– English Lyrics

Lyrics & Translation

[English]

For months, we've been talking about the

political efforts to end the war in

Ukraine, both in public and behind the

scenes. But as European leaders prepare

to revisit proposals for a ceasefire

this week, Vladimir Zalinski

characterized their discussions as a

plan merely to begin diplomacy. Rarely

has the Ukrainian president spelled out

so concisely his belief that Russia is

yet to come to the table in good faith.

its opposition recent evidence suggests

Donald Trump tends to share. And

following those surprise US sanctions,

the EU had been expected to finally move

to mobilize

140 billion e worth of frozen Russian

assets in the form of a so-called

reparations loan. But Belgium, which

controls the bulk of the funds,

seemingly got cold feet, and a decision

has been postponed until December. So,

can renewed energy behind the campaign

to reach a ceasefire reap any rewards

without further economic pressure being

applied to Moscow? As always, plenty of

you have been in touch and we'll be

answering all of your questions here in

the studio with our expert panel.

>> I'm Vital Shvchenko.

>> I'm Laura Got. I'm Olga Robinson.

>> And I'm Jamie Kamar Sami. Welcome to

Ukraine Cast from BBC News.

[Music]

We're going to start with a follow-up to

a topic we covered last week about what

Europe is doing with frozen Russian

assets.

>> Hello Ukraine cast. This is Michael in

Cardiff. Why are we so scared to use or

let Ukraine have the seized Russian

money? Surely it's never going to be

given back to Russia. So why not just

use it?

>> Why not just use it? Uh Laura, you're

the money woman. Tell us about it.

Against all expectations, Belgium ended

up being um the the sticking point here

at this EU summit that they held last

week where they were trying to where EU

member states were trying to find a way

to basically use these 140 billion um

euros in Russian frozen assets. So

because this money is being held in a

Belgium based financial institution

called URL,

Belgium is essentially very worried that

legally um this this season would be

very tenuous and that Moscow could send

as I've heard it phrased an army of

lawyers to Belgium to basically demand

its money back. And so essentially the

Belgian prime minister last week um

asked uh EU countries for guarantees

that they would show that they would

help shoulder the the risk. Um so he

asked them to commit um to you know if

the money is not paid back uh to

chipping in um to commit to uh also

releasing the their own Russian frozen

assets that they're holding in their

financial institutions. um the leaders

couldn't come to an agreement and so

they basically as EU um uh countries

often do they kick the can to the next

summit in December. Uh between now and

then they will try and reassure Belgium

essentially that they will they will um

share the burden and the and the risk.

But an additional problem is that

Ukraine is projected to run out of cash

by March. So clock is ticking and as of

right now we're not closer to a

solution. I mean those fears, the Russia

lawyering itself up, I mean they've been

there all along, haven't they? But but

expectations were raised this time that

somehow there was a different attitude

or a different outcome possible.

>> Well, that's right. And I think it's

just because the the that sum of money

sitting in this financial institution is

so great that it could genuinely help

Ukraine. That has a massive hole in its

budget. Um and so they have been trying

to find ways around this, but they are

also as as we were saying last week, um

there is also genuine concern about

messing with financial legislation in a

way that's never been done before. And

countries are just very worried that

this might spook um other investors or

other, you know, uh uh holders from

depositing their money in their banks.

>> Thanks, Laura. Um thanks for the

question, Michael. Well, um, let's get

on to the next one because, uh, we're

back to that word again, ceasefire.

>> Hello, Ukraine Cast. This is Steve in

Great Mulvin. I wanted to ask why in the

current ceasefire sanctions discussions,

people only talk about full ceasefire

and where troops should withdraw to, and

whether that's the current battle line.

Surely, a more immediate and easy to

achieve ceasefire would be to stop the

nightly missile attacks on civilian

targets and infrastructure. Why has the

US and Europe overlooked this possible

stepping stone? Even if Russia's allies

such as China support their point of

view re territory, surely they can't

publicly stand behind bombing civilians.

Shouldn't this be called out?

>> Let's start with where we are with

ceasefire talks, fatality. Where are we?

>> Nowhere. They've been trying to achieve

it for what almost half a year uh give

or take. And there are different degrees

of ceasefire that have been proposed and

discussed. Ceasefire in the air on the

uh on land and uh at sea uh

comprehensive partial ceasefires. There

was a ceasefire proposed for Russia's

victory day. And well um none of it

happened unfortunately. And when we're

talking about uh Russia's nightly

attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure and

civilians,

um Steve is absolutely right that uh

it's it's a very good starting point,

but the big question is how do you make

Russia stop? When it comes to countries

and politicians supporting or opposing

the targeting of civilians,

Russia's aware that it's a really bad

look to to do it. That's why they're

denying it consistently. They've been

saying, "No, no, no. We never do it. We

only target military infrastructure."

