him back.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: But yeah, I saw that article.
Speaker: He's basically blaming everybody.
Speaker: I mean, obviously, they never asked.
Speaker: He never asked to be put in this situation.
Speaker: But I mean, obviously, that's his take on what's going on right now.
Speaker: So what is what has the international response been like?
Speaker: Well, speaking of the U.S., U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken did express interest in a bilateral security agreement with Ukraine during a recent visit to Kiev.
Speaker: Additionally, several German politicians have actually expressed support for using NATO air defense systems to shoot down Russian drones, regardless of how Russia is going to take that over Western Ukraine.
Speaker: So they really don't care?
Speaker: They want them to be in conflict with NATO?
Speaker: I mean, I know Germany... You want to get back on the German story?
Speaker: What?
Speaker: Historically, Germany starting wars is not a good thing.
Speaker: Well, I don't think it's them that started this, dear.
Speaker: Right, yeah.
Speaker: So it's not the same thing at all.
Speaker: In the 30s and 40s, they didn't think they started it either.
Speaker: No, they didn't start this.
Speaker: Russia started this.
Speaker: I'm just playing devil's advocate.
Speaker: Well, there's no need to play it in this situation.
Speaker: Like, we know who started this, and it wasn't Germany.
Speaker: So he was also kidding.
Speaker: He's not trying to talk crap about Germany.
Speaker: He loves Germany.
Speaker: He's been there.
Speaker: Yeah, and it has, you know, my uncle lives there with his husband, so...
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: Anyways, anyways, let's move on to the other major conflict, which is the conflict in Gaza.
Speaker: Can you give us an overview of the current situation there?
Speaker: Yeah, so the situation in Gaza has intensified.
Speaker: There were all those ceasefire negotiations going on in the back and forth between Israel and Hamas.
Speaker: Well, right now what we're seeing is an intensification of gun battles between Israel and not just Hamas but various Palestinian factions.
Speaker: That's Hamas and the Islamic Jihad.
Speaker: Palestinian Islamic Jihad is what they coined as their name.
Speaker: Now, looking at some of the videos, it looks like it's really tanks have penetrated the militant stronghold of Jabalia, and that's causing significant destruction among the civilian population.
Speaker: But it is also facing strong resistance from those two Palestinian factions.
Speaker: That sounds really intense, as if things can get more intense there.
Speaker: But what about the ceasefire negotiations?
Speaker: That was the hot topic just a week ago.
Speaker: Yeah, we were really hoping something would come of that.
Speaker: But as right now, the ceasefire negotiations that are being mediated by Qatar and Egypt are nearing a stalemate.
Speaker: They're not there yet, but they're close to being a stalemate.
Speaker: That's due to Israel's military offensive in Rafah, as well as Hamas' unwillingness to compromise on the number of Palestinians released for the ceasefire.
Speaker: So this is set talks back significantly.
Speaker: Well, if you don't have the hostages to release, I can imagine they wouldn't be able to budge on that.
Speaker: There's also been some controversy over the death toll numbers, hasn't there?
Speaker: Some people are saying that they've been inflated a great deal and others are saying they were underreported.
Speaker: So what's happening?
Speaker: Where's the truth?
Speaker: You framed it perfectly.
Speaker: We've had these discussions where we've talked about inflated numbers.
Speaker: Does it even matter if the numbers are inflated because one civilian is a tragedy and that we should care about that?
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: Or your question and what you're alluding to is the fact that the UN, the United Nations, has revised its death tolls for women and children in Gaza by 50%.
Speaker: That would mean, as of right now, less than 50% of the numbers of women and children killed in this conflict.
Speaker: There's less than 50% of the numbers.
Speaker: So it was, you know, say it's 20,000.
Speaker: It's now at 10,000.
Speaker: That's still a lot.
Speaker: And they say it's because of incomplete information and also a change in data source from Gaza's government media office, which is Hamas.
Speaker: to the Gosset Ministry of Health, which, by the way, is Hamas, so take that how you will.
Speaker: But it has sparked a debate over the credibility of Hamas or the Gosset Authority's fatality counts.
Speaker: Well, if they both if they run both of those offices and they're reporting two different numbers, why would they why would why would it be that drastically different and then be because, you know, they the higher the numbers, the more infuriated the planet will be, you know.
Speaker: Right.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: So are they admitting that they kind of flung the numbers a bit or what?
Speaker: It's not really admitting that they fudged the numbers.
Speaker: It's more of a how do we look like, how can we look more credible in this situation?
