Transcript of ‘Dialogue Works’ edition of 16 January

Transcript submitted by a reader

Nima R. Alkhorshid: 0:06
Hi everybody. Today is Thursday, January 16th and our friend Gilbert Doctorow is back with us. Welcome back, Gilbert.

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
Good to be with you.

Alkhorshid:
Let’s get started with the ceasefire in the Middle East and the Trump’s policy. Who’s going to get the credit for the ceasefire? Is it the Biden administration or the coming Trump administration?

Doctorow:
In mainstream media, it’s clear it’s the Biden administration. In alternative media, people know better. And I think there’s been a lot of discussion of the intervention by Trump’s emissary, who’s a businessman, a Jewish businessman, because everyone said about Trump and his nominees, he has so many Zionists among them, and there are Israeli hawks and the rest of it.

0:59
And they got the wrong end of the stick. When you see what happened in the last week, it’s clear that we really don’t know how Trump is going to behave in office, but let’s look at the bright upside. There was a reason for that optimism, based on what we saw this last week, where according to off-record accounts, his emissary called Netanyahu, he said, “I’m coming tomorrow to speak to you.” And Netanyahu said, “But it’s Shabbat.” And he said, “So what?” So– and then he came, and he read the riot act to Netanyahu, something which was unfathomable to those people who said that he was in the hands of– Trump was in the hands, in the pocket of the Zionists. Not true.

1:54
What Trump said about himself, let us hope, is a more accurate description. He’s a friend of Israel, not a friend of Netanyahu, and with a man who understands perfectly, that Israel is in self-destruction following the policies of Netanyahu. So this gives us reason to hope that Mr. Trump will be a lot better in his second term than he was in his first.

And I have another reason. I have to admit, I didn’t listen to it very long yesterday, but I did catch some of the discussions for the clearing of Rubio in the Senate, the Senate committee, which had hearings on him. So I heard him speak. And I’ve heard from some colleagues, again, leading people in the American alternative media who were speaking about Rubio, so he’s kind of a small person. He’s no match for Lavrov. He has no experience.

2:59
But what I heard during these hearings was completely different. He looked to me like a fantastic choice by Trump. He’s at a different world from the Tillerson or the Pompeo who Trump inflicted on himself and on the country in his first term in office. Why do I say that?

First of all, he was extremely well prepared for all the questions, and his answers were appropriate. He didn’t say more than he had to, to shut up the critics. He didn’t tip his hand. He said things that they would like to hear, but which really do not bear on how he’s going to behave in office. The main thing is not just that he’s a very clever man and very well read and very well briefed to speak concisely without a moment’s hesitation answering these difficult questions, but he’s one of theirs.

4:02
He’s a senator. And all the senators have these IOU chips in their vest pocket. He’s done favors for them, they’ve done favors for him and they’re speaking the same language. So in that sense, to get through difficult issues and difficult policies for approval of the Senate, there couldn’t have been a better choice than Rubio. And I’m quite pleased to see that at least this questionable character, all his views about Iran, oh, but you know, he spoke about Iran.

He had been, obviously, rehearsed this, because what he said was very, very intelligent. We always say there was a distinction between the people and the government. He did it in a very sophisticated manner, speaking about the millennia of Persian culture, about the people of Iran, worthy of our respect, etc. etc. And unfortunately they’re stuck with these ayatollahs.

5:08
But it left you with the understanding that this man is not going to bomb the hell out of Iran. Because that’s not going to achieve anything other than destroy people whom he’s otherwise praised for their civilization. So this was a sophisticated answer, much more sophisticated than anybody I formerly heard in the entourage of Trump use. Excellent. Moreover, it was clear again from the hearing that the issues that are most important to Trump are not going to be handled by Rubio.

5:45
He has designated emissaries who will be carrying out his work. Now how long Kellogg will last as an emissary is another question. But in each case, if you take the emissary, who this businessman from New York, a realtor of course, whom he sent to Jerusalem to deal with Netanyahu. It’s a very clever person, very capable man. Nonetheless, for purposes of pure diplomacy, traditional diplomacy, Rubio is the best candidate because of the, again, the suave, sophisticated nature of dealing with people that comes from being on the floor of the Senate for years.

6:30
So these little indications that have come up in the last week, I’m sure we’ll see more as the hearings of other nominees go forward. They give me a lot more confidence that Trump two will not be a repeat of Trump one, which was, as we all know, very disappointing.

