As I have written on these pages recently, the Moscow based journalist John Helmer has published what amounts to harsh criticism of Vladimir Putin from some top generals over his alleged readiness to sacrifice Russian state interests in forthcoming peace negotiations to put an early end to the war and to spare his country’s oligarchs further economic losses. Helmer has directed attention to the negotiator of the almost concluded peace treaty initialed in Istanbul in March 2022, Vladimir Medinsky, suggesting that this former Minister of Culture was not up to the task of defending Russia. Helmer believes Medinsky will again be appointed as chief negotiator if and when the Russians and Ukrainians sit down together to negotiate a peace.
Following my rebuttal to this interpretation of Putin as weak given the tough as nails new edition of the Russian nuclear doctrine and my offhand rejection of skepticism over chances for a lasting peace to be concluded on Russia’s terms, John Helmer and I agreed to discuss the issue live on air. This chat is now scheduled to take place Thursday at 20.00 Central European Time on the website of The Duran and will be moderated by Alexander Mercouris.
Here and now, I telegraph my punches, so to speak, and explain on what I will base myself in this discussion.
I have made it clear that in between my periodic visits to Russia, when I put my Oxford dress shoes on the ground, spend time with friends in Petersburg and Moscow discussing current events, and listen to those taxi drivers or hair dressers who still delight in chatter with customers, my main source of information on Russian politics comes from Russian state television broadcasts in the Russian language for their domestic audience. In this regard, tonight’s News of the Week program hosted by Dmitry Kiselyov on Rossiya 1 leaves me in no doubt that Vladimir Putin will only sign a treaty that embodies the points he made public in June, to whit:
A cease-fire will come into effect only when the Ukrainian side agrees to withdraw its armed forces from the entirety of the Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts at their pre-2014 borders and actually begins this withdrawal
- Ukraine will acknowledge that these regions and Crimea are now integral parts of the Russian Federation
- Ukraine will foreswear membership in NATO and there will be no foreign military personnel or installations on its territory
- Ukraine will ensure that Russian speakers on its territory are given full civil rights to practice their language and culture
- All Western sanctions on Russia will be lifted
I remind readers that Dmitry Kiselyov is not just the presenter of this news program but is the general director of all Russian state news operations. Accordingly, his repeating these demands and putting up on screen Putin’s speech setting them forth makes it politically impossible for Putin to negotiate and sign anything less than this.
We can discuss many other things on Thursday, but I believe that this broadcast is the strongest argument against the notion that the Russians will lose at the negotiating table what they have won on the battlefield.
This entire issue of peace terms was presented tonight precisely because Western media in the past week have been talking up the need for a negotiated settlement of the war and are speaking as if Russia has been defeated, which is an outrageous lie as anyone following this war’s development knows full well.
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024
Translation into German below (Andreas Mylaeus)
Kommende Veranstaltungen: Chat mit John Helmer über „The Duran“, Donnerstag, 17. Oktober
Wie ich kürzlich auf diesen Seiten geschrieben habe, hat der in Moskau ansässige Journalist John Helmer eine harsche Kritik von einigen Spitzengenerälen an Wladimir Putin veröffentlicht, weil dieser angeblich bereit sei, die Interessen des russischen Staates bei den bevorstehenden Friedensverhandlungen zu opfern, um den Krieg vorzeitig zu beenden und den Oligarchen seines Landes weitere wirtschaftliche Verluste zu ersparen. Helmer hat die Aufmerksamkeit auf den Verhandlungsführer des fast abgeschlossenen Friedensvertrags gelenkt, der im März 2022 in Istanbul paraphiert wurde, Vladimir Medinsky, und darauf hingewiesen, dass dieser ehemalige Kulturminister der Aufgabe, Russland zu verteidigen, nicht gewachsen sei. Helmer glaubt, dass Medinsky erneut zum Verhandlungsführer ernannt wird, falls und wenn sich die Russen und Ukrainer zusammensetzen, um über einen Frieden zu verhandeln.