Speaker: And the fact remains that even after the UN put this out, there was a real big media push to let all the population of the world know that the UN hasn't said that these 10,000 people were killed.
Speaker: They're just unsure if they were all women and children.
Speaker: So they wanted the UN backing?
Speaker: Yeah, of course.
Speaker: So let's just get the Palestine and the UN are having some tough times right now together because of some other things that have been coming out.
Speaker: We talked about UNRWA, right, having been infiltrated by Hamas.
Speaker: So the UN needs, I wouldn't say Hamas trying to find credibility, but the UN is really trying to find credibility in this because they are getting pushback from the Western nations now.
Speaker: Well, how do these numbers get verified?
Speaker: Is it as simple as the media accepting what the government officials are saying?
Speaker: Or is there someone who has the awful task of, you know, counting bodies?
Speaker: Or what?
Speaker: What is this?
Speaker: How does this work?
Speaker: Yeah, you'll hate me for this again.
Speaker: Two things can be true at the same time.
Speaker: Yes, the media, especially a media outlet like Al Jazeera, will take the information and report it as fact without doing any fact checking or investigation on it.
Speaker: That's most media these days.
Speaker: They report first and then fact check later.
Speaker: They're like, oh, well, we'll take it off.
Speaker: You know, if it turns out to be false, we'll, you know, admit it.
Speaker: But they put it out there first.
Speaker: Yeah, and this is a terrible thing about this current state of our culture globally, right?
Speaker: So let's say you're on X or Twitter or whatever looking at breaking news and stuff like that, and you see a report, and it reports 10,000 women and children killed today in Gaza, and you go, that is terrible, as you should say that.
Speaker: And you go, I don't like that, and I'm going to hate however – I'm going to react however way the media wants me to react.
Speaker: And then a day later, the media retracts that story and updates it.
Speaker: And you don't see the update.
Speaker: So now you're living your life only knowing what the breaking news was because everybody sees breaking news.
Speaker: No one sees the story republished that has been corrected.
Speaker: And that's the state of affairs that we live in today.
Speaker: And it's frustrating for someone like myself as an intelligence analyst who gets this information and then has to verify it.
Speaker: That's also why you try to wait at least 24 to 48 hours before you post anything, because when we did start this whole deal, we were trying to break news.
Speaker: And sometimes it would be incorrect.
Speaker: And we just realized we need to...
Speaker: sit on our hands and wait for more information to come out and make sure it's as factual as it can be, I guess, given the limited resources we have to do this.
Speaker: Yeah, it's more detrimental to have the information first and it be inaccurate.
Speaker: Right.
Speaker: Be the last person with the information and have it be accurate.
Speaker: Right.
Speaker: And so that's how I view it.
Speaker: That's how we view it with our endeavors on Instagram and within this podcast.
Speaker: But you asked how it gets verified.
Speaker: So typically what would happen is, so the health ministry...
Speaker: would give their count based on fully verified identities.
Speaker: That's how it's supposed to happen.
Speaker: And then the media outlets report that as complete fact.
Speaker: So how do you verify an identity?
Speaker: Well, a location is blown up, right?
Speaker: You know who's in that location, and you check those names with the people who no longer are there or whose bodies are there.
Speaker: That's not really what's going on here.
Speaker: What's going on here is something, you know, a residential area explodes and the Gossin ministry says 10,000 people were killed and they were 7,000 women and children.
Speaker: And then the media reports that as fact.
Speaker: Now the UN, to their credit, has done some internal investigations, and that is what has left the international community with over 10,000 identified bodies.
Speaker: So the Gossett Health Ministry did not give them the names of those 10,000 individuals, so they're still unidentified.
Speaker: You said identified, 10,000 identified bodies.
Speaker: Is it 10,000 identified or 10,000 unidentified?
Speaker: Okay.
Speaker: Okay.
Speaker: Yeah, just trying to speak quickly, but that got in my way there.
Speaker: Yes, 10,000 unidentified bodies.
Speaker: So they're dead.
Speaker: Are they women and children?
Speaker: That is what the UN is trying to verify right now.
Speaker: Now, independent assessments by researchers and also a British organization called Air Wars, they've been putting out a lot of...
Speaker: So what is the international response to these new figures?
Speaker: So listen, it's been confusion.
Speaker: The U.S. government, as indicated by President Biden's reference to the overall death toll, it looks like that administration views the figures as reliable.
