‘I am pleased to share with readers the link to an interview that Nima Alkhorshid took with me a few minutes ago. As always, there was more than one topic under discussion, but the central issue was precisely that mentioned in the title which he has given to our discussion.
Transcription below by a reader
Nima R. Alkhorshid: 0:04
Yeah, let’s get started with what’s going on in Ukraine and the latest comment of Sergei Lavrov. He says that after Ukraine [assault on Kursk region], negotiations with Kyiv are impossible. How do you find it right now?
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
Well, there is a bit of … several things to consider, what is driving that kind of conclusion on the part of Lavrov. What has changed is the nature of the war, as the Russians see it. I’m going to be speaking about the Russian perspective on this war, not my own perspective or Western perspective, but precisely the Russian perspective, which is that from the moment of the invasion, what’s called an incursion, but now it’s really an invasion of Russian territory proper by Ukrainian forces, the Russians see in this a NATO attack on Russia.
1:11
And why do they see this? Because they know for certainty that the move into Kursk, The move across the border into Russian Federation territory was under discussion and planning between Ukrainian military and their backers or puppeteers in the West, in the United States and particularly in Britain, for more than a year. So they are also considering that there are numbers of NATO officers, whether they are wearing NATO uniforms or are dressed up as Ukrainian forces, is irrelevant, but there are NATO officers who are conducting both on the ground and of course remotely what is going on day by day in the incursion.
2:05
So from the standpoint of Russians, this is a NATO invasion. It’s also worth noting that the special military operation had a concept around it, an envelope around it, which was precisely to achieve the demilitarization or the denazification of Ukraine, period. It was not intended to be a Russian takeover of territory, and least of all, a Russian takeover of the whole of Ukraine. Thus, in the present situation, we have an invasion of Russia. And what had been an intellectual exercise for the Kremlin, and for the the Russian elites, is now a gut exercise for the Russian people as a whole. And to understand that you have to look back a bit history, as I have been pondering these last 24 hours, where are the the guidelines for our appreciating the new situation as seen by Russia?
3:10
For that you go back, you go back of course to World War II, which is as even our mainstream commentators say, the last time that Russia was invaded. Of course, that was the Soviet Union. But nonetheless, let’s consider it greater Russia, was invaded by foreign forces. But that isn’t sufficient. We have to go back a bit further to understand the emotional content of what has happened as regards Russians. And to go back further means to go back to 1812. This was the Napoleonic invasion of something like 500,000 foreign troops came into Russia to overthrow the regime, so to speak. They were acting on behalf of revolutionary France, for whom Emperor Alexander I’s Russia was the exemplar and a major defender of the Ancien Regime in Europe.
4:08
So you have this situation in 1812 that culminated of course in the reordering of Europe as a whole, as we know. But for the Russian perspective it was an invasion of 500,000 troops. The core of them were French, but they included soldiers from all over Europe. In a sense, this was an anticipation of a NATO invasion of Russia. Because they were Germans, they were French, they were Italians, they were people of all of Western Europe who were looking for booty, who were looking for glory by participating in the Napoleonic invasion of the Grand Armée. And then there were the ideological or nationalist contingent of that substantial about 100,000 Poles, which also, if you want to look at the present situation, has certain parallels.
5:02
This multinational army that invaded Russia created a different response from the wars, and there were maybe 15 years of wars, between Revolutionary France and Ancien Régime Russia. And these wars both were before 1812 and after 1812. In particular, if you look before, when Russia was engaged with Napoleon’s forces in its own alliance, alliance that varied with time, with Austria and with Prussia. These were fought in the old fashion, 18th century fashion, formal lines of soldiers on each side. They were following rules of war of the 18th century. What we had in 1812 was a new situation. This– you see the entrance of what we would today call partisans, and they were then called irregulars. And what was this all about?
6:03
The War of 1812 was a war of national liberation of Russia from an invading force that captured the old capital of the country and the religious center of the country, Moscow. This was supposed to bring Russia to its knees. And had Alexander I been playing by the old rules, it would have. But he wasn’t playing by the old rules. He played by new rules of nationalism. And what does that mean? It was a nation in arms. The whole of the Russian peasantry was active in repelling the invaders, first by supporting a scorched- earth policy, meaning that they put alight their fields, and they deprived the invaders of food. And very importantly, by putting a fire to their pasturage, they deprived the Napoleonic cavalry of forage for the horses and the horses died in great numbers, which meant that you had the invaders who had come in proudly mounted were leaving in disarray on foot, a great many of them, or climbing onto any wagons that they could lay hold of.