Alkhorshid: 6:51
When you look at the people who are going to work with Donald Trump in his administration, you see young people who are prepared to be shaped by the Trump strategy. And you don’t see Rex Tillerson, Mike Pompeo, those people who were seeing themselves above Donald Trump, who were seeing themselves as policymakers. I see these people as [those] who want to work with Donald Trump, who want to get in line with what Donald Trump wants to do. Do you see the same sort of manner in the new administration?

Doctorow: 7:32
Well, I can’t claim to have done investigation of these people. I’m going to listen to the hearings as they go along, but in general I agree with what you just said. These are people who have their own views, of course. They didn’t come in, they weren’t chosen as blanks, They already had some reputation or positions. But I think they are willing to bend to the decisions of the commander in chief, which, as you say, someone like Tillerson, who had been himself CEO of one of the largest corporations and certainly had a lot of grandeur about him and expectation that that he would be served rather than serving. I think that is not what we’re seeing today in Trump. He has a lot more of a team than he had then.

Alkhorshid: 8:27
Do you think that the ceasefire in Gaza would influence the situation in Ukraine and the way that the Trump administration would manage any sort of talks with Russia, or it doesn’t have– it’s an isolated event that doesn’t have any sort of influence on Ukraine?

Doctorow:
Well, the situations are different. And I’d say the problem with this very quick seeming success– it’s not over yet. Netanyahu is still dragging his feet on signing off and getting his government to approve it so that it can proceed on Sunday– but it’s set expectations which are unfortunate, because going into the Ukraine situation nothing of the sort is possible. The commanding hand is that of Putin, who is not dependent on the States for supplies on the contrary, who has won his victories against all that the United States could throw at him.

9:34
Therefore, the ability of anyone sent by Washington to impose something on Putin is nonexistent. The notion also that the United States could stand by as a counselor, as the two hostile sides resolve the problem between themselves, that also is completely inapplicable to the Russia-Ukraine situation. The Russians have said plainly that the government in Kiev is illegitimate, and there’s no one to talk to there.

10:11
Until there is an election in Ukraine, there is no one to talk to, and this will not wait until there’s an election. So the Russians have made it plain that they expect the solution of the Ukraine problem to be between themselves and their army, their own army. It’ll solve it on the ground. And then any discussion will be only with the United States. No United Kingdom, no EU, no China, no Turkey, nobody else.

10:42
It will be a one-to-one summit between two, let’s call it properly, two superpowers. Now that many neutral observers have properly identified the Russian armed forces as the second strongest in the world after the United States. So we have two superpowers. And superpowers never had the little guys in at the negotiating table. It was always bilateral talks.

And that’s what we can expect whenever the Russians and the Americans are ready for it, which may not be next week, it may not be this spring, it could be in the summer, after the Russians score their decisive victory over what remains of the Ukrainian army.

Alkhorshid: 11:33
When it comes to the reality on the battleground, because which is the main … indicative for those people who want to talk about Ukraine, here comes the situation in Pokrovsk. And how do you see the main line of the battlefield right now, which is so important for the Trump administration?

Doctorow:
I want to emphasize, I never pretend to be a military expert, but I do take counsel, some of them appear on your program, from people who are genuine military experts. And I read a assiduously the “Financial Times”, or the “New York Times”, but particularly “Financial Times”, who are Russia haters.

12:20
And when I see on their front pages, day after day, accounts of Russian military advances and the acknowledgement– they don’t use the word brilliant, strategically brilliant as I would, to describe what the Russians are now doing. But when you read between the lines, it comes out of the latest reports that the Russians are not going into urban warfare to take Pokrovsk street by street. They’re actually going to strangle Pokrovsk by surrounding it and cutting it off from its supplies, which is what they’re presently doing, while making a direct line northwest of Pokrovsk to Dnipropetrovsk, which is on the Dnieper River, it is the third-largest city in Ukraine. It is where some of the biggest oligarchs, including the one who installed the present Kiev regime in power, it’s where they have their home base. Well, that’s a matter of perhaps irrelevancy.

13:25
But the main point is that it is another important settlement, urban settlement, which is not properly defended and which they probably can take without too much effort. So the net result of that is to cut off the Ukrainian front lines from all supplies. If that happens, and it will happen, in ‘perhaps the next one, two, three weeks, then the defense lines of Ukraine genuinely will crumble. And there may be mass desertions, or they simply will run for their lives in a disorderly retreat. In any case, the possibility of a capitulation coming out of this is very high.