Speaker: Now, critics, including Israeli officials and American conservatives, not within the Biden administration, they question the credibility of the U.N.
Speaker: 's, even the updated count.
Speaker: They don't even think the 10,000 figure is correct.
Speaker: And I also don't think we're going to know the true toll of the conflict until years after the fact.
Speaker: That's how war usually works.
Speaker: I truly believe that all of these numbers should be verified by unaffiliated parties to keep those that are committing heinous acts accountable.
Speaker: If that's the IDF, hold them accountable.
Speaker: Listen, the UN is not an unbiased entity in this.
Speaker: We know that.
Speaker: We've discussed it.
Speaker: There's also been some recent Israeli drone footage, as recent as yesterday, that has shown Hamas fighters in and around UN security view, as well as a drone video coming out of the UNRWA headquarters building where Hamas came out and they were firing at civilians within the building, kicking them out of the headquarters building.
Speaker: So we desperately need an unbiased group of fact checkers.
Speaker: who will fat check these numbers as well as hold both sides accountable.
Speaker: Absolutely.
Speaker: But for now, we need to pivot to another equally intriguing topic.
Speaker: From the heat of the Israel-Gaza conflict, we shall now turn our attention to the icy landscapes of Antarctica.
Speaker: I know that's a drastic turn, but this is where we are now.
Speaker: So there has been a major development that is causing quite a stir.
Speaker: What is the latest going on there?
Speaker: Russia's still trying to take other people's land just for fun.
Speaker: Just for fun.
Speaker: No, not just for the lulls or the funsies.
Speaker: Not the lulls, not for the gram?
Speaker: Not for the gram.
Speaker: I think this is the first time we've spoken of Antarctica on the geopolitical landscape.
Speaker: So we are now reaching all continents.
Speaker: Right.
Speaker: Within a global conflict.
Speaker: But what you're talking about is recently Russia made a significant discovery in a British territory in Antarctica.
Speaker: What were they doing there in this British territory?
Speaker: Well, I'll let you know.
Speaker: They were saying that they were doing scientific seismic studies underneath, which is what Antarctica is there for.
Speaker: It is for scientific analysis and discovery.
Speaker: Russia said they were doing that, and they found massive oil reserves.
Speaker: We're not talking small numbers.
Speaker: they said that the reserves are estimated to contain around 511 billion barrels worth of oil.
Speaker: We say it again, 511 billion barrels worth of oil.
Speaker: So to put that into perspective, that's about 10 times the North Sea's output over the last 50 years, not per year, over 50 years.
Speaker: Okay, well, I have another question, which is why does the UK have their own territory in Antarctica, or any country for that matter?
Speaker: That's a meta question.
Speaker: Well, I mean, come on.
Speaker: This land is our land.
Speaker: This land is your land.
Speaker: This land is our land.
Speaker: This land is our land.
Speaker: It's like nobody's land.
Speaker: It's just their land.
Speaker: It's nobody.
Speaker: Wherever they go, it's for them.
Speaker: It's a good question, but Antarctica is unique because it doesn't have a native human population.
Speaker: So we can't scream colonialism.
Speaker: But also, we can't just take it, right?
Speaker: I mean... I mean, can you?
Speaker: Well, then Russia was perfectly within that, because if Russia can go in British territory and discover the oil...
Speaker: And they can do scientific studies within all these territories.
Speaker: I don't think they're going to want to do any more.
Speaker: I think they now have ulterior motives, you know?
Speaker: Of course they do.
Speaker: Right.
Speaker: Now Antarctica is divided.
Speaker: into the different territories and it's claimed to buy a ton of countries now how we see it right it's russia u.s uk those are the big players and they're and you just show up you can just show up and plant your flag like we did it on the moon we do yeah well i mean we're not just there we also like just put the stakes down on the ground you know like we did during the oh i'm a land rush yeah exactly
Speaker: Landrush, just put mistakes there.
Speaker: This is ours.
Speaker: We're claiming this for... I'm going to go claim one for... What did we name our pretend town?
Speaker: Oh, never mind.
Speaker: I'm just going off on a tangent.
Speaker: I was trying to remember what we named our fake town that we made up.
Speaker: No worries, but I also want to say that I'm not one of the people that believed in the moon, so the moon landing was fake.
Speaker: Oh my god, shut up.
Speaker: You can't put a flag there.
Speaker: You are... He's lying again.
Speaker: Once again, just being silly.
Speaker: But I will say that this is an important matter.
Speaker: Antarctica is very unique.