But this is demonstrably untrue. uh

anytime it happens have a look at what

you know verifiable pictures coming from

the ground and you see civilians killed

including today Zaparisia at least two

people dead

in an attack on a dormatory um so it

keeps happening

>> yeah that is that is the bottom line

isn't it that Russia denies it is doing

this targeting civilians so to get it to

agree to a ceasefire on those terms

would be difficult And then also let's

not forget that in spring there was a

talk about um energy ceasefire for 30

days that Putin proposed um in his um

telephone conversation with Donald

Trump. But then Ukraine literally a

month later was saying well they've

they've um violated it 30 times during

that period of time. Um and at the same

time some analysts were saying at the

time that Russia is using this partial

ceasefire as a effective as a decoy to

delay negotiations but also to stop

Ukrainian strikes on its energy

infrastructure which is hurting Russian

economy. Um and if we've been tracking

the oil refineries attacks um inside

Russia and you can clearly see a massive

dip in the number of strikes at around

the time that talk was happening. So

spring there was and Russia got got

their respite in the end because they

there were no attacks in in March um

April or May recorded.

>> As to why this is happening I think it's

very simple. The world community has not

given Putin enough reason to stop. It's

as simple as that. And

>> I suppose from the Ukrainian point of

view, is it in their interest to stop

their attacks on civilian infrastructure

at the moment because that's having, as

you say, an impact?

>> Yeah, because I I think partial

ceasefire, like from a Ukrainian

perspective, what they really need is a

full ceasefire. um and that would make a

difference whereas uh we know from from

previous attempts with say ceasefire war

it's happening is that Russia uses the

wristbite to you know gather troops and

uh and then prepare for future attacks.

So it's it's it has limited

benefit to like the the

partial ceasefire when it comes to

energy infrastructure strikes. It it has

only partial benefit for Ukraine because

it means they have to stop the one thing

that they have been successfully doing

in terms of trying to put pressure on

the Russian war machine.

>> It's also notable that initially you you

will remember of course it was Ukraine

that was opposed to a ceasefire. This is

the point that Vladimir Zalinski was

making. If there's a ceasefire, Russia

will use it to regroup, re- uh amass its

troops and then strike again. Following

that, when Donald Trump came to power,

he uh it seems put pressure on Ukraine

and said, "No, let's cease fire and

talk." That was a key proposal made by

Washington. Ceasefire and talk. Under

that pressure, Wim Zalinski relented and

said, "Okay, let's cease fire. We're

ready for that. Now it's Russia

essentially saying what Zilinski was

saying, oh if if we cease fire, Ukraine

will regroup and re amass his troops and

then attack us again. Well, I think to

to to your point um in terms of how

stances have changed around ceasefire or

peace, I mean, I remember just before

the Alaska summit um you know, Trump had

initially gone in uh looking for a

ceasefire and then um as it often

happens when he speaks to Putin, you

know, he comes out of that conversation

with his mind changed and suddenly um

suddenly he was pushing for full

full-blown peace. That is obviously so

much harder to achieve because if the

idea, as Ukraine has said over and over

again, if the idea is that um it wants a

just and lasting peace, there is just so

much that the two sides will not agree

on. Uh again, we've addressed we've

addressed these before, you know,

fundamental differences on on on the

essence of Ukraine as a country. And if

that is what stands in the way of peace,

to be honest, there's a really long way

to go before before we get anywhere near

um any even the beginning of a

resolution.

>> Steve, many thanks. A lot of food for

thought about uh possible ceasefires

there. And um going to turn to another

question. I think this one's up your

street, Olga. It's from Mark Pax uh who

asks on Discord, I saw a news report

about a Russian dam being busted by

Ukraine, but I didn't get any more

details. How was it done and what was

the effect? The Ukrainian dam busting.

>> Yeah, it it's actually doesn't happen

that often um as an occurrence. So, uh

this dam is located on one of the border

regions, Belgar region um on the border

with Ukraine. Um and it was struck by a

Ukrainian drone uh over the weekend uh

on Saturday. Um and it was confirmed by

the head of the um unmanned forces, so

the drone um drone units uh in Ukraine.