14:15
We had all been speaking about the fight for Pokrovsk as if it were a repeat of the several other months-long struggles that were very expensive in men on both sides, the route that this war has seen over the course of nearly three years. No, no, this will be more likely, as I said, cutting them off from their supplies, which are coming from the West and the North, and forcing them to exit the city as fast as their legs can carry them.

Dnieperpratrovsk 14:49
When Zelensky sees what has happened in the Middle East, how Donald Trump forced Netanyahu to accept, to go after a ceasefire in Gaza, what comes to his mind in your opinion? What’s going on there in Ukraine?

Doctorow:
Well, he’s not going to say what goes on his mind, because then he’ll be lynched. He’s probably making sure that that exit route he’s planned is properly prepared, because he may be using it very soon. Don’t expect anything truthful come out of him. That would not be in character. But of course he must be alarmed, as you’re suggesting.

Alkhorshid:
So he’s trying to do each and every thing at his disposal to, I don’t know, with Europeans, with other leaders in order to help him in order to continue this conflict in Ukraine. And after all, do you see the draft age– they’re talking about from 27 to 18– being implemented by the Ukrainian government?

Doctorow: 16:03
I don’t think his government will last if they begin to implement it. There is such popular resistance to this. What we’re talking about now is the demographic destruction of Ukraine. I’m just in very simple terms.

25, maybe you’ve got a kid, you’ve had a child or two. At 18, you’ve got nothing. Therefore, if the 18 year olds and the 20 year olds are slaughtered, then there’ll be a demographic hollow for one generation, at least in Ukraine. We know what this means for all of Eastern Europe that came out of communism. They all had these demographic holes that came out of the extreme poverty in the period of adjustment, readjustment or transformation of their economies.

16:52
And here you would have it on a big scale in Ukraine. So the Ukrainian nation would be … “destroyed” is an extreme way of putting it, but severely damaged for at least a generation, maybe two generations. Therefore the public appreciates that they’re not stupid and they will resist to the last the sending of their boys, robbing the cradle, to be cannon fodder.

Alkhorshid: 17:25
If you remember last time that Donald Trump was asked if he wants to meet with Putin, he said, “Putin wants to meet with me.” It seems to me that he’s so cautious about the internal policy of the United States, he knows how they’re going to attack him in the mainstream media.

Do you think that if he announces that he’s going to meet with Putin in the near future, let’s say in February, is he going to get some sort of attack from the mainstream media? And how strong would that be? Because it’s so decisive, it’s so important, when it comes to the outcome of that meeting.

Doctorow:
We know about the resistance, growing resistance in Germany led by the Alternative for Deutschland to the policies, the anti-Russian policies, the slavish following of Americans’ orders, that the German governments– put that in plural, from the period of Merkel through the Scholz, and likely to continue if the Christian Democrats take over with Merz. We know about resistance to this and the growing opposition to this in Germany.

18:47
I think people are not aware, in fact I wasn’t well aware until a few days ago, that there are also thinking people in France, where the situation of the government is also very volatile. The government, this newly-installed government by Macron, may not last more than a few weeks, however much he tries. And all of that didn’t seem terribly relevant to the issues that you and I are discussing right now, because the French resistance, opposition to Macron government has all been a rather petty [glitch] outsider. [To] the Frenchman, it’s not petty, but from the outside looking in, for the global balance of power and whatever, the French are fighting over two years of retirement age change and whether or not the gasoline taxes are imposed. These are rather small domestic issues.

19:42
However, there is obviously some undercurrent in France, people who are following what we’re talking about. And they have their own hero, certain Emmanuel Todd, who’s I think, close to my age, maybe a little bit younger, but who has been writing about Russia and the Soviet Union, going back to the Soviet Union, how it would collapse before anybody else was saying that. He’s come out with a book a year ago on how the United States lost the war in Ukraine just a year ago. He recently was interviewed by Figaro, the leading conservative newspaper in France, and he was explaining that the biggest problem that Donald Trump has now is how to manage the defeat in Ukraine, which is exactly what you asked me about. For that very reason, I agree with Emmanuel Todd.

It is a tough one, and you just said it will be attacked. Wouldn’t it be reasonable then if he postponed this meeting with Putin till he gets something under his belt, of macho nature, that spares him attacks for being weak in defending American interests. And that’s where these latest rather extravagant statements he’s made about Panama Canal or about Greenland come in. If he can achieve something there– and I think he can achieve something in Greenland; I think Greenland is low-hanging fruit– then everyone will shut up when it comes to giving up Ukraine, because strategic value of Ukraine to the United States is nil. It’s only valuable if you are an ideologist and want to talk in Cold War terms.