Speaker: Now, it has a place that territories claimed by various countries, seven countries, in fact.
Speaker: Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, our great friends in New Zealand, Norway, and the UK have all made territorial claims in Antarctica.
Speaker: And that's basically just countries who had the assets and funds necessary to make the trek to Antarctica.
Speaker: Okay.
Speaker: So eventually, so is it divided equally among these seven countries or?
Speaker: You know, I don't.
Speaker: So it's so vast that it's tough to gauge who really owns one.
Speaker: And some of these, interestingly enough, some of these territories overlap.
Speaker: So the territories claimed by Argentina, Chile, and the United Kingdom overlap with each other.
Speaker: Oh, okay.
Speaker: Okay.
Speaker: But what these countries do, they usually place their scientific observation and study facilities within these territories.
Speaker: And these claims are mostly for research purposes.
Speaker: It's not, oh, I own this land.
Speaker: It's... Gotcha.
Speaker: I'm just going to explain it here.
Speaker: I'm doing research here.
Speaker: Don't mess with me.
Speaker: While there may be a military there guarding their space, we are not actively building a military to move people.
Speaker: And who would want to live there anyway?
Speaker: But the reason it's important is because Antarctica is a treasure trope of information about our planet's past, present, and future climate.
Speaker: But what is kind of bugging me is, like, isn't Antarctica protected by a treaty?
Speaker: Yeah, yeah.
Speaker: So that's what you're alluding to is the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, which prohibits mineral and oil developments in the region.
Speaker: Because if you don't prohibit that, then it's a free-for-all and you will have war in that region because resources are what causes war.
Speaker: Honestly, we think of it in like religion or anything like that.
Speaker: No, what causes war is land and resource.
Speaker: And the treaty was established to ensure Antarctica is used exclusively for peaceful purposes.
Speaker: It does not become the scene or object of international conflict or discord.
Speaker: I will say, though, it's important to note that the treaty does not legally recognize any of those countries' claims.
Speaker: So just because the country claims it and they fall under the treaty, that means nothing.
Speaker: It was established to ensure that Antarctica is used for peaceful purposes only, prohibits military activity, mining, and
Speaker: for minerals, also nuclear testing and nuclear waste disposal, so to not junk up Antarctica.
Speaker: So while there are territories claimed by different countries, Antarctica essentially belongs to Doha and everyone at the same time.
Speaker: That's why you see Russia, the U.S., who may not have territorial claims on some of these lands, doing scientific research there.
Speaker: It's a place dedicated to science and understanding the world that we have.
Speaker: So what does this mean for the treaty?
Speaker: Well, some analysts believe Russia, who sits there just conducting scientific research in the area, they've reaffirmed their commitment to the treaty.
Speaker: A lot of people believe that.
Speaker: But as with everything in the Russian sphere of influence, there are concerns about the true nature of Russia's activities.
Speaker: Right.
Speaker: Because why?
Speaker: They were doing seismic exercises in discovered oil?
Speaker: Sure.
Speaker: Okay.
Speaker: So please lay it out for us.
Speaker: What kind of concerns?
Speaker: It's okay.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: So...
Speaker: Some Antarctica experts suggest that Russia's activities are more akin to searching for oil and gas rather than conducting scientific research.
Speaker: Because what's the best way to find oil and gas?
Speaker: Hey, let's do some seismic research.
Speaker: These experts expressed concerns that Russia's actions could undermine the norms associated with even seismic survey research and potentially pave the way for future resource extraction.
Speaker: Well, that obviously is quite concerning.
Speaker: Everybody's just stripping what they can off of this beautiful planet of ours.
Speaker: What could be the potential implications of this?
Speaker: So...
Speaker: Well, first of all, the treaty, which is the largest of Britain's 14 overseas treaties, because Antarctica is so vast and so large, has previously faced territorial claims from Chile and Argentina and some countries that are very, maybe not very pro-Russia, but neutral towards Russia.
Speaker: Now, these claims could resurface if further drilling in the region substantiates the evidence that
Speaker: from Russia's seismic activity.
Speaker: You're going to see a lot of countries who rely on oil.
Speaker: Well, what other consequences could arise from this discovery?
Speaker: But it could exacerbate existing geopolitical tensions.
Speaker: For instance, Russia's invasion of Ukraine has already created widespread concern that a worsening relationship with the country will spark strategic competition.
Speaker: That would make it more explicit in Antarctica.
Speaker: The discovery of these oil and gas reserves could potentially reignite territorial disputes, not just on Antarctica, but across the globe.
