‘Dialogue Works’: Russia Unleashes Relentless Troop Waves, Overwhelms Ukrainian Forces!

I take pride in being among a prestigious group of regular interviewees for Nima Alkhorshid’s Dialogue Works broadcasts on youtube. 

The title (above) which he gave to yesterday’s 45 minute chat is revealing about the art: a certain amount of hype is essential to catch the interest of an audience that has many alternative expert discussions on line to choose from.

To be sure, the daily advances of Russian forces all along the line of confrontation in Ukraine are being recognized even by Kiev’s cheerleaders in Western media, like The Financial Times and The New York Times,  although they wishfully attribute this to Moscow’s willingness to take heavy losses,  something which is scarcely believable if you follow closely the methods that the Russian high command puts in place before every attack on the Ukrainian positions, namely devastating aerial bombing, rocket, artillery and drone strikes that destroy the defenses of the enemy well before the Russian storm brigades move in for the kill.

On the other side, some of our most respected military commentators, like Colonel Douglas  Macgregor and Scott Ritter are describing the daily Russian advance in such glowing terms that one may well expect the Ukrainian military to capitulate in a week or two, an eventuality which I believe is highly unlikely, precisely because of the deliberateness and caution of the Russian high command, as well as the appearance on the Ukrainian side of ever new  schemes to escape their fate, such as the cutthroat mercenaries from Colombia who were shown for the first time by Russian television tonight.

In this interview, I put the battlefield situation in the frame of what I see each day on Russian state television, meaning the Vesti news bulletins and the most authoritative and sober talk show and commentary, Bolshaya Igra (The Great Game) hosted by Vycheslav Nikonov .  Russian television reporting still plays down what is happening at the line of confrontation. It is being spoken of in terms of improved positioning, presumably for a major offensive still to come. The reporting from each area of the front calls out the settlements that are being fought over, what parts have already been taken by Russian troops, what parts are held by the enemy. But the war correspondents intentionally do not give you a sense of their strategic importance or of how Russia will move not a couple of kilometers forward per day but the many dozens of kilometers that must be covered to completely liberate the Donbas, not to mention reach the Dnieper river, the midway point in what was Ukraine in 1991.

Nonetheless, as I point out in this interview, there is a very significant change in what the front line soldiers are saying to the reporters today compared to several months ago. Back then it was clear that the Russians were heavily stressed from dodging the drones and return artillery fire. They faced multiple daily counter attacks here and there which they had to snuff out. Now these soldiers are clearly very confident of their superiority in terms of arms, tactics and strategy. They are, as Donald Trump told Zelensky in their recent phone call, ‘a killing machine’ that is prevailing.

                                                                       *****

Those of you who watch this interview will appreciate that it also covers a variety of topics from current international developments, beginning with a discussion of the Navy Day celebrations in St Petersburg this past Sunday. Navy Day 2024 was notable for showing off some of the latest additions to the Russian fleet, for the foreign vessels participating in this event for the first time in my decades long experience, for the foreign, mainly BRICS delegations of high navy officers who flew to Russia to take part and for a very important speech by Vladimir Putin on Russia’s response to US plans to install in Germany in 2026 long range nuclear capable Tomahawk cruise missiles as well as still to be manufactured American hypersonic missiles.

As regards the foreign participation, I hasten to add here what I did not say in the interview: that this is yet another proof that Russia’s dramatic successes on the battlefield and the obvious superiority of its weaponry compared to what the United States and NATO are supplying to Ukraine create the conditions for many countries from the Global South to show solidarity with the winner. That is simply a basic law of human behavior.

In our chat, we also touched upon the question of how Russians view Kamala Harris now that she is the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for President, what to make of Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski’s call for conscription age Ukrainian males in the EU to be sent home to join Zelensky’s army and several other noteworthy news items of the past 10 days since my last time on his program.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

31. Juli 2024

Translation into German below (Andreas Mylaeus) followed by full transcript in English

‘Dialogue Works’: Russland setzt unerbittliche Truppenwellen ein und überwältigt die ukrainischen Streitkräfte!

Ich bin stolz darauf, zu einer angesehenen Gruppe regelmäßiger Interviewpartner für Nima Alkhorshid’s Dialogue Works-Sendungen auf youtube zu gehören.