So they had confirmed that it had been

struck. Uh we spent pretty much Monday

and Tuesday looking at the impact of

that strike because what we started

seeing is quite dramatic pictures of the

dam being uh breached but it wasn't it

it's we're not looking at the Kahovka

level destruction because it was a drone

and drones usually have like limited um

impact when it comes

>> and the dam still stands

>> the the dam still stands. um one of our

colleagues who specialized in satellite

imagery analysis, she was looking at um

special kind of radar um imagery because

it's quite cloudy, so you can't see from

with normal pictures um the impact of

the flooding and uh you can see that

there's been a bit of flooding, but it's

not very very dramatic. Um, and what we

started seeing in the past few days is

images and videos of what sounds like

Russian servicemen, uh, usually very

close up, so you can't really verify it

where it really is, walking through

really flooded, um, positions and

saying, "Well, I'm all wet. We're trying

to move and there's nowhere to hide and

it's not great, but like these

Ukrainians." and then and it's repeat

kind of scene that you can see on social

media really difficult to locate. So

it's difficult to say. There have been

claims that some of the units um on that

cross the sky river that they have been

cut off, but it's it's really difficult

to prove it forensically because we

can't verify some of the footage um

showing them uh in those flooded areas

>> which kind of calls uh a few questions

in my mind about the Kahovka and the

long-term impact of of of that. Let's

though turn to another question that

involves a rather larger stretch of

water. Uh it comes from Mike insuri who

asks there are only two exits from the

Baltic Sea. These are narrow and their

waters are owned by Denmark and Sweden.

Could the Danes and the Swedes legally

stop every tanker of interest to inspect

their documents regarding cargo

registration, safety certification and

insurance and detain any tanker and its

officers where appropriate with a NATO

warship in the vicinity vicinity. I beg

you pardon. So it's it's an important

route. Uh there are two key Russian

ports involved in using that route to

export Russian oil. much of it uh in

violation of western imposed sanctions.

Uh Luga and Primorsk those are two

ports. Now uh as far as understand more

than a tenth of Russian seaborn crude

exports are using that route. Now uh as

for Mike's question can they do it

legally? No, they can't for uh a number

of reasons uh such as the United Nations

Convention on the Law of the Sea, which

says even if uh those straits are

technically speaking in your territory,

you are supposed to provide any vessel

with the right of passage unless they're

committing something uh atrocious such

as uh polluting the environment. So no,

they can't for legal reasons. And given

that um certain countries and certain

players are, shall I say, playing hard

and fast with international laws, there

are also very practical reasons why this

will not necessarily be a good idea. You

will remember uh when Estonia

uh back in May tried to uh to stop a a

tanker that they suspected was part of

the Russian shadow fleet. They they

tried to board it and expect its

documents because they said it it it

wasn't flagged in any country. It was

literally stateless or flagless.

Uh the tanker in question refused and

kept moving and Russia dispatched a

fighter jet which entered Estonian

airspace. So uh Russia has demonstrated

that it's prepared to uh defend its

shadow fleet and Estonia had to well

essentially back down and allow the

tanker to keep going. So if Denmark or

indeed Sweden decide to stop those

tankers, are they prepared to engage in

a military confrontation with Russia? It

keeps coming to that question. Are you

prepared to to fight Russia?

>> Let's stick with the Baltics, the region

at least, and uh we've got this question

which has come to us from Italy.

>> Hello Ukraine cost. This is Mosen from

Italy. With the Baltic states beginning

to ban Russian citizens from voting in

local elections and forcing ethnic

Russians to either learn Latvian,

Lithuanian or Estonian, will Vladimir

Putin use this as an excuse to invade

them?

>> Right. Well, there's an assertion there.

I suppose we we should deal with that

first of all. Um what who wants to take

on this question of what is actually

happening to Russian citizens in the

Baltic countries? Well, first thing I

want to say, unless I missed something

really really important and big, I'm not

sure they are um the Baltic states are

beginning to implement a new policy of

any sort. For for years, they have

consistently required Russian speakers

to to pass various tests such as

language tests, security checks in

Latia's case, for example, to become

their citizens. And as as we all know in

the vast majority of cases worldwide to

vote in elections you have to be a

citizen of that country. And when it

comes to uh language,

um what we're seeing in the Baltic

states and elsewhere across the former

Soviet Union

are individual uh governments uh making

efforts to protect their language and

restore uh its its use after decades of

suppression by the central government in

in Moscow. So this is what happened in

the Baltic states and this is what

happened in Ukraine. And in Ukraine,

yes, this is what Putin used as one of

the numerous excuses to invade. Will he

possibly use that excuse in the Baltics?