21:31
But if you’re a realist and understand that Russia is no threat to Poland, there’s no threat to the Baltics, there’s no threat to the United States, then you really don’t care what happens to those poor people in Ukraine who are so stupid as to fight against Russia. And you are delighted at all of the mineral wealth and strategic advantages that the United States can take by doing a deal with the Greenlanders. Leave Denmark out of the equation, since their premier already gave up the fight and said it’s up to the 56,000 Greenlanders to decide whether they want to go to the United States. Well, he can buy them off. Surely he can buy them off.

And this would be a very important win for Mr. Trump, which I say would put an end to any concerns about his being in Mr. Putin’s pocket, although that very issue also is unlikely to be revived, because the people who promoted that to the newspapers and to the broader public, these intelligence bosses, they are about to be purged as Trump takes over. Therefore, he will be insulated against that kind of backstabbing from within federal bodies. And he will have the comfort of this glow of American patriots for their territories that they now possess.

Alkhorshid: 23:11
You mentioned the situation in Germany. We have AfD and the left-wing party, Sahra Wagenknecht, if I’m not pronouncing it right. How do you see these two parties and how influential are they and which one is, in your opinion, has the better strategy for the future of Germany?

Doctorow:
I thought that Sarah Wagenknecht was eloquent speaker. She said many things that I liked. She also said one or two things that I didn’t like going back two years. When there was, as you may recall, she joined with a feminist leader in Germany. They both spoke at the Brandenburg gates and were calling for a ceasefire. This was not too long into the war in Ukraine. But she opened her remarks, and she opened the petition that she asked people to sign, and many hundreds of thousands of people did sign in that petition. It opened with remark that Russia was the aggressor.

24:23
Well, I discussed this with people at the European Parliament because I happened to be a participant in the roundtable at that time in the European Parliament building. And they said, “Well, you can’t say anything without opening this way. You have to do your genuflection to the powers that be, who want to hear only that Russia is the aggressor. She did it.”

I didn’t like that at all. In the case of Weidel, Alice Weidel, the co-chairman and now the Bundes-Chancellor nominee of the Alternative for Germany. She is not genuflecting before the powers that be. On the contrary. She is not stupid. She’s a very intelligent woman, and she and Elon Musk had an interview, this was eight days ago, whatever, in which– I was disappointed with it, because she said almost nothing about international affairs.

25:33
It was all directed to the questions of the domestic German, particularly economic and social questions, which she took wonderful positions on in favor of a better balance in energy, that is to say, downscaling all the green policies that came in with Merkel and had been amplified when the Greens became a member of the traffic-light coalition under Scholz, giving, restoring nuclear power, strict curbs on immigration, and on financial and other social benefits to illegal settlers in Germany. Lowering the regulatory burdens on German industry,

A lot of very good recommendations, common sense, very close to the so-called populist positions of Trump. Pragmatism as opposed to ideology, all sounds good, but not a word about the issues that interest your audience and me, which is what does she have to say about the war in Ukraine and what about Russia. There was only a little hint when she said something about resuming gas supplies from Russia. But the reason for this, as I’ve had time to reconsider my first thoughts about the interview, they were very cautious, she and Musk.

27:11
They wanted to produce an impression on the German electorate and the American public that the Alternative for Deutschland are not the heirs of Hitler. They are civilized, democratic-minded people who are friendly and whom you can admire for their pragmatic, common-sense approach to economic and social issues.

Well, that’s good, as far as it goes. However, when I’ve looked at what Weidel has said in front of the German Parliament since, what she has said in various locations, either to the journalists or to a public auditorium, there’s a lot more to it. I wouldn’t say it’s anti-American, but it is “get out”. We are an occupied country, and we’ve had enough of it. And we will not slavishly follow what you tell us about relations with Russia. And we will restore the Nord Stream. And well, that is of course music, to my ears, and I think to the ears of a lot of the viewers of this and other alternative-media programs. She came across as the only one who was saying in a full-throated way that the Americans are the problem, not the solution.

28:53
I note that Wagenknecht, Sahra Wagenknecht has come out also a bit more full-throated and a bit less cautious in her most recent public statements. And it’s surely an influence coming from Weidel and the Alternative for Deutschland. So this was a discovery, and I’m hopeful that she will have some success. The last polls, of course, showed she trails Merz, this awful Christian Democrat leader who wants to send Taurus missiles against Russia. She trails him by 10 points.