Der Titel (oben), den er dem gestrigen 45-minütigen Chat gegeben hat, sagt viel über die Kunst aus: Ein gewisses Maß an Hype ist unerlässlich, um das Interesse eines Publikums zu wecken, das viele alternative Expertendiskussionen online zur Auswahl hat.

Zwar werden die täglichen Vorstöße der russischen Streitkräfte entlang der Konfrontationslinie in der Ukraine selbst von Kiews Befürwortern in westlichen Medien wie der Financial Times und der New York Times anerkannt , doch schreiben sie dies wehmütig der Bereitschaft Moskaus zu schweren Verlusten zu, was kaum zu glauben ist, wenn man die Methoden genau verfolgt, die das russische Oberkommando vor jedem Angriff auf die ukrainischen Stellungen anwendet, nämlich verheerende Luftangriffe, Raketen-, Artillerie- und Drohnenangriffe, die die Verteidigung des Feindes zerstören, lange bevor die russischen Sturmbrigaden zum Einsatz kommen.

Auf der anderen Seite beschreiben einige unserer angesehensten Militärkommentatoren wie Colonel Douglas Macgregor und Scott Ritter den täglichen russischen Vormarsch mit so glühenden Worten, dass man durchaus erwarten kann, dass das ukrainische Militär in ein oder zwei Wochen kapituliert, was ich für höchst unwahrscheinlich halte, gerade wegen der Besonnenheit und Vorsicht des russischen Oberkommandos und weil auf ukrainischer Seite immer neue Pläne auftauchen, ihrem Schicksal zu entgehen, wie zum Beispiel die Halsabschneider-Söldner aus Kolumbien, die heute Abend zum ersten Mal vom russischen Fernsehen gezeigt wurden.

In diesem Interview habe ich die Situation auf dem Schlachtfeld in den Rahmen dessen gestellt, was ich jeden Tag im russischen Staatsfernsehen sehe, d.h. in den Vesti-Nachrichten und in der maßgeblichen und nüchternen Talkshow und Kommentarsendung Bolshaya Igra (Das große Spiel), die von Wjatscheslaw Nikonow moderiert wird. In der russischen Fernsehberichterstattung wird das Geschehen an der Konfrontationslinie immer noch heruntergespielt. Es wird von einer verbesserten Positionierung gesprochen, vermutlich für eine noch bevorstehende Großoffensive. Die Berichterstattung aus den einzelnen Frontabschnitten nennt die umkämpften Siedlungen, die bereits von den russischen Truppen eingenommenen Teile und die vom Feind gehaltenen Teile. Aber die Kriegsberichterstatter vermitteln absichtlich kein Gefühl für die strategische Bedeutung dieser Orte oder dafür, wie Russland nicht nur ein paar Kilometer pro Tag vorrücken wird, sondern die vielen Dutzend Kilometer, die zurückgelegt werden müssen, um den Donbas vollständig zu befreien, ganz zu schweigen vom Erreichen des Dnjepr, der 1991 die Mitte der Ukraine bildete.

Wie ich in diesem Interview darlege, hat sich jedoch das, was die Soldaten an der Front den Reportern heute sagen, im Vergleich zu vor einigen Monaten deutlich verändert. Damals war klar, dass die Russen durch das Ausweichen vor den Drohnen und den Artilleriebeschuss stark beansprucht waren. Sie waren täglich mit mehreren Gegenangriffen konfrontiert, die sie abwehren mussten. Jetzt sind sich diese Soldaten ihrer waffentechnischen, taktischen und strategischen Überlegenheit ganz offensichtlich sehr sicher. Sie sind, wie Donald Trump in seinem jüngsten Telefonat mit Zelensky sagte, „eine Tötungsmaschine“, die sich durchsetzt.