Well, it's not that he uh will struggle

to find an excuse to invade. The

question is, will Putin feel confident

enough that that invasion will succeed?

at this moment in time. My opinion is

that he is bogged down in uh Ukraine and

that will prevent him from uh launching

an open uh invasion of uh either Baltic

states or Poland uh for example

>> of NATO countries

>> of NATO countries when we're talking

about hybrid warfare uh covert

operations testing NATO's resolve that's

a different matter we've seen instances

of that already happening arson attacks,

uh, drones and aircraft violating NATO

airspace. That is still h that is

already happening.

>> To Vital's point about the cost that

would Russia would have to go for if

they they do try and invade Baltic

states. I mean, let's not forget that

they've been trying to take parts of the

Danets region, the Donbas for years now,

and the progress is so slow. Yeah, we

are seeing kind of some movement around

Bakarovsk, the logistical hub at the

moment, but the cost in terms of men and

equipment is enormous. And you know,

they're still selling it to the Russian

population as um a special military

operation, not full scale of war.

>> I suppose one thing we haven't really

addressed, Vitali, is is how important

all those sea routes are to to Russia

when it comes to to supplies. I mean, it

You know, obviously we're looking now in

the context of new sanctions on oil

companies, but in terms of supplies, how

important is all this to Russia?

>> They're important, but to an extent,

other routes are available. Uh pipelines

to China, uh the Black Sea to export oil

and gas uh southwards. So, if something

were to happen to uh Russia's sea routes

across the the Baltic, for example, that

would be uh a bit of a blow. um an

inconvenience to Russia but it will not

be lethal. The bigger question is uh

whether China and India which are buying

almost all of Russia's crude 85%

are they going to be affected by Donald

Trump's recent sanctions against Russian

oil? uh the latest I've seen uh suggests

that they are especially India are

looking for ways to circumvent those

sanctions. So uh there are reasonable

grounds to be skeptical about whether

those sanctions are going to work. So as

Olga says there are kind of physical

issues at play uh sea routes, land

routes and there are also legal and

geopolitical and economic reasons that

are hugely hugely important for to keep

on fighting Ukraine. We're talking, of

course, just after Donald Trump has had

his first meeting with President Xi in

this second term, and they were talking

about bilateral issues, but certainly I

spoke to a Republican congressman uh on

air who who visited China recently, and

he said, "Look, you know, we are going

to be talking about Ukraine. We're going

to be talking about uh China and its

role that it could play in ending the

war in Ukraine." So, interesting to see

if what possibly has been going on

behind the scenes there. If uh President

Xi uh were to

genuinely and seriously want this war to

be over, it would be over in an instant.

Putin would not be able to pursue it any

longer without China's support.

>> And and Laura, of course, we're talking

about Donald Trump. He has been

responding with talk about some kind of

nuclear testing resuming. we don't know

exactly what to to Russia testing

various uh new missiles, torpedoes. Just

bring us up to date because I know

you've been looking at this.

>> Yes, I mean in the last week alone um

Putin has um or rather Russia has

announced that it had tested the

Burvesnik missile. This was last

weekend. And then yesterday Putin

unveiled um a uh new nuclearpowered

torpedo submarine. Um, and I think if it

sounds menacing, that's the whole point.

And I think what's interesting, what's

been happening in the last probably

since uh since the Budapest summit

between Trump and Putin sort of um uh

disappeared as an option. What Putin has

been doing is he's he's been he's

militarized his messaging. I find he's

appeared uh in uniform a couple of

times, which he typically doesn't do.

He's been talking to his chief of staff,

Gerasimov. Uh he's been testing these

weapons and unveiling more. Um so I

think I think there's there's a

concerted effort here to kind of show

the West that Russia is not backing down

no matter, you know, the rumors about

how um how badly its economy is doing,

how many difficulties it's having on the

battlefield. and probably in a sense

he's also trying to speak Trump's

language because Putin knows that Trump

will generally listen to um to to big

words about big weapons and uh given the

fact that he responded um on on social

media but nonetheless responded on the

sidelines of his summit with she um last

night or in the early hours of this

morning. I mean I I think that goes to

show that he does he does listen. He

does pay attention.