7:28
And on the points there of parallel with this present situation in Kursk, which we can get into in a moment, but I don’t want to be distracted from the overriding issue. A war that was either a dynastic war, an imperial war of the old variety had become a nation in arms. And I believe that contrary to the expectations of Washington or London, that the great humiliation that they believe has been imposed on Vladimir Putin by this successful incursion, taking 1000 and now we understand today 1200 square kilometers of Russian territory, that this humiliation is not a threat to the Russian government or to Mr. Putin personally.
8:19
On the contrary, the desecration of Russian land by foreign troops is a great rallying call to the Russian nation. Now there have been volunteers, there have been sign-ups of large numbers of, quote, volunteers, kontraktniki as they call them in Russian, because they are soldiers under contract with the Ministry of Defense for periods of service, at least six months in the war zone. There have been large numbers: 30,000 per month have come forward in the last year to fill the ranks of the Russian army and for the purpose of prosecuting the war in Ukraine. But I expect that we will see still larger numbers now.
9:07
And whereas the kontraktniki, many of them, were engaged in this by the very attractive financial considerations, considerations which now reach as far as the equivalent of 10,000 euros upon signing up to participate in a special military operation. This is a figure that I come to using the mandatory federal allocation per signee, the regional, that is from which region of Russia, province of Russia, the signup took place, local authorities allocating funds from their budget for each person who signs up and contributions by private industry or civil society to assist the welfare of those who are fighting for the nation’s honor and territory.
10:10
So, these have been very important sums, just at signup. And addition, and you have to add to that the very significant monthly compensation that is set down in the terms of the registration to participate, for each month spent in the war zone. These sums are for many people who joined the fight, more money than they’ve ever seen in their lives. So that was financial consideration, cannot be discounted. And it complemented the instinctive patriotic feelings of many Russians, of all classes, who took an interest and had great sympathy for Russian-speakers who were being so persecuted and who were being murdered in Donbass regions by the regular Ukrainian army as from 2014 up to the start of the special military operation in 2022.
11:19
All of that remains in place, and add to it now the gut feelings of Russians of all classes who are defending not just brethren outside the border of Russia but their own people within Russia. That’s a new situation. Add to it further the consideration that the Kremlin has given to its public, that they are engaged in the war with NATO directly, and that the survival of the country depends on successful prosecution of the war.
Alkhorshid: 11:58
Do you think that Russia is getting to the point that they are going to decide to cross the Dnieper River and go to the western part of Ukraine?
Doctorow:
I don’t think they will do that until last resort. It depends, of course, on what kind of assistance, what kind of support, financial and military, the United States and its allies will give should Donbass be totally reclaimed on the ground by Russian forces, should the Russians approach Kiev and the Dnieper River, which is the middle point of 1991 Ukraine. So, I don’t think anything has been pre-decided here. Russia does not want to rule over a country and a people that are dead set against it and that will only cause skirmishes and military conflict for years to come. That is not their objective. But that Russia may destroy Lvov, for example, entirely thinkable. I think that it’s more conceivable to me that they will leave Western Ukraine in ruins by bombing and other remote operations than by sending in troops and trying to occupy Western Ukraine.
Alkhorshid: 13:24
The other thing that Sergey Lavrov was talking about was: we know that since this attack on the Kursk region, the officials in Washington were talking about that “We didn’t provide anything, we didn’t do anything, we have nothing to do with what’s going on in that region.” But Shoigu has said that without Washington ordering this attack on Russia, the Kiev regime, the Zelensky administration, was not capable, physically and mentally, to do that. And when you put these two arguments together, you see there is no connection, there is no communication between these two rhetorics. And in your opinion, if we go with the argument of Sergei Lavrov and accept what he’s saying right now, why [is Washington] not capable of accepting its role in what’s going on right now in that way?
Doctorow: 14:32
Well, if it were to accept its role, that would be acknowledging that it is at war with Russia, and that Russia will respond, as it may, to a country with which it is, by all evidence, at war. So, the United States would like to pretend that this is still a proxy war, and that it is not a co-belligerent. This explains the rather outrageous lies we’re hearing from Washington, that “We don’t know anything about it, we have nothing to do with it.” On the other hand, let us consider that there is a certain agency on the part of the Ukrainian leadership. And there is a question of whether this was precipitated, the march into Kursk, by their own internal dynamics, wherein Sirski was about to be dismissed over the disastrous conduct of the war at the front lines, by which I mean the war in Donetsk.