                                                                       *****

Diejenigen unter Ihnen, die sich dieses Interview ansehen, werden es zu schätzen wissen, dass es auch eine Vielzahl von Themen aus der aktuellen internationalen Entwicklung abdeckt, beginnend mit einer Diskussion über die Feierlichkeiten zum Marinetag in St. Petersburg am vergangenen Sonntag. Der Marinetag 2024 war insofern bemerkenswert, als einige der neuesten Ergänzungen der russischen Flotte gezeigt wurden, als zum ersten Mal in meiner jahrzehntelangen Erfahrung ausländische Schiffe an dieser Veranstaltung teilnahmen, als ausländische, vor allem BRICS-Delegationen hoher Marineoffiziere nach Russland flogen, um daran teilzunehmen, und als Wladimir Putin eine sehr wichtige Rede über Russlands Antwort auf die Pläne der USA hielt, 2026 in Deutschland atomar bestückte Tomahawk-Marschflugkörper mit großer Reichweite sowie noch zu produzierende amerikanische Hyperschallraketen zu installieren.

Was die ausländische Beteiligung anbelangt, so möchte ich hier hinzufügen, was ich in dem Interview nicht gesagt habe: dass dies ein weiterer Beweis dafür ist, dass die dramatischen Erfolge Russlands auf dem Schlachtfeld und die offensichtliche Überlegenheit seiner Waffen im Vergleich zu dem, was die Vereinigten Staaten und die NATO an die Ukraine liefern, die Voraussetzungen dafür schaffen, dass sich viele Länder des globalen Südens mit dem Sieger solidarisieren. Das ist einfach ein Grundgesetz des menschlichen Verhaltens.

In unserem Gespräch ging es auch um die Frage, was die Russen von Kamala Harris halten, da sie nun die voraussichtliche Präsidentschaftskandidatin der Demokratischen Partei ist, was von der Forderung des polnischen Außenministers Radoslaw Sikorski zu halten ist, dass ukrainische Männer im wehrpflichtigen Alter in der EU nach Hause in die Ukraine geschickt werden sollten, um sich Zelenskys Armee anzuschließen, und um einige andere bemerkenswerte Nachrichten der letzten zehn Tage seit meinem letzten Auftritt in seiner Sendung.

Transcription below by a reader

Nima R. Alkhorshid: 00:05
Let’s start with the Navy Day Parade in St. Petersburg. You want to share something with us.

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
From time to time, from year to year, I attended this Navy Day Parade, which was really just a parade of ships, as they say, going back to the early 1990s, maybe even the late 1980s. I’m married to a Russian and her father was a rear admiral, not manning a ship, but teaching at various Navy institutes, lecturing. And so he would go every year to that Navy parade. He got privileged access to the banks of Neva. And when we were in Petersburg, every few years, we would join him. And then, of course, in this millennium, I’ve gone on my own whenever I was in Petersburg in July.

01:11
However, what happened this past Sunday was, to my knowledge, quite novel. There were never, in the past, participation of foreign vessels in this naval parade. This time, you had definitely two Chinese ships, and I understand one Indian ship, perhaps something from Algeria, though it’s not entirely clear. There were always foreign delegations, but of a very specific kind. They were in the past the naval attachés in the embassies of all accredited countries in Russia. So, they would send one or two officers or just general purpose diplomats who were not necessarily all expert in questions of naval matters.

02:07
And what happened this year was not just the participation of these several vessels, but a very large delegation, primarily from BRICS countries, but not only, who came from the country of origin. That is to say, they flew in precisely to participate in this event. That never happened before, to my knowledge. And it had a very clear purpose. And that was to demonstrate the fact that these countries are on the side of Russia in the present confrontation with the collective West. The Indian presence was of course most remarkable because Modi has been always careful treading a narrow path between East and West and that he demonstrated his solidarity with Russia in a military activity is worthy of mention.

03:08
Of course the other item, which was picked up by major media in the West, was the speech that Vladimir Putin made, which was very important, and he was setting out Russia’s response to the latest provocation coming out of Washington with the acquiescence of Germany, namely the announcement that the United States would be sending to Germany in 2026 its medium- to long-range cruise missiles with nuclear carrying capability. This, as Vladimir Putin said in his speech, takes us back to the to the Cold War in the 1980s, when the United States, in response to Russian medium-range missiles, mostly SS-20s, dispatched Pershings. Also these are cruise missiles capable of hitting Moscow and other Russian cities.