Nach meiner Widerlegung dieser Interpretation Putins als schwach angesichts der knallharten Neuauflage der russischen Nukleardoktrin und meiner unbekümmerten Zurückweisung der Skepsis gegenüber den Chancen auf einen dauerhaften Frieden zu den Bedingungen Russlands haben John Helmer und ich vereinbart, das Thema live auf Sendung zu diskutieren. Dieser Chat ist nun für Donnerstag um 20:00 Uhr mitteleuropäischer Zeit auf der Website von The Duran angesetzt und wird von Alexander Mercouris moderiert.
Hier und jetzt kündige ich sozusagen meine Schläge an und erkläre, worauf ich mich in dieser Diskussion stützen werde.
Ich habe klargestellt, dass ich zwischen meinen regelmäßigen Besuchen in Russland, bei denen ich meine Oxford-Anzugschuhe auf den Boden stelle, Zeit mit Freunden in Petersburg und Moskau verbringe, um über aktuelle Ereignisse zu diskutieren, und den Taxifahrern oder Friseuren zuhöre, die sich immer noch über das Gespräch mit den Kunden freuen, meine Hauptinformationsquelle über die russische Politik aber aus den russischsprachigen Sendungen des staatlichen russischen Fernsehens für das einheimische Publikum stammt. In dieser Hinsicht lässt mich die heutige Sendung „Nachrichten der Woche“ von Dmitry Kiselyov auf Rossiya 1 keinen Zweifel daran, dass Wladimir Putin nur einen Vertrag unterzeichnen wird, der die Punkte enthält, die er im Juni öffentlich gemacht hat, nämlich:
Ein Waffenstillstand tritt nur dann in Kraft, wenn die ukrainische Seite zustimmt, ihre Streitkräfte aus den gesamten Oblasten Donezk, Lugansk, Cherson und Saporischschja an den Grenzen von vor 2014 abzuziehen und diesen Abzug tatsächlich zu beginnen.
1. Die Ukraine erkennt an, dass diese Regionen und die Krim nun integrale Bestandteile der Russischen Föderation sind.
2. Die Ukraine verzichtet auf eine Mitgliedschaft in der NATO und es wird kein ausländisches Militärpersonal oder ausländische Militäranlagen auf ihrem Territorium geben.
3. Die Ukraine stellt sicher, dass russischsprachige Bürger auf ihrem Territorium die vollen Bürgerrechte erhalten, um ihre Sprache und Kultur ausüben zu können.
4. Alle westlichen Sanktionen gegen Russland werden aufgehoben.
Ich möchte die Leser daran erinnern, dass Dmitry Kiselyov nicht nur der Moderator dieser Nachrichtensendung ist, sondern auch Generaldirektor aller staatlichen russischen Nachrichtenagenturen. Dementsprechend ist es für Putin politisch unmöglich, über etwas Geringeres zu verhandeln und es zu unterzeichnen, wenn er diese Forderungen wiederholt und Putins Rede, in der sie dargelegt werden, auf den Bildschirm bringt.
Wir können am Donnerstag über viele andere Dinge sprechen, aber ich glaube, dass diese Sendung das stärkste Argument gegen die Vorstellung ist, dass die Russen am Verhandlungstisch verlieren werden, was sie auf dem Schlachtfeld gewonnen haben.
Diese ganze Frage der Friedensbedingungen wurde heute Abend genau deshalb angesprochen, weil die westlichen Medien in der vergangenen Woche die Notwendigkeit einer Verhandlungslösung für den Krieg beschworen haben und so tun, als sei Russland besiegt worden, was eine ungeheuerliche Lüge ist, wie jeder, der die Entwicklung dieses Krieges verfolgt, sehr gut weiß.
Gilbert Doctorow 
I am sure you are correct in this case. Even if Vladimir Medinsky is appointed to head the Russian team, he is unlikely to agree anything that is not acceptable to the Russian government as a whole. Too much Russian blood has been lost for any serious compromise to be now made and it is unlikely that they will be happy with just the four oblasts – Odessa, while essentially a Russian town, is also of immense security value and I would be surprised the Russians would agree to allow it to remain completely in Ukraine hands. Finally, I would add a fifth condition to your list, namely that the Russians will insist that all the Russian Orthodox churches and monasteries be returned to their church – Henry VIII in England got away with such theft, but happily times have moved on and we no longer live in the 16th century
LikeLiked by 1 person
My thoughts exactly with one addition. It is very unlikely that this conflict will be resolved as outlined above without the complete capitulation/unconditional surrender and removal of sanctions by the backers of the proxy Ukraine. That is to say that the signatures of all NATO member states will be required. It is hard to imagine this occurring at the present time, and I, for one, cannot imagine it ever occurring in the current environment. I believe further that no peaceful settlement of the war of Israel against Hamas, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Syria, Houthi’s, and Iran can occur in the current environment.