Speaker: The novelty of such a large reserve could impact global energy markets.
Speaker: Just the news that this happens could lower the price of oil.
Speaker: That's good for the economy, bad for oil business, bad for southern Louisiana.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: I don't know if South Louisiana has ever come back from the last bust.
Speaker: I don't know if it came back from the last one at all.
Speaker: Because I know a lot of people who were in the oil field who had to change their careers because there was nowhere to go offshore or work on the oil derricks or anything.
Speaker: And from what I've seen...
Speaker: Well, I don't know.
Speaker: That could also be hurricane damage stuff.
Speaker: Like, they can't... They're still fighting hindrance claims.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: There are two factors at play here.
Speaker: Right.
Speaker: And that just shows on a state level within the United States, the shifting power balances amongst oil production.
Speaker: Right.
Speaker: East Texas is having a tough time.
Speaker: Everything that deals with off the Gulf of Mexico oil drilling...
Speaker: has really suffered with a lack of oil there.
Speaker: But I would say most importantly, not to, you know, downplay those or undermine those concerns, but for me, the most important thing as I'm looking at it is global tension.
Speaker: So the strategic value of the region is
Speaker: could now potentially lead to increased military interest and activity, especially among places like Russia, Saudi Arabia, places in the Middle East that maybe aren't so friendly to the West.
Speaker: And that could further escalate geopolitical tensions.
Speaker: Well, as that continues to develop, we need to dive into the next topic.
Speaker: There have been reports of a sabotage campaign by Russia all across Europe.
Speaker: So can you tell us more about this?
Speaker: Yeah, sure.
Speaker: Yeah, this caught my radar from some information that I was getting from businesses.
Speaker: And it looked like there's businesses that work in Europe.
Speaker: And intelligence services from three European countries have warned their own governments of a series of planned bombing, arson, and infrastructure attacks on European soil by Russian agents.
Speaker: Now, these warnings come amid a spat of sabotage attacks in Europe and the U.S. linked to the Russian intelligence services.
Speaker: Well, can you give us some examples of these sabotage attacks?
Speaker: Yeah, so some of the key incidents include the destruction of a London warehouse containing eight shipments to Ukraine.
Speaker: You can see why Russia would want to do that.
Speaker: There was a fire at an American artillery shell factory that ships products to Ukraine.
Speaker: Do you see the trend going on here?
Speaker: Another explosion at a British defense contractor's facilities manufacturing weapons for Ukraine.
Speaker: And also there was an interesting arrest of a man linked to Russian intelligence services in the great country of Poland.
Speaker: Well, obviously, that is quite alarming.
Speaker: So what about the larger infrastructure networks?
Speaker: Yeah, definitely.
Speaker: Russian agents are targeting larger infrastructure networks.
Speaker: Czech authorities have accused Russia of thousands of hacking attempts to sabotage European railway systems because they want to sabotage the ability to transport Western arms and material to Ukraine.
Speaker: Ukraine!
Speaker: You see the trend here.
Speaker: You see why they would want to do that.
Speaker: I do see a trend here.
Speaker: There's a pattern forming.
Speaker: So what's the strategic purpose behind these sabotage efforts?
Speaker: Well, some analysts suggest that Russia's sabotage efforts are part of a broader strategy to put pressure on the West, particularly as war fatigue sets in and as Ukraine intensifies its attacks on Russian soil.
Speaker: So the attacks for Russia aim to coordinate the wider sabotage campaign with Russia's ground push that we're seeing, that we talked about at the beginning of this episode, to create this greater military advantage for Russia.
Speaker: So how would these attacks or are these attacks affecting civilians?
Speaker: Well, now I know there are concerns that the attacks Russia is preparing will be carried out with little concern for civilian fatalities.
Speaker: We understand that.
Speaker: We've seen that happen for over two years now.
Speaker: But most analysts believe that the main purpose of the Russian intelligence service is to reduce Russia's adversary's ability to conduct war
Speaker: rather than cause collateral damage.
Speaker: So to shorten up a long sentence that I just said, there's really a small impact to the civilian population, even though it is Russia.
Speaker: Now, as the West continues to support Ukraine, Russia is using these sabotage efforts as a form of pushback.
Speaker: So they don't need to be targeting civilians because that's going to hurt what they're trying to do here.
Speaker: So by targeting infrastructure and causing disruptions, Russia aims to put pressure on Western nations and potentially weaken their resolve.