04:19
There was enormous demonstration in Germany, popular demonstrations against this development, against turning Germany into a potential battlefield between the United States and Russia, because of the basing of these of these missiles so threatening to Russia on German soil. The latest announcement which seems to have been given by the United States telling Scholz what to do without even naming the towns in Germany where the the missiles would be installed. This has so far evoked no response, no critical response in Germany.

05:07
And Putin used the opportunity of this very important Naval Day parade to make a speech of considerable importance. Firstly, that Russia would be responding in a mirror-image way to anything that the United States does, explaining that Russia is prepared to forgo its moratorium on installation of missiles of this kind. In the case of Russia, he’s speaking about medium-range missiles, which would be capable of destroying virtually every city or every military installation all across Europe.

05:52
But what are we talking about? That was not in the speech, but it was on talk shows which followed the speech, in which Russian experts were explaining that what is at issue here is the expansion of the Kinzhal to a much greater range. It has, I think, it will have a 1500 kilometer range, and that will be extended and so that virtually all of Europe is covered by Kinzhals. It is also noted on the talk shows that the American decision to place these long-range missiles, capable of hitting virtually the whole of Russia, in Germany now, was justified in the remark that Russia has missiles in Kaliningrad capable of reaching US bases and other military assets in Europe.

06:54
However, as the same talk shows reminded us, those assets, Russian assets, have been there for five years, and no one said a word about them. So, the decision to now, in 2026, install these missiles from the United States is really an escalation in the war of words and potentially in military confrontation between Russia and the United States, initiated by the United States, and taking place on the territory of Europe and of Germany in particular. So, for these various reasons, his speech [on] Naval Day in St. Petersburg had considerable importance, only part of which has been picked up by the Western press.

Alkhorshid: 07:46
Yeah. In your opinion, when it comes to Europe and their policy right now, do you understand why they’re trying to convince Zelensky to continue the conflict in Ukraine? Because it seems that Zelensky tried to talk with Trump, and Trump was warning him that the conflict, the continuation of the conflict is not working for Ukraine nor for the United States. And right now it seems that Europeans are totally in favor of the continuation of the conflict. Can we understand what’s in their mind?

Doctorow: 08:24
Well, in that telephone conversation between Zelensky and Trump, to which you’re alluding, we only know what one side said, or what one side says that he said, that is Trump’s going to the press and saying that he reminded Zelensky that Russia is a war machine, and that Russia has a history of valor and of successful military missions unequaled by any other country. And he took it back to Napoleon and, of course, World War II. That’s what Trump says that he said. We don’t know what Zelensky said. It may be, as you just suggested, that Zelensky wanted to use this opportunity to establish a tie with Trump and so that he was considering actively Trump’s offer to be a broker in a negotiated settlement of the war.

09:27
But it could also be that Zelensky remains delusional in every way and was trying to persuade Trump to rethink his decision to stop funding the war and to instead to come to Ukraine’s aid should he be elected. So we don’t know what he said, but it is simply interesting that he made the effort to reach out to Donald Trump, and I think that’s explained by the fact that Kamala’s rise in popularity and the funding that she’s gotten in this start of this honeymoon month after locking in the nomination for the Democratic presidential candidate in this period hadn’t yet become apparent, and Trump’s high ratings and high likelihood of election in November was still hanging in the air. So Zelensky was trying to re-insure himself that he had some sort tie with Trump, in the possibility, if not eventuality, that Trump will win the elections.

Alkhorshid:10:55
Do we know what’s the opinion on the part of Russians on Kamala Harris and the way that she’s talking about the conflict in Ukraine?

Doctorow:
Just watch Megyn Kelly and you’ve got their take on Kamala Harris. The Russians, on their talk shows, they have taken the gloves off. And they’re saying what they really think about these monstrous people who are considered to be the leaders in the West and particularly in the United States. On the Solovyov show, the host was explaining to the audience that Harris began her career lying on her back. And this, I said, was given in some detail on Megyn Kelly’s program, making reference to her position as a lover of the Black mayor. At the time, he was the head of the assembly, and he went on to become the mayor of San Francisco. And he, in this love relationship with Harris, introduced her to the big donors and all the movers and shakers in California politics, which gave her a leg up, which gave her a big advantage as she proceeded to make a career in California and become the District Attorney and Attorney General.