Which is to say, regime change will be required across the board in the West and in Israel. In that context, recall what it took for regime change to occur in Nazi Germany. Recall also that it was definitely not two nuclear weapons annihilating the civilian population of two Japanese cities without military significance that forced Japan to surrender, but rather the astonishing victory of the Soviet Union in Manchuria.
LikeLike
agree, John, the war against NATO terror in Ukraine can only stop when the USofA genuinely stops their foreign policy of world domination and dissolves the anglo saxon colonial empire state terror activities. No more sanctions but cooperation on all levels among all sovereign countries on this planet. I have a dream that one day maybe..never mind…stop threatening Russia, China, Iran, the Eurasian continent and emerging multipolar world, only that will end the conflict in Ukraine long term…a long and winding road to get there if at all…what will be, will be, future is not ours to see!!
LikeLike
Helmer clearly knows nothing about Medinsky and his role as chief negotiator. If Medinsky is indeed named as such again, this will be a clear sign on the behalf of the Kremlin that they are not serious about negotiations, whether that means they don’t intend to make any meaningful concessions, or they don’t expect their adversaries to do so. My recommendation for the debate is to press Helmer for evidence about the contention that Medinsky was KGB – and don’t let him get away with his “source in Moscow” nonsense.
LikeLike
Is that or is that not Medinsky at Putin’s right in this photo of the emergency negotiations between Iran and Russia 2 days ago?
https://www.indianpunchline.com/between-russia-and-iran-all-is-well-that-ends-well/
LikeLike
Dr. Doctorow:
This is another example of your timely, well-grounded explanations of what Russians are and what they’re thinking.
This is what we citizens of the West need to hear.
The West’s mainstream media blackout operations to prevent us from actually knowing what’s going on in Russia is extremely detrimental to the interests of the West’s citizens.
Thanks, yet again, for all that you do – so very well – to inform us.
I will be reading Thursday’s discussion with Mr. Helmer with great interest. And, because you’ll be in dialog with Mr. Helmer … it is indeed going to be interesting.
LikeLike
It occurs to me that praise is nice, but maybe what might be more useful is to report out on _why_ praise is justified. Here’s what I see:
a. Choice of interlocutor. Helmer is a worthy debate “opponent”. Got all the necessary background, and better yet, he’s got a very different perspective
b. Telegraphing the points. That puts everyone on-notice of what’s going to get said, gives them plenty of time to formulate responses, and gives the forum hosts plenty of time to set the stage for some great performances
c. Identifying sources. Dr. Doctorow tells us where he’s getting his information. He describes who is supplying it, and why they are authoritative sources. Now we can seek out those sources, too.
d. Style. The “style” is a deliberate, well-telegraphed, well-promoted method of creating the conditions for a thorough, fair, publicly-conducted, real-time debate. It’s a bona-fide “marketplace of ideas”.
What you’re seeing here is how people with intellectual integrity operate. This is how it’s done when _learning_ and _informing_ is the object of the activity, as markedly _contrasted_ with propaganda.
I hope other forum-operators and their respective audiences pay attention, not just to what Dr. Doctorow says, but _how_ he gets it said.
LikeLike
Hi Gilbert. You may have seen it already but, on Judge Nap, Alistair Crooke along with Michael Hudson agree with your tail and dog suggestion from 14:10 into the interview.
LikeLike
The first point in the summary of the
LikeLike
I hope this works. That post should have said:
The first point in the summary of the Russian demands for a ceasefire is a genuine win for Russia. Their troops will control the new territory. The other three points are less than impressive.