Speaker: There's a certain level of war fatigue setting in.
Speaker: We all see it.
Speaker: We've discussed it on this podcast.
Speaker: And that's especially true today.
Speaker: The longer this conflict in Ukraine is drawn out.
Speaker: Now, Russia might be exploiting this fatigue.
Speaker: Honestly, they're 100% exploiting this fatigue, hoping that the constant pressure and the threat of attacks might lead to a reduction in support for Ukraine.
Speaker: Well, let's stick with Russia and discuss the recent developments in Georgia.
Speaker: Recently, we discussed a new law that could go into effect in the country, but we now know that this law has passed.
Speaker: Can you give us a brief overview of this situation?
Speaker: Yes, like you said, the Georgian parliament did pass that controversial bill we discussed, and that requires media, non-government organizations or NGOs and other nonprofits to register as, quote, pursuing – sorry, let me say this again – pursuing the interests of a foreign power.
Speaker: That's the quote there.
Speaker: if they received more than 20% of their funding from outside of the country.
Speaker: 20% of their funding.
Speaker: Think about how small that could be.
Speaker: Yeah, that's such a small amount.
Speaker: Right.
Speaker: And this has obviously sparked mass protests.
Speaker: Critics view it as a threat to democratic freedoms.
Speaker: But it's also, and it is, this is 100% a threat to Georgia's European Union aspirations.
Speaker: Well, obviously, this sounds quite serious.
Speaker: So what are the specific concerns about this bill?
Speaker: There's several concerns.
Speaker: So critics of the bill argue that it threatens democratic freedoms, could stifle civil society if you're unable to speak out about certain things.
Speaker: That's mass protest, all these kind of things that stifle civil society.
Speaker: They also worry about the potential for suppression of independent media and those NGOs.
Speaker: If you don't have an independent media away from the government,
Speaker: to keep the government accountable, then that leads to corruption.
Speaker: Then you get North Korea?
Speaker: Yes.
Speaker: Sorry, I didn't mean to laugh there, but yes.
Speaker: You're exactly right.
Speaker: Yeah, you get North Korea instead.
Speaker: Now, this bill is similar to one that was actually withdrawn last year because of the massive protests.
Speaker: And it is likened to legislation used by Russia within the state of Russia to suppress independent media and critics.
Speaker: Putin uses this incredibly well.
Speaker: And that led to the name of the bill as the Russian law.
Speaker: So you said a similar bill was put forward last year, but then withdrawn because of massive protests.
Speaker: What did they change in this bill?
Speaker: Or did they just put it forward anyway, push it forward anyways, despite people protesting it?
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: So it's because right now the parliament is a pro-Russian parliament or is seen as a pro-Russian parliament.
Speaker: I think that gets skewed sometimes whenever you're a country that says, I don't think that sending money to Ukraine is a good idea.
Speaker: Or we don't, I'm isolationist, I'd rather worry about my own people than Ukraine.
Speaker: Then you're immediately dubbed a pro-Russian.
Speaker: But that's not what I asked you.
Speaker: I asked you what changed in the bill for them to be able to push it through.
Speaker: Or did they just change the name of the bill and push it through intact the way it was last year?
Speaker: Because they have a new, more favored Russian parliament right now.
Speaker: Their parliament now, in the last year, has changed from being more Western-facing.
Speaker: But if there were people protesting it, are they not protesting it anymore?
Speaker: No, they're still protesting, but the people in the parliament are different.
Speaker: So they don't care about the protest anymore.
Speaker: Okay, okay.
Speaker: That's what I was trying to get down to.
Speaker: No, I wasn't wording myself correctly.
Speaker: So, okay, what has been the response from the international community?
Speaker: Yeah, I mean, this has led to international concern, obviously.
Speaker: Even the White House within the U.S. has warned it would reassess its ties with Georgia.
Speaker: Think whatever you want about U.S. foreign relations.
Speaker: The U.S. is very important to all of these countries.
Speaker: And so if you're going to say you're going to reassess ties with the country, that's going to hold a lot of weight.
Speaker: Another major international powerhouse is the U.K.
Speaker: And the U.K.
Speaker: is minister for Europe.
Speaker: said that they were shocked at the scenes in Georgia.
Speaker: They were shocked this even passed.
Speaker: So they're reassessing their ties with Georgia.
Speaker: The European Council stated that Georgia has to respect the rule of law and democratic principles if they want to join the European Union.
Speaker: So what are the implications of this bill for media organizations in Georgia?
