I am pleased to share with the community a 12-minute interview on the above topics that was taken by a news group called NewsX within the ITV (India) organization. Though recorded one week ago and only released today, the interview was well edited and presents in very concise manner the issues that have taken the attention of both mainstream and alternative media all this time.
Transcript submitted by a reader
Porteous: 0:07
Hello and welcome back to NewsX World. I’m Thomas Porteous and you’re watching “Focal Length”, where we get you a briefing on topics from across the world. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is changing dynamics significantly, however its fate is still uncertain. So, how does Moscow see Zelensky’s troop proposal, and could Trump offer a better peace prospect than Biden? What conditions might each side demand? And do shifts in Syria weaken Russia’s influence?
Let’s find out. Joining us is Gilbert Doctorow, who is an international relations and Russian affairs expert. He is a professional Russia watcher and actor in Russian affairs going back to 1965. He is a Magna Cum Laude graduate of Harvard College. Doctorow also served as the chairman of the Russian Booker Literary Prize in Moscow.
0:58
Thank you for joining us Gilbert Doctorow. My first question to you is: does the overthrow of Assad government in Syria indicate a weakening of Russia and Iran?
Doctorow:
It’s premature to say. There was a lot of celebration in Washington, in London, in Ankara over the overthrow of Assad, but I don’t think that those who laugh first will necessarily laugh last. The notion that the winners were Israel and Turkey and that the big losers were Iran and Russia, is very widespread in the major media that you find in the West today. However, the situation in Syria is very fluid. The ability of those who overthrew Assad to hold onto power by themselves is unrealistic.
1:56
We’re speaking about a force that’s HTS, the force that came through from Idlib down through Homs into Damascus. There are 30,000 men. A 30,000-man army cannot govern a country the size of Syria with all of the diverse ethnic and religious groups in that territory. Therefore, the forming of a government is going to be a process that takes some time, if it succeeds at all. Moreover, in the case of Russia, we’re talking about a country that is discussed only in terms of its holding onto its military [assets], the air base, Khmeimin, and the naval base in Tartus. This is only a partial side of the story.
2:50
The major story is that Russia was very active as a determining force in 2015 to 2017, holding the Assad government in place. But that’s not all they did. From 2017 to 2020 or later, they were very active on the ground, whereas their soldiers went through the countryside of Syria and held pacification talks, as a result of which many of the most radical extremists were moved with their families to Idlib, which is really the spawning ground for this latest military event. The point is that Russia has enormous experience as a pacifier and stabilizing force across the country. It has relations with opposition groups across the country. It invited and held talks with opposition leaders in Moscow during this period, 2017 to 20 or later in what was called the Astana process. That is to say Russia probably has a better feel for the future of Syria than any other country. And to say that it is a loser in this is to be misguided.
Porteous: 4:10
What do you make of Zelensky’s proposal for deployment of foreign troops in Ukraine till it is not made a part of NATO?
Doctorow;
I’m sure that these words were put in his mouth by Washington. That is exactly what Washington and London and Paris would like to hear, that they are being invited into Ukraine to be a peacekeeping group, to monitor and control any eventual ceasefire if one is signed with Russia.
But one will not be signed with Russia under the terms that have such a peacekeeping force as a premise. The Russians do not accept it, and they will not accept it. Russia’s terms for ending this war are very different.
Porteous: 4:58
Since Trump’s election there is a change in rhetoric. Zelensky has agreed to a diplomatic resolution to the war. Why is there a change in stance?
Doctorow:
To say that there’s a change in Zelensky’s stance is to choose one day over another day, because one day you hear that he wants negotiations and next day you hear that he doesn’t. In point of fact, no negotiations are possible so long as his decree [is in force] prohibiting any members of the government in Kiev to hold talks with the Russians. No talks, no negotiations. Therefore I don’t take with any seriousness his latest remarks. But watch to hear what he says tomorrow.
Porteous: 5:41
Do you think under Trump there is a better chance of negotiating peace between Russia and Ukraine than under Biden?