12:28
So, that aspect reminding us that from the very beginning Kamala Harris made her moves on the most vulgar manner, and not on the basis of merit, not because she was an outstanding law student, or any of the trappings of success that have been earned by merit and talent, which the Democratic Party is trying to put at her feet today.

Alkhorshid: 13:06
Can we say the last objective of the Russian army right now in Ukraine is denazification and demilitarization of the Ukrainian army and how [can Russia] achieve that? is that going to be militarily or politically or a combination of both?

Doctorow:
I think it’s a combination of both, but the military is the dominant side. What we’re witnessing now– and even in the “Financial Times”, even in the “New York Times”, there are articles day after day explaining– that the Russian army is progressing, advancing, and is taking advantage of weaknesses in the 1,000- or 800-kilometer line of confrontation. And there are weaknesses, of course, and we know why. It’s not a generalized issue of lack of manpower, though that is significant. It is the fact that the Russians have drawn to the Kharkov region the best brigades, the best-trained and the best-equipped units of the Ukrainian army, and there are necessarily weak spots in that vast line of confrontation, which the Russians are exploiting.

14:28
Our newspapers go on to say that the Russians are throwing waves of troops against the Ukrainians, with the suggestion that the Russians are experiencing heavy losses. Well, I watch the Russian daily news, and I see the interviews with their soldiers in the field. From the past, I can say that those interviews seem to be quite legitimate, to be quite open and honest, because the interviewees were saying things that showed the stress and strain they were experiencing.

And what I see now is a lot of confidence and high professionalism. And yes they are they are destroying the Ukrainian army, and they’re doing it in a way that logically means that the Russians are suffering very small losses. They are using their their three-ton bombs, they are using their heavy artillery, they are using their drones, and first they are demolishing what fortifications the Ukrainians have in the various settlements that are under attack. And only when they have massively destroyed what could have protected the Ukrainian soldiers do they send their shock troops in to finish the job.

16:05
So I would– given all of the equipment and the skills that the Russians have acquired over the last two years, and particularly in electronic warfare, the Russians had zero preparation in drones. And this war has become not only a war of artillery, but a war of drones. The Russians are now catching Ukrainian drones, which are reconnaissance drones, putting bombs on them and sending them back home, which, considering the identification of these drones, they would go back where they came from.

16:48
So this is a war unlike any other. And I can say that the Russians are not resting on their laurels. They know very well that the present war is new and that they have adapted and learned skills which they never had before and they’re manufacturing or modifying existing weapons to suit the battlefield as it is today. But at the same time, in light of the announcements made by the United States about his intention of putting new weapons systems– and I omtted one fact. I spoke about the cruise missiles, the Tomahawks, but the announcement also stated that the United States will be shipping to Germany hypersonic missiles, which the states practically speaking today don’t have.

17:42
So what the Russians are saying to themselves is that their advantage, the window of opportunity that they exploited in February 2022– when they were, without any question, years ahead of the United States and of any West European country in developing fifth-generation fighter jets, in developing the hypersonic missiles– that is diminishing with time. And they are actively pursuing the creation of yet a new wave of advanced armor and other military equipment for the next confrontation that they expect to have with the United States in Europe and elsewhere.

Alkhorshid: 18:32
Victor Orban just recently said, Russia is different from how we were made to see it. And, in your opinion, is the image of Russia changing in the mind of Europeans or is it just happening in the mind of Orban and Fico?

Doctorow:
Well, I think the most important thing is the image of Russia is changing in the minds of Russians. I have been invited to contribute a chapter in a book that will be published in England, a chapter devoted to Russian’s self-perception and how, in the case of Russia, wars make nations. In the West it has come up, and articles have been written about how the war is creating a Ukrainian nation. Well, but not a word has been said about how the war is creating a Russian nation, in a way that didn’t exist before.

So that is the most important thing, how Russians think of themselves. And they do now have a level of patriotism and a level of commitment and a level of self-confidence that did not exist before. In the past you had, I can call them fifth column, but let’s be more charitable and simply say skeptics and doubters of Russia’s ability, based on three percent of the world’s GNP, to be a superpower and to be a rival to the United States. This was the political line, say, of Yabloko, which was the premier liberal democratic party opposing Putin in the last presidential election.