Speaker: Yeah, another thing, that's substantial.
Speaker: Media organizations that receive more than 20% of their funding from abroad would be required to register as organizations serving the interests of a foreign power.
Speaker: That can lead to manipulation about the reporting of those agencies.
Speaker: And so if they're reporting bad about, let's say, Russia, then Russia can come out and say, well,
Speaker: Well, yeah, but that media organization is serving the interests of a foreign power.
Speaker: So what do we care anyway?
Speaker: It could potentially lead to the suppression of independent media, something that we know because we are – whether you like it or not, we're independent media.
Speaker: I know you don't like that term media being put on us, but it's a podcast.
Speaker: So this is media.
Speaker: And it could also lead to, well, fortunately for us, we don't have 20% funding.
Speaker: We just don't have funding.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: Click the link below to fund us.
Speaker: We don't have any link.
Speaker: He's kidding.
Speaker: No.
Speaker: Buy up those blind jets, please.
Speaker: But this honestly could lead to less press freedom.
Speaker: That is terrible.
Speaker: The press doesn't have freedom to express itself.
Speaker: That's a terrible thing.
Speaker: But it also shifts Georgia's foreign policy towards Russia.
Speaker: Well, it's a complex situation.
Speaker: So what do you think the future holds for Georgia?
Speaker: I mean, it's hard to say at this point.
Speaker: Listen, the president of Georgia has said he's going to veto this bill, but there's not enough – he doesn't have enough power to do that.
Speaker: And so that – the bill's passage also comes five months before they're doing another parliamentary election.
Speaker: for Georgia.
Speaker: That is going to offer a chance to vote out the Georgian Dream Party, which, if you don't know, the Georgian Dream Party was started by a Russian oligarch.
Speaker: They've held power since 2012.
Speaker: Recently, they've gained more power, which we talked about in the last year, and that's why they were able to do that.
Speaker: So protests are expected to continue, tons of unrest, and many Georgians, the actual people, who we should be concerned about, honestly,
Speaker: are viewing this law as an existential threat to the country's survival.
Speaker: Well, once again, let's change topics from the legal landscape in Georgia to another part of the globe.
Speaker: Our final topic for the day takes us to the waters of the Pacific.
Speaker: There has been some interesting activity between Taiwan and the U.S. that I think is worth discussing.
Speaker: We've heard about a recent joint military exercise between Taiwan and the U.S. Can you tell us more about that?
Speaker: Absolutely, I'd love to.
Speaker: This is one of my favorite topics to talk about.
Speaker: Now, this exercise was conducted last month in the Pacific.
Speaker: It was not publicized at the time, obviously, but it involved about a half dozen Navy ships from both countries.
Speaker: That includes frigates, supply, and support vessels, and the drills were carried out.
Speaker: They say the U.S. and Taiwan put this out there that
Speaker: It was carried out in accordance with the code for unplanned encounters at sea, or Qs.
Speaker: This is how they justify that they can do these drills together.
Speaker: These are a series of non-binding rules that are designed to prevent an escalation of tensions, because if you have an exercise, it means, oh, are you preparing for war?
Speaker: So the U.S. and Taiwan says, no, we're just planning for unplanned encounters at sea.
Speaker: So what were the main focus areas of these drills?
Speaker: Yeah, it focused on basic operations like communications, refueling, resupplies.
Speaker: It did not involve live-fire maritime exercises.
Speaker: That would have been an escalation.
Speaker: They were not drills held to simulate encounters between Taiwanese or American naval ships and Chinese naval ships.
Speaker: Okay, well, how has China responded to these drills?
Speaker: Well, they've loved the drills.
Speaker: They think the drills are awesome.
Speaker: Of course.
Speaker: They were like, this is great.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: I hope the sarcasm came through there.
Speaker: But the Chinese Communist Party's perspective on these drills, they are seen within the CCP as a political stunt with little military significance.
Speaker: They view it as more as a move to support Taiwan independence separatists.
Speaker: They don't think Taiwan has a majority of Taiwan independence population.
Speaker: That's false.
Speaker: But China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed firm opposition, as we would come to expect, to the U.S. military's contact with Taiwan because of the one China policy.
Speaker: And they urged the U.S. to abide by that one China principle.
Speaker: At least they didn't like flat out say that they're being antagonized by Taiwan in the U.S. like they do with every other drill that we hold with the Taiwanese military.
Speaker: So, OK, from the opposite side of this, what is Taiwan's stance on this?