15:37
So it is, there are certain elements which are beyond Washington’s total control. There are internal conflicts within those at the top in military and civil administrations within Ukraine.
Alkhorshid:
And the way that the conflict is going on right now, in your opinion, are we seeing a Ukraine that everything inside is getting out of the hand of the United States? Because how do you see the possibility of having a military coup in Ukraine against Zelensky? Because the situation, the way that they’re sending these troops, these soldiers to fight and just dying for nothing, how long [can they] sustain this kind of situation, this kind of condition?
Doctorow: 16:30
It’s conceivable they can sustain this through the American elections in November. That is what some experts were saying as recently as a month ago, and I don’t see reason to change that. Yes, the Ukraine front is moving westward. The Russians are advancing, but not by 10 and 20 kilometers a day. But that may happen if indeed there’s a big breakthrough following the Russian capture of Pokrovsk and the Ukrainian army is deprived of supplies along the whole front, which passed through Pokrovsk today.
17:09
Nonetheless, putting aside the possibility of such an utter collapse of the front, the Ukrainians possibly can sustain these losses for a few more months. And for them, it is essential to keep Washington happy through the elections. That is a critical issue here, not what Kiev thinks for itself, but what they need to do to keep Washington in the game, so long as the Biden administration exists. So, I wouldn’t necessarily look for a resolution of this conflict on the ground in the next day, week, or even month ahead. It may go on further. What the Russians are making, very important gains. And I say that not based on my own judgment, since I’m not a military expert, or even based on the judgment of some of the guests that you have on your show, or in the Opposition with a capital O to the Washington narrative and to Washington’s conduct of foreign policy.
18:24
But I say that with reference to mainstream. I was listening to the the news on BBC this morning, BBC World, and their own man on the ground in Ukraine was saying precisely this, that yes it’s quite traumatic, what the Ukrainians have done taking this territory in Kursk, but they’ve made a very big gamble. And it could be a catastrophe awaiting them in Donetsk. So, but because they have deprived their forces along the line of confrontation, a thousand kilometer long line of confrontation, by opening a 160-kilometer additional line in Kursk. And they have taken the best, the most able, the most war-hardened elite troops from the 1,000 kilometers to put them into the 160 kilometers, thereby exposing themselves to a pummeling, to a very severe punishment in the main confrontation.
Alkhorshid: 19:34
The other thing that Zelensky said: that if we were able to use long-range missiles against Russia, we could go in another direction, not attacking this region, the Kursk region. And do you think that with the 2024 presidential election in the United States and the situation of the Democratic Party, do you think, are we getting to the situation that Washington says, then “You can use these long-range missiles to attack Russia in order to keep this war going and going and in order to have a better position in 2024 in this race in the United States”?
Doctorow: 20:18
Well, there are those who say that the response of the United States to Russian pending victory in Ukraine will be to so-called double down. They put it in those terms. I would like to go to the casino. And what you do at the roulette wheel is more than double down. You go what the French call va banque, you place all your money on the red or the black or the given number. And that’s what the United States is doing now, is playing a very high-risk game at the roulette wheel.
21:01
Where can this lead, and what value could long-range missiles, air-to-ground or ground-to-ground, do to save the situation for Ukraine? There has been discussion about Zelensky’s urgent appeals to the UK to make more of the Storm Shadow missiles. These are air-to-ground missiles that have been used for a year, more than a year, by Ukraine when they were placed, fitted onto, Soviet-vintage jets. They could also, of course, be fitted onto F-16s or any other fighters which the United States or its allies are now giving to Ukraine.
21:51
This is not new. I don’t mean to say the Storm Shadow has no value in enhancing the position of Ukrainian forces, but the Russians have already examined thoroughly the Storm Shadow. They’ve received debris from these missiles, they received whole missiles that were kind of war trophies. And they’ve studied them and they found effective counter means. So the Storm Shadow is only partially successful in getting through Russian air defences. I don’t see that as in any way a game changer, even if London were to do what Mr. Zelensky bids them and to send many more of these missiles, their own or French equivalent missiles to Kiev.
22:43
What is under discussion now and has not been widely talked about in Western media– but I have done my share to bring it to people’s attention– is a new missile that is being discussed between Washington and Kiev. It is in the series of stealth missiles. That’s to say, it is uniquely able to penetrate airspace undetected. The Russians– everything can be finally detected if you know what you’re doing– but the Russians have no experience with this, and it could take them some time to find a countermeasure. In the meantime, if these missiles were mounted on F-16s, which is what the story is, they could do a lot of damage to high-value assets of Russia and high value, not just a military purpose, but also in a public image. For example, the famous Kerch Bridge between mainland Russia and the Crimean Peninsula.