20:21
Now the reality is that they have succeeded and that their economy is now rising faster than the global economy is. Something like five percent or five and a half percent. So on the Russian side, there’s been a very big change. As for European side, I regret to say no. I don’t believe that Europeans, other than Mr. Orban, Mr. Fico of Slovakia appreciate the changes that are taking place in Russia, which are bringing it into a wholly new age of enough sovereignty, as Mr. Putin says, meaning that they are becoming self-sufficient and developing state-financed capital investment in manufacturing, which they could have, should have done for decades past, but never did since they were hoping to have some kind of place in the global economic and trade structures with more limited contribution of their best production and buying in most everything else.

21:48
Well, that model has gone by the boards, and Russia is today following a master plan for increasing its industrial production that Soviet Russia would have been proud of, but was unable to implement for lack of talent at the top. Mr. Putin has an extremely talented and very hardworking team that are achieving miracles for Russia today, unlike Soviet Russia in its last decades.

Alkhorshid: 22:32
Did you [see] the conditions that Mike Pompeo was putting out about a conflict, about having a ceasefire in Ukraine? He was talking about Ukraine being part of the EU and NATO. How realistic are these type of visions right now in the United States and how influential he can be on the future Trump administration?

Doctorow: 22:55
Well, critics of Donald Trump have pointed to this very statement by Pompeo to suggest, “Oh, don’t believe, it’s not a new Donald Trump”, that he puts forward Pompeo, what he did, introduced him at the session of the Republican National Convention, the evening of his, that he accepted the nomination, Pompeo was there. And it’s said, “Oh yes, Pompeo was saying these things, so don’t believe that Trump has changed his politics.”

But I beg to differ. Pompeo is not close to Trump today. Pompeo is, as I understand, on the pay of the Ukrainians. He is doing some consulting or some other contractual work with Ukraine and therefore anything that he says must be construed as Pompeo as an agent of Kiev and not as Pompeo as a past and future colleague of Donald Trump.

Alkhorshid: 23:57
But do you think that Donald Trump is going to be influenced by these kind of– I’m not talking specifically about Pompeo– these people who are more connected with the neocons, with these people with deep state, how can Donald Trump decide not to have them in his administration?

Doctorow:
Look, I have identified myself in the past couple of weeks on the side of Donald Trump, certainly in the contest against Biden or now against Kamala Harris, not because I’m a deep believer in the consistency or the intellectual depth of Donald Trump. I have placed great faith in his nominee for vice president as keeping him on the straight and narrow road towards peace. If I had my preference, my preference would be the only candidate who was intellectually committed to finding a peaceful solution, and that is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. And since I made some contributions to him, I have a barrage of emails from him every day, of course, asking for still more contributions, but reminding me that his latest polls showed that in a contest between him and Kamala Harris, or between him and Donald Trump, I should say, he, RFK Jr., would win against Trump handsomely.

25:30
That may be, but it’s never going to happen. I have to be realistic. Third-party candidates never get very far. In American political life, they are no more than spoilers. As much as I admire the integrity and the consistency of RFK on the question of dealing with Ukraine and many other matters, I have to face the realities of political life. And therefore, I have placed my bet on Donald Trump. But as you say, no one and can predict with certainty that he will not make the same disastrous mistakes that he did in his first administration, appointing people who were … persuaded by the policies that contradicted directly what Trump announced his intention to do. Whether it was Tillerson or whether it was Pompeo, these were terrible appointments. So I say that I back Trump with my fingers crossed.

Alkhorshid: 26:41
Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski was talking about creating unbearable conditions for Ukrainians in the EU in order to force them to return home. Do you think these type of policies on the part of European Union would work for Ukraine? Is that possible, logically?