She had about 20 points in popular polling and the CDU Merz had 30 points just below. We’ll see how this closes in the next six weeks. But I’m pleased to say that Elon Musk, who did not create a very positive impression in that interview, has put his money on the right horse. She is very capable. I heard this was not– but even in the “Financial Times”, in a little biographical sketch of her a couple of days ago, remarked that she has a PhD, that she has had some time working in financial institutions.

30:16
And she is not the slovenly, stupid, Baerbock that Scholz was foolish enough to bring into his cabinet as minister of foreign affairs. No, this woman is highly intelligent, and I think her head is in the right place. So maybe if not this round of elections in the next, she will help bring Germany around to common sense and to a peaceful Europe-wide– meaning extending to the Urals– foreign policy.

Alkhorshid: 30:58
If you were to mention the main impacts of the war in Ukraine, not only the situation on the battlefield, but the way that the United States and together with Europeans were trying to damage Russia during more than two years. We were approaching three years of the conflict in Ukraine.

And is that going to change the Russia’s grand strategy in a long run? How is that going to influence the Russian society, the Russian politicians, because it’s not just the war in Ukraine, it’s not about the battle, the way that they have cut off the Nord Stream pipeline, the way that they tried to put tremendous sanctions on Russia. It wasn’t just a military act. How do you find the impact, the influence, the whole strategy, the whole policies of NATO against Russia? And how is that going to influence Russia’s strategy?

Doctorow: 32:10
Well, if you want to speak about the population, the man in the street, I think the man in the street was never so Anglophile, so much a lover of the West as the intellectuals, the intelligentsia in Russia has been. They have, many of the intelligentsia, have reluctantly had to face the facts that you just were describing, that the West is trying to destroy their country. And so they have somewhat reluctantly signed on to Mr. Putin’s policies with respect to the war in Ukraine. However– and of course, we know that the most outrageous Russian quislings, Russian betrayers for Western interests, left the country soon after the start of the special military operation.

33:10
Having said that, it is undeniable that there are two minds in Russia about the West and about the country’s orientation. I won’t name names, and I won’t name countries, but let’s just say, for example, that a large part of the Russian diplomatic core is Zapetniki, our Western nurse, people who regret deeply the damage that this war has caused to their relations with the West and the rest of the world. Well, I should say the West, they’re not so interested in the rest of the world. These people can’t be chased out. They are part of Russia.

So the situation is not simple. It is complicated. And these are factors that Mr. Putin has to deal with when he’s appealing to all Russians and not just to some Russians and serving their interests. The hatred that has come out most recently in statements by, it was a former secretary of defense, or what they call the, well, I’ll just leave it, the defense minister in Britain, speaking about the need to close Russia, the whole of Russia, all 145 million Russians behind a high wall, a prison.

34:37
That kind of hatred for the country, which expresses very well the British view of Russia since before the Crimean War, that is something that even the most determined cosmopolite among Russians cannot ignore. So the other side, well, where do they go? Well, they’re going to the East, as we all know. And Russia was never naturally aligned with China.

If you will speak to the man in the street going back 20 years, of course, they were not enthusiasts for drawing closely into an embrace with China. However, China has moved, become such a visible factor in everyday life in Russia today. Like 40 or 50 percent of the cars sold in Russia are made in China, and they’re not too bad. Really, they’re not too bad.

35:39
So the popular view of China and things Chinese has of course in this three-year period, changed in a much more positive way. Going back before this war, really there was resistance, I think, to the embrace with China. Not any more. Moreover, it’s not just China, it’s the whole of East Asia. There yesterday was a lot of television coverage of the visit of the Russian government headed by Miss Houston to Vietnam. And Russia has good relations. And of course a lot of Russian tourism now was directed to Southeast Asia.

36:20
So they’re making their accommodation with a part of the world that was not naturally a magnet for them, but considering the very shabby or hostile treatment that they’ve experienced from so much of the West, England in particular, they have had to make an adjustment. And the war is behind this, of course.

Alkhorshid: 36:44
And one of the main factors in Europe is the United Kingdom. Are they going to, let’s put it this way, do they have any sort of leverage on Donald Trump?

Doctorow:
Well, I think reverse is true. Starmer has not been invited to the inauguration. I think that’s an answer to your question. He and Ursula von der Leyen can share a beer someplace, but they will not be sharing it in Washington DC.