>> They've tried the flattery. So they're

trying the the escalation the the

military escalation. I mean, we're

forever talking about the carrot and the

stick, and I think the stick here is the

big weapon.

>> Indeed, Laura, thanks very much, and and

thank you for watching, and do remember,

if you want more from us, you can just

search for Ukraine Cast wherever you get

your BBC podcasts. And we'll be back

next week. Until then, bye-bye.

>> Ukraine cast from BBC News.

[Music]

[Music]

Key Vocabulary

Vocabulary	Meanings
ceasefire /ˈsiːs.faɪr/ B2	noun - a temporary stoppage of a war in which each side agrees not to fight
sanctions /ˈsæŋk.ʃənz/ B2	noun - official punishment, especially by a government, for a wrongdoing
mobilize /ˈmoʊbəˌlaɪz/ B2	verb - to organize and prepare people for a particular purpose, especially for war
reparations /ˌrɛpəˈreɪʃənz/ C1	noun - money paid by a country that has lost a war to the winning country
diplomacy /dɪˈpləʊməsi/ B2	noun - the management of international relations through negotiation
infrastructure /ˈɪnfrəˌstrʌk.tʃər/ C1	noun - the basic physical and organizational structures needed for the operation of a society or enterprise
flooding /ˈflʌdɪŋ/ B1	noun - the process of being covered with water, especially due to heavy rain
export /ˈɛk.spɔːrt/ B1	verb - to send goods to another country for sale
invasion /ɪnˈveɪ.ʒən/ B2	noun - an instance of a large number of people or things entering a place and causing trouble
escalation /ˌɛskəˈleɪ.ʃən/ C1	noun - the action of increasing or being increased in intensity, magnitude, or amount

Key Grammar Structures

• For months, we've been talking about the political efforts to end the war in Ukraine, both in public and behind the scenes.

  ➔ Present Perfect Continuous

  ➔ This tense is used to describe an action that started in the past and continues to the present, often with 'for' indicating duration. Here, 'have been talking' shows ongoing discussion over months.

• So, because this money is being held in a Belgium based financial institution called URL...

  ➔ Present Continuous Passive

  ➔ The passive voice here emphasizes the money is held, with 'is being held' in present continuous for ongoing action. 'Belgium based' is a modifier, and the structure is 'subject + is being + past participle'.

• And following those surprise US sanctions, the EU had been expected to finally move...

  ➔ Past Perfect Continuous

  ➔ This tense shows a continuous action before another past event. 'Had been expected' indicates expectation prior to the sanctions, with 'following those surprise US sanctions' as the sequence marker.

• So clock is ticking and as of right now we're not closer to a solution.

  ➔ Inversion for Emphasis

  ➔ In informal speech, sentences can invert for effect, e.g., placing the subject after the verb. Here, 'clock' is figuratively ticking, and 'never ... were' would be a common structure if negative, but it's conditional tone. Actually, it's a metaphor, but focuses on 'as of now' for present urgency.

• There's an assertion there. I suppose we should deal with that first of all.

  ➔ Modal Verbs of Possibility (should)

  ➔ 'Should' here expresses obligation or suggestion, milder than 'must'. In logic, it deals with assertions politely. 'I suppose' softens the idea.

• And as as we were saying last week, um there is also genuine concern about messing with financial legislation...

  ➔ Reported Speech

  ➔ This refers back to previous discussions, using past continuous 'were saying' to report earlier statements. 'As we were saying' connects to past context without direct quotes.

• Russia's aware that it's a really bad look to to do it. That's why they're denying it consistently.

  ➔ Causal Connectors (That's why)

  ➔ 'That's why' explains reason, linking awareness to denial. 'Consistently' is an adverb modifying 'denying', emphasizing regularity.

• Well, I think I think there's there's a concerted effort here to kind of show the West that Russia is not backing down...

  ➔ Hedging and Modals (I think)

  ➔ 'I think' hedges the statement, making it subjective. 'Not backing down' is a phrasal verb for refusal. Repetition 'I think I think' shows hesitation.

• Are you prepared to engage in a military confrontation with Russia?

  ➔ Question Tags

  ➔ This rhetorical question doesn't need a tag, but implies challenge. 'To engage in' is infinitive of purpose. Similar to earlier rhetorical questions.

• Something were to happen to uh Russia's sea routes... that would be uh a bit of a blow.

  ➔ Second Conditional

  ➔ Hypothetical condition: 'If something were to happen' (unreal present), then 'would be' result. 'A bit of a blow' uses understatement for impact.