Doctorow:
Look, I wouldn’t take seriously anything that Sikorski says. He has said some most outrageous things in the past, including about the relationship between Poland and the United States, which are not to be repeated on air. The remarks that he made about sending Ukrainians back, I think that is simply posturing and trying to curry favor with anti-Russian citizens in Poland, of which there are quite a few. I don’t believe that anyone in Western Europe is going to visit the homes of Ukrainian refugees in their midst and forcibly send conscription-age males back to Ukraine to fill the empty ranks of Zelensky’s army. That is unrealistic.

28:00
Moreover, I think about the very ugly statements that yesterday, the day before yesterday, Sikorski made about Viktor Orban, saying that he should leave the EU and make a security pact with Moscow. This is very unpolitical, very undiplomatic, for– it is political in the sense of currying favor with the anti-Russian contingents within the political elites of Poland. But as something coming out of the mouth of a minister of foreign affairs, it is terrible lack of professionalism. And so I’d say I take with a grain of salt anything that Mr. Sikorski says.

Alkhorshid: 28:57
When it comes to Bashar al-Assad’s visit to Moscow, how is the media in Russia talking about this visit, and how do you find the main objectives of this visit?

Doctorow:
Well, the Russian media did not say a great deal about it.They had little to work on, because the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Mr. Putin’s office said very little about it. I have written about it, but I acknowledge that what I said is speculation. That is to say that Assad and Putin were conferring just who does what, what dance steps they’re to follow if the situation explodes in the neighborhood of Syria due to Israeli attack on Hezbollah.

Now, I think from Mr. Putin’s standpoint, that visit was important– of course, Washington knows about it– as a message to Washington to be very careful before it intervenes in the Israeli-Hezbollah or Lebanon war that may be coming soon. The United States has big naval assets, I believe it’s an aircraft carrier or escort that are now very close to Israel with the intent to intimidate Lebanon and to give some assurance to Israel that the United States would back them if they attack. Of course, that’s not what Mr. Blinken is calling it. He’s saying that they’re there to ensure that this does not escalate. But the reality of the presence says otherwise.

30:44
The Russians are there. The Russians have a naval base in Syria. It’s mostly for repairing and refitting and supplying Russian fleet in the Mediterranean. They also have an air base in Syria. And so it was a reminder to Washington that Russia is prepared to intervene if necessary. It’s also a reminder to Israel that their attacks on sites in Syria– particularly repeated attacks near Aleppo, which were directed according to the Israelis against arms caches of Hezbollah in Syrian territory or against goods transiting Syria on their way to Lebanon and Hezbollah– that this has been tolerated. Russia has never in the past given air defense to Syria, but it certainly is capable of doing so. And if it were, it would change entirely the calculations of the Israeli army, or if not the calculations, the possibilities of dealing with Hezbollah for the Israeli army and air force.

32:19
So, it was a reminder that Russia is there and Russia is interested. I think it’s also a signal to Iran of the same nature, because the first country that will have to come to the aid of Lebanon, if there is an attack on Hezbollah, is Iran. And it would give them considerable comfort to know that the Russians may well be at their side.

Alkhorshid: 32:48
And how did you find Netanyahu’s visit to the US Congress and the way that he was changing the rhetoric from Hezbollah to Iran, let’s go after Iran, let’s fight Iran. Is he trying to go to war with Iran or he’s trying to make a war between the United States and Iran?

Doctorow:
I think it’s a combination of that. The key has always been after Iran. Iran. This goes back more than a decade. Iran has been the target of all of his addresses on the international arena. Iran was always a week or two away from a nuclear weapon. And this was the red flag that he was holding out in front of the Americans to encourage their support for any attack that Israel would make on Iran. Israel by itself does not have the force to deal with Iran without American support. So he is preparing Congress — and he apparently got their their acquiescence — in proceeding with a war on Hezbollah with a very high possibility, if not probability, that that will progress to a war on Iran.

34:14
However, if he has this IOU or this promissory note in his pocket, it is a promissory note of doubtful value, because there is big debate in the States whether or not the States should get engaged in a war with Iran. In Washington, there are some people who understand very well that the military capabilities of Iran are much greater than Netanyahu would suggest. The ability of Iran, for example, to devastate the many American military installations in the Middle East with missile attacks is something that must give Washington and Mr. Biden’s team pause and limit their enthusiasm for supporting Netanyahu in an attack on Iran.