Speaker: Yeah, the Ministry of National Defense in Taiwan emphasized that peace in the Taiwan Strait and regional stability depend on these joint efforts by all parties.
Speaker: They include China in that as well.
Speaker: We could just all come together, kumbaya.
Speaker: and let everybody live their own lives, maybe we wouldn't have all these conflicts.
Speaker: The Ministry of National Defense stated that Taiwan's military will not take provocative actions, kind of as a statement to China.
Speaker: We're not going to do anything, so if you attack us, that's on you.
Speaker: They also said that any such actions by China would not contribute to regional peace and stability.
Speaker: Now, let's talk about the elephant in the room.
Speaker: How does this align with the possibility of a PLA invasion of Taiwan?
Speaker: Yeah, and that is the critical question.
Speaker: I think that's what everybody comes here to hear about because you're worried that this is going to happen.
Speaker: Now, the People's Liberation Army or the PLA of China has been stepping up its military activities around Taiwan.
Speaker: That's just a fact.
Speaker: They had a recent deployment of their Type 052 Delta destroyer in waters around Taiwan's outlying islands, and that's seen as a provocative action.
Speaker: However, the joint military access between the U.S. and Taiwan can be seen as a deterrent.
Speaker: And I do hope against all odds that it is a deterrent to Chinese aggression.
Speaker: It would demonstrate to China the readiness and capability of both nations to respond to any potential aggression.
Speaker: So it's a complex situation.
Speaker: There's tons of moving parts here, and it's going to be critical.
Speaker: It's going to be crucial to monitor these developments closely.
Speaker: We're going to keep talking about them.
Speaker: We're going to keep putting it out here on this podcast as they could lead to a flashpoint or a trigger for a global conflict.
Speaker: Well, thank you, Kirvan.
Speaker: Is that all you have for us?
Speaker: That's all I've got unless you have anything you wanted to add.
Speaker: Um, yeah, this week has been pretty calm.
Speaker: There hasn't been anything that really happened.
Speaker: Oh, we're done with the news, if you get to it now.
Speaker: But, uh, yeah, I mean, I don't think so.
Speaker: Oh, well, I mean, our wedding anniversary is this weekend, so.
Speaker: We have tons planned for that.
Speaker: Yeah, but that's for us to know and you guys to find out.
Speaker: No, I'm just kidding.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: You'll see the pictures.
Speaker: 18 years, though.
Speaker: 18 years.
Speaker: Oh, I'm glad you didn't do the whole Kanye lyric thing.
Speaker: I was waiting for you to do the whole thing.
Speaker: Gold digger.
Speaker: Yeah, well, it doesn't really fit because that's talking about the age of a child and not the age of a marriage.
Speaker: Two things can be true at the same time.
Speaker: No.
Speaker: Oh, my gosh.
Speaker: Well, I can hear our daughter's cat scratching at the door.
Speaker: She's very mad that she's not allowed in here right now.
Speaker: So I guess I should wrap it up for that.
Speaker: Yeah, we should probably wrap it up because she's probably messing up my carpet and then I'm going to have to kill her.
Speaker: And then then what?
Speaker: Yeah, I will also say that we, and then I'll close out this podcast, but we've had a lot of people, veterans from the military, that's just exactly what we're looking for, asked to be guests on the podcast.
Speaker: So you're going to see quite a few insightful inquiries come out in the next few weeks.
Speaker: And if you do want to come on, just email us.
Speaker: You can see our email on our website or in the show notes, anything like that.
Speaker: And let's have a conversation.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: We've had some really cool people reach out to us.
Speaker: Some very cool episodes of Insightful Inquiries will be coming out within the next couple months.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: We'll get more into that whenever we get closer to it.
Speaker: We'll have clips and stuff like that.
Speaker: But anyways, you done?
Speaker: You done, sir?
Speaker: I'm done, yes.
Speaker: So you can go get your granddaughter.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: Well, thank you so much for listening to our tiny little independent geopolitical podcast.
Speaker: We hope you found it both informative and engaging.
Speaker: If you have any feedback or suggestions for future episodes, please let us know.
Speaker: And if you would like in-depth coverage of these stories and more, follow us on Instagram at Oakland Analytics.
Speaker: Tiana, thank you so much.
Speaker: And it's all next week.
Speaker: Stay safe out there.
Speaker: This podcast is a production of Unfiltered Studios.
Speaker: If you would like to know more about joining Unfiltered Studios, please visit our website at unfpod.com for more information.