Points 2 and 3 only say “Ukraine will foreswear …” and “Ukraine will ensure …”. This is nothing more than taking Ukraine’s word. That would be worthless. It would be Minsk 3 (or Minsk 4 if you count the Turkish agreement of April 2022).
Point four is the same promise the Iran got with its nuclear program agreement. Obama lifted only a few sanctions, saying the the rest were not imposed as a result of the nuclear program. Then Trump reimposed all of the sanctions when he rescinded the agreement. Iran got nothing.
Once a cease fire is in place, Russia will have no leverage. If (I would say when) Ukraine and NATO renege, Putin would have to admit that he was fooled again and restart the war or just accept the embarrassment. One can’t turn a war off and on like a light switch. “Strike while the iron is cold” is never a good strategy
LikeLike
The first point in the summary of the Russian demands for a ceasefire is a genuine win for Russia. Their troops will control the new territory. The other three points are less than impressive.
Points 2 and 3 only say “Ukraine will foreswear …” and “Ukraine will ensure …”. This is nothing more than taking Ukraine’s word. That would be worthless. It would be Minsk 3 (or Minsk 4 if you count the Turkish agreement of April 2022).
Point four is the same promise the Iran got with its nuclear program agreement. Obama lifted only a few sanctions, saying the the rest were not imposed as a result of the nuclear program. Then Trump reimposed all of the sanctions when he rescinded the agreement. Iran got nothing.
Once a cease fire is in place, Russia will have no leverage. If (I would say when) Ukraine and NATO renege, Putin would have to admit that he was fooled again and restart the war or just accept the embarrassment. One can’t turn a war off and on like a light switch. “Strike while the iron is cold” is never a good strategy
LikeLike
Whether Putin is humouring the oligarchs by putting sanctions relief in his Istanbul-talks proposals, or, as opined elsewhere, the proposal is a poison pill knowing the West won’t grant relief is an open question. John Helmer contents that Putin is the creature of and protector of the oligarchs. Perhaps this is logical: it was the Yeltsin era and the Wall St/IMF “boys” who created the oligarchs to rape Russia using Western credit. They also helped write the new Russian constitution and Central Bank operating manual. So the die was cast – but didn’t George Washington say that giving control of a nations banking to international bankers was far more harmful than facing an invading army! Putin struck a deal that he would protect the oligarchs if they stayed out of politics. After the failure of Soviet socialism Putin did not see returning to anything like that model as viable – and Russia did not need any more upheaval. The start of his period took place in the heyday of globalised neoliberalism – with plenty of oligarchs to go around (in US, China, EU etc)– and Putin foresaw Russia participating in that system. Given the framework which Putin was working in, trying to avoid any more upheaval, and integrate Russia into the neoliberal world economy, and working with an economic and legal structure as he found it, he seems to have bet that working with the oligarchs rather then clipping their wings was the immediate best way forward.
LikeLike
IMO Putin understands the power of international money to whom the oligarchs are inevitably linked in a globalised financial world and does he not underestimate their power acting in concert with foreign financiers. A while back I read a Russian book called “Nationalise The Rouble!” (can’t recall the author). Alot of the book is inference and specualtion, but if one undersatnds the inter-connectedness of world finance, its conclusions are credible. The financial world is semi-hidden but it lords over everything. It is centred on what the author calls “the money emission machine”, today centred somewhere between London and New York. Maintaining reasonable relations with this entity is important lest it turn against you as the consequences if it does can be highly destabilising! Paying tribute to it and greasing its wheels thru money outflows (as Helmer hightlights) and credit inflows is probably required of every state. In the aforementioned book the author highlights a historic figure who he suggests was a go-between between the Bolsheviks and the City of London over several decades. Originally involved in City finance to the Bolsheviks for arms purchases, he was still at work in the Stalin era. While others trembled in Stalin’s presence, he joked, so secure was he of his role. Only with the onset of the Cold War did his star wane. Here Chubais comes in for mention, the author making an inference that Chubais’s role from the 1990’s on was negotiating Russia’s tributary relationship with The City & Wall Street. IMO the over-indulgence of oligarchs by Putin bears witness more to the overarching power of international finance than an inexplicable weakness or corruption of Putin.
LikeLike
very interesting perspetive. thank you!!
LikeLike