Alkhorshid: 35:10
But when it comes to Hezbollah, we know that recently before these new tensions coming up, the Biden administration said to Netanyahu, “If you want to fight Hezbollah, you’re going to be alone and we’re not going to be there.” And right now, do you think that they’re changing their mind?

Doctorow:
I think so. I think there is a debate which we don’t see on the television screens, but there is a debate in Congress over how far America can or should go. And as I said, there are cooler heads among military who understand that that may be a step too far for the United States to get embroiled in a war with Iran for the sake of satisfying Mr. Netanyahu’s ambitions of long standing to have such support.

Alkhorshid: 36:02
The other part of this policy in the Middle East is what China is doing and what you just mentioned about Bashar al-Assad and maybe Erdogan talking to each other, as Russia wanted to do that. And how do you see the changes that are happening in terms of what Russia and China are doing right now?

Doctorow:
Well, the two are not allies in a military sense because China has enshrined policy of not entering into a military bloc and of maintaining its freedom to engage or not to engage in other people’s wars. The Chinese haven’t been in a military conflict for more than 40 years, and that’s not an accident. That was a policy choice. So, they will join the Russians in active combat only if it is utterly necessary to avoid Russian defeat or embarrassment or humiliation that would reflect on themselves. because Russia is a very important support to China logistically, in raw materials and diplomatically.

37:25
So the Chinese could not allow Russia to be humiliated in a way that might lead to political difficulties, political conflict within Russia. They want a stable Russia at their side. The fact that the Chinese sent naval vessels halfway across the world to participate in what is a ceremonial event, this Navy Day in Russia, is an additional point to what we saw a couple of weeks ago, when it was announced that Chinese forces are present at the Polish and Ukrainian borders on the Belarus side in what are called anti-terrorist joint exercises. Well, the anti-terrorists, it’s not a misnomer. What they had in mind is the kind of attacks that took place in Belgorod, province of Russia Federation, when [Ukraine] sent various groups including some anti-Kremlin Russians to attack in a terrorist manner the residential communities in Belgorod. There has been discussion that the Ukrainians and/or the Poles have had similar ideas with respect to Belarus. As we know, Poland, together with Lithuania, has been a very strong supporter of the anti-Lukashenko so-called president of Belarus, who is now in exile.

38:21
And add to this the Chinese-Russian joint patrol in the Bering Sea close to Alaska last week as another demonstration that when it comes to, when push comes to shove, if necessary, China will stand by Russia as a military partner confronting any part of the West as necessary. It is a pushback to Jens Stoltenberg and Washington’s idea of an Asian NATO and the Russians and Chinese were saying that the Eurasian continent has two sides, and if you want to concentrate on the eastern side, we, Chinese and Russians, can jointly concentrate on the western side. So think twice about your idea of an Asian NATO built on [AUKUS].

Alkhorshid: 40:29
Yeah, just to wrap up this session, we thought that Macron is not going to send French mercenaries to Ukraine, but we’ve learned that they did that. And how [can we] put the picture of these changes that are happening in France, in terms of Le Pen, how they can change the policy when it comes to sending mercenaries to Ukraine, and why they couldn’t do that so far?

Doctorow: 40:57
Well, in the person of Emanuel Macron, we have a very inconsistent, very superficial politician, who, I mean, if we want to say that Donald Trump was transactional and changed his policies very often or too often, one can say certainly the same thing about Macron, who is a different personality from Trump, but nonetheless shares this. He will do anything to get the microphone, he will do anything to present himself as leading Europe and the West either into an agreement with Russia or into a war with Russia. Which it will be depends on the moment, and is not a consistent policy line of the man. I think what the Russians are now saying about Macron bears mention, they’re calling him the Blue Rooster. They have no hesitation to call him out as a homosexual. And they have used the footage, the film footage, from the obscene opening ceremony of the Olympics to demonstrate their point about the corruption, degradation, and likely suicide of France as leading Western Europe to its doom. So Mr. Macron’s sending some mercenaries to help the Ukrainians — it’s a token. These are not massive quantities of men and certainly not normal French soldiers. But his ability to flip-flop according to what he thinks will be, assert his purposes, his opportunism in that respect, cannot be underestimated.