23:54
These possible devastating attacks would be intolerable for Russia, particularly since the missile that we’re talking about has two variants, one 400 kilometers, one 900 kilometers. 900 kilometers could, of course, take it when launched by an F-16 well into the center of Russia, into Moscow and beyond. These are nuclear capable. So from the Russian standpoint, their existence would be, in the hands of Ukrainians, would be totally unacceptable. For that reason, I have been following closely what Russians are saying on television. This is a kind of means of disseminating Kremlin views without their being officially attributed to Mr. Putin or his colleagues. And these very authoritative talk shows– I have in mind in particular, “The Great Game” that is headed by Vyacheslav Nikonov– their panelists have been saying for the last several days that Russia would respond to the delivery of such missiles to Ukraine and to their fitting on F-16s by destroying the air bases outside of Ukraine where these F-16s will be held.
25:18
And those air bases are in Moldova and in Romania, most likely. They could destroy them using conventional-tipped Iskander missiles, quite capable of doing that. But the latest talk is to bring in, to revive a Russian answer to NATO that was proposed about 15 months ago by a well-known political scientist in Russia, Sergei Karaganov. That is, by using tactical nuclear weapons to so frighten the West that they finally come to their senses and understand that by crossing Russian red lines they’re signing their own death warrant. I think it is feasible for purposes of sending a strongest message to Washington, to Berlin, to London, that if they proceed with escalation, they are proceeding directly to a nuclear war.
26:23
And so the war may take still a new stage if the missiles under discussion, JASSM, are given to Ukrainians for use on F-16s against Russia. That is something we’ll see in the next few weeks. Hopefully, the message that was aired on Russian television– and which I and a few others have been trying to disseminate to bring our compatriots to their senses in the West– hopefully that message is understood in the Pentagon and in the White House administration, and they will desist from this plan of escalation through the stealth type long-range missiles.
Alkhorshid: 27:19
How much of this attitude of doubling down is the production, is the reason, is the main, is the consequence of the 2024 presidential election in the United States? In your opinion, when this race in the United States is over, they’re going to change their attitude. They’re going to go the other way, or they’re going to do the same as they have been doing during more than two years?
If we assume, we don’t know right now, who’s going to win in the United States, Kamala Harris or Donald Trump. But at the end of the day, the main policy, these people who are behind the scenes, who are deciding about what would be the official policy of the United States toward Russia, are they going to, in your opinion, are they going to double down right after 2024 presidential election, or they’re going to change their attitude?
Doctorow: 28:19
Well, Mr. Trump said that the day after the election, if he wins, he will proceed to act as an honest broker and knock heads together in Kiev and Moscow to bring them together to conclude a peace. Well, that’s very ambitious and very improbable. Nonetheless, he’s saying that he would act immediately after the election, although according to tradition, he doesn’t have the right to do that, and could be brought to justice for violating the Constitution. But that’s a minor detail in America today.
28:59
As regards the other side, the Democratic camp, let’s remember that the administration, the outgoing administration is there, lame duck or not, until January. And that’s sufficient time for them to blow up the world. I wouldn’t be so sanguine to say, “Ah yes, if Kamala wins, they will throw everything into reverse and they’ll find some solution to the confrontation with Russia.” I very much doubt that. Kamala herself is not a foreign policy person. And she would be reliant, until further notice, on the same gang of incompetent warmongers as have led us for the last three and a half years.
29:49
So I’m not a believer that a democratic win in November will spare us the angst, the anxiety that we now should rightfully have about an escalation to nuclear war, because of current US policies of crossing every red line set down by Russia that they can find.
Alkhorshid: 30:21
One of the rhetorics right after this conflict started was how we can isolate Russia. And right now we see that Russia is managing going to North Korea, talking with Iran, China, right now Azerbaijan. And the way that the foreign policy of Russia is working in your opinion, what [are they] trying to do? When you look at the countries, the list of countries that Russia is trying to communicate with, mostly of the energy hubs– and I think we lost you, yeah. You’re back, you’re back.
31:03
Most of these countries are important in terms of energy, in terms of oil, and in your opinion, are they trying to manage the situation by managing the energy market?