Doctorow:
The simple answer is no. Mr Trump seems to be as misguided and misinformed as Mr Biden was, has been for the last three years. The remarks that he has made during his visit to Paris indicate that he already is beginning to understand that solving the problem in Ukraine and Russia is not a matter of 24 hours. It may not take 24 years, but it certainly won’t take 24 hours. And he has put into his statement about his … his dedication to achieving a peace, the words “if I can”.
So he has finally seen that this is a very complicated story, and that the outlines for negotiating a truce that had been proposed, or at least are in the public domain, coming from General Kellogg, who is his nominated envoy to Ukraine and Russia, that these points in the Kellogg plan are utterly unacceptable to the Russians.
Porteous: 6:55
In hindsight, do you feel Biden’s “no dialogue” policy with Russia was a deliberate attempt to ensure that the war did not end?
Doctorow:
Oh definitely. Biden is very keen– or the collective Biden, Biden and his closest advisers who actually are taking decisions in his name, by that I mean Jake Sullivan and Tony Blinken– they are keen to see the collapse of Ukraine happen on President Trump’s watch and not on their watch. The fact that Ukraine will collapse, I think is accepted as a given by both the Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration.
Porteous: 7:38
What do you think the conditions will be put by Russia to enter into a peace deal?
Doctorow:
These conditions were stated by President Putin when he spoke to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They assemble once a year for general consultations with ambassadors, and they did that in Moscow in the middle of June. On June 13th, he addressed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and set out his terms for concluding a peace, not just a ceasefire, which is unacceptable to the Russians, but a genuine peace.
8:12
And those terms were revalidated by his press secretary just a couple of days ago. When this question came up, what can the Russians ask to establish a peace? They are first of all that the Ukrainians withdraw from the territories that Russia calls New Russia and Donbass, that is the four provinces that have been incorporated into the Russian Federation after referenda were held on them. This is Donetsk and Lugansk, and the two New Russia provinces to the southwest of them. That the Ukrainians must withdraw. Now that withdrawal means going further back than they are today, because in point of fact, Russia has not completely taken possession of these provinces.
9:09
So the Russians say, “You stop fighting, you withdraw, and the next day we will stop firing on you.” That is their first condition. But to go from the mere fact of a cessation of hostilities to a peace, the Russians are saying, let’s go back to what we agreed in March, April of 2022, when you initialed a peace treaty with us, that was then overruled by the Americans and the British when Boris Johnson came and said, “No, don’t do it. Continue fighting; we’ll help you.”
9:43
So what were the terms that were agreed in March, April of 2022? That Ukraine would be neutral, but that’s not enough. That Ukraine would not join NATO, but that’s not enough. That there will be no foreign advisors, foreign military installations, foreign trainers, foreign bases in Ukraine. Those facts are not the same as saying no NATO. So Russia wants to have a limit on the military capabilities of Ukraine in return for which Ukraine will receive security guarantees.
But security guarantees that are not issued through the presence of peacekeepers, which is where we began this discussion, peacekeepers coming from the supporters of Ukraine today. No, no, if Russia accepts any type of monitors of the peace, it will be a broader international contingent, including themselves, of course, and including the Chinese. So, to make an example…
Porteous: 10:52
What do you think the conditions will be put by Ukraine to enter a peace deal?
Doctorow:
Well, they have put out their conditions repeatedly, and they’ve called them various things, their peace initiative, going back six months or more, when they tried to bring in as many countries as possible to present the Russians with an ultimatum to end the war. Their terms are the terms of a victor. They are pretending that Russia, who are clearly the winners on the battlefield, should give up everything at the negotiating table in return for a cessation of hostilities.
11:32
That is an inversion. It’s a complete reversal of the normal proceedings when a country that is vanquished and a country that is conquering sit down to discuss the peace.
Porteous:
Thank you, Gilbert Doctorow, for speaking to us on “Focal Length”. With that, it’s a wrap on this episode.
11:53
For more international news updates, stay tuned on NewsX World.
Gilbert Doctorow 