Doctorow:
Well, that is one feature, yes. Let us remember, the energy market is important for a number of reasons. Hydrocarbons are the single biggest trading commodity in the world. And going back to the time when the United States came off the gold standard, and its currency became a fiat currency, and it reached an agreement with Saudi Arabia on the petrodollar, creation of the petrodollar, all trading, global trading in hydrocarbons has been dollar-denominated. And this has been a very important source of strength for United States economic domination, financial domination of the world.
32:06
The effort made by Russia, China, and a number of other countries– to rebalance the seating at the world’s board of directors and to allocate more equitably political power at the global level among all players– that is being fought out in a variety of ways, and one of them is in the de-dollarization. So the question of collaboration and cooperation with major hydrocarbon producers is something which has its own merit, but it also exists for the bigger purpose of de-dollarization and agreement with countries that have vast economic resources, have vast currency resources.
33:05
These, I’m speaking now of the Gulf states, whether they, any given Gulf state, like the United Arab Emirates, is or is not a producer of hydrocarbons, they are repositories of vast amounts of wealth. And so you have a number of reasons why these hydrocarbon, whether it’s petroleum or gas producers, are among the first priority allies, talking partners and then allies of Russia as it reaches out to the world.
33:45
However, and the visit to Azerbaijan of Mr. Putin on the state visit the last two days highlighted Russia’s interest in promoting the candidacy of this important hydrocarbon producer at the next meeting of the BRICS in Kazan in October. But the BRICS membership, which is really Russia’s leading edge in its outreach to the global south, that takes in a number of very powerful and populous countries, aside from the Middle East. I have in mind now, I think there will be a large effort to bring in powerful Southeast Asian countries like Indonesia, and like Malaysia, in the next round, in this coming round of the BRICS summits.
34:55
The, as I say, BRICS, together with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Eurasian economic institutions. These are the constructs that Moscow is using to keep alive its diplomatic, financial and other relationships with the world at large in the face of all of the United States’ efforts to isolate Russia and to present it as a pariah state.
Alkhorshid: 35:31
How does Russia see the color revolution in Bangladesh? In your opinion, is that important in the eyes of Russians?
Doctorow:
Well, it is important. At the last St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh was a guest of honor. And in the meetings that she had with her delegation and Russian ministries, I believe that they signed off an agreement on building a nuclear power station in Bangladesh. There were a number of economic projects of considerable importance. So, the fact that she has been chased out, she was forced to flee to India, is of great interest to Russia.
36:20
And the United States is crowing about it, of course, in the same way that following the 2014 Winter Olympics in Russia, officials in Washington were crowing, that “Yes, Russia had just captured a lot of gold at the Olympics, and we just bagged one more country, the Ukraine.” This kind of a project, juvenile as it is, is representative of thinking of all too many people in the governing elites in Washington.
Alkhorshid: 36:59
Don’t you think that this attitude of having a color revolution in a country, in Bangladesh, that is, the government was pro-India; and right now don’t you think this type of activity would just push India into the arms of Russians and Chinese and just getting closer to each other?
Doctorow:
Yes, you’re very right in pointing this out. The initial reaction in India, official reaction, was satisfaction that they would profit from the change, which was very short-lived. The new regime, the incoming regime in Bangladesh very quickly established that is no friend of India. And so, as you just said, the Indians are scrambling now to see what they can do about it, to preserve their interests. And this sets them further apart from the United States, because anyone in the region knows very well that the big villain of the piece is the United States.
Alkhorshid: 38:09
And Bangladesh is part of the Belt and Road Initiative. That’s important for China as well. That makes– how Washington is, the policy is just bringing everybody together against what?
Doctorow:
Well, these people who are running the show have such hubris and such confidence that the United States, by sheer force and threat of force, can dominate the world and to get everyone to do its bidding. This not has not yet been been changed. I don’t know what it would take for the elites in the United States. This is elites, not just in in civic society, civil society, but in both in both houses of Congress, and in both parties in Congress. They do not see the handwriting on the wall, they don’t want to, trhat the United States is losing its grip, its control over the majority of countries and of the greatest share of wealth-producing countries on the globe.
39:25
It is losing it. But they don’t see that yet. I don’t know what it would take to bring them to their senses. But I don’t wish for it, because it looks very much like a nuclear war, the way we’re changing. And it would be of such destruction that none of us could have a last laugh.
Alkhorshid:
Thank you so much, Gilbert, for being with us today. Great pleasure as always.
Doctorow:
Well, it is my pleasure, and I wish you continuous success, because it’s very important what you are doing.
Alkhorshid: 40:01
Thank you.
Gilbert Doctorow 