Alkhorshid: 37:22
Because we know that how the United Kingdom is against Russia. I don’t know the reason. Many people are giving us a lot of reasons that the United Kingdom is right now. But we know that in the war in Ukraine with the situation that NATO is dealing with right now, United Kingdom is the most radical country or government in Europe who supports the continuation of the conflict in Ukraine. Is that going to, you mean if they change their prime minister to, let’s assume, a Starmer goes away and someone else who’s better than Starmer, is that going to change the– I’m talking about the United Kingdom as a country, does it have any sort of influence in Europe that may cause some sort of pressure on Donald Trump?

Doctorow: 38:24
Well, their influence within Europe of course declined ever since Brexit, So I think the fact that they are outside the Union diminishes greatly the possible influence they will have in the sense that you intend.

We went from one Russia hater from Boris Johnson to another Russia hater in Keir Starmer. I don’t think that they represent the whole of British politics and certainly not the whole of the British nation. However, these feelings go back a long way. And one of the two talk shows that I follow very closely in Russia is called “The Great Game”. And the great game is the British-Russian rivalry in the 19th century for control of Central Asia, and even for control of India, because the Russians had their eyes on India and the British knew it very well. Of course, the great game was played out in Afghanistan and other stans, but it is well in the recollection of the British, just as the Light Brigade in the Crimean Wars, part of legend and part of the literature that every young Brit receives in secondary school.

39:45
So this antipathy or adversarial relationship with Russia was there. And of course, it is exacerbated by the contempt the British could feel for Russia in the 1990s when it was flat on its back. And of course the resentment that it has ever come back. These are factors that are not going to go away soon.

Alkhorshid: 40:16
Yeah, just to wrap up this session, Gilbert, do you see France, the changes that are happening in France would help the policies that we know from the Trump administration would be putting an end to the conflict in Ukraine. How do you see France’s role in the policies, in the main policies of Europe in the near future?

Doctorow:
Well, I think that France’s policies in Europe are on hold. Mr. Macron– doesn’t stop him from running before every microphone that he can see to make wonderful statements that vary from day to day on the outlook for European policies and for France’s contribution to them. He talks a lot, but I don’t think that France is in a position to influence Europe yet.

41:13
They have to do away with Macron government. And then we shall see. As I said before, France’s first concerns are regrettably domestic. I say regrettably because they cannot, they’re not in a position to contribute to the resolution of these very big Europe-wide problems on the orientation of the EU, the structure of the EU, the bureaucratization of the EU, and simply speaking, the authoritarian ways of the European Commission achieve Von der Leyen. Macron himself, as I’ve written, going back to his first election was put in place by the CIA.

I don’t depart from that judgment, that he has been a willing servant of the worst elements in American foreign policy community. Until we see him off, I don’t see any possibility for France to play a constructive role either in the EU or in relations to Russia. But he will go. I don’t believe he can hold on very long. It took– much will depend on the outcome of the, of the general election.

42:28
Much will depend on the growing formation of a group around Orban and Fico and the incoming, head of state in Austria. They are about to change–

Alkhorshid:
Romania.

Doctorow:
And well, Romania is a bit more problematic to– we don’t know to what extent the United States and the CIA will continue to influence the procedures in the election, presidential election. But in Austria, it’s already a foregone conclusion that a populist so-called far-right party candidate will assume power. That will make three already in central Europe who are against the will of Brussels. That is serious, quite serious.

Alkhorshid: 43:25
Yeah. It seems that there are some similarities between Germany and France in terms of far, they call it far, I don’t agree with “far right” and “far left”, but let’s put the way that they’re talking about. Far right and far left in France and far right and far left in Germany. As you know, the party of Macron came to the third position in the latest poll in France, but these two, as we call it, the far right and far left, which are the two winners of the election in France, what are they representing? Is the same way as in Germany or is it different?

Doctorow: 44:16
Well, [it’s] a bit difficult talking about the far left. It is fractured also, with the very far left, essentially communist, at the far end that spectrum. And more moderate, if it makes sense to call it moderate, some social democratic position also on the left. On the right, you’ve got Le Pen’s Rassemblement National, the group that essentially was founded by her now deceased father. Her position, it is sovereignty. That is the main issue.

45:00
Right-left is not descriptive of slavish collectivism of the European Union member countries that have voluntarily surrendered their sovereignty. France never sat comfortably with that. Least of all was it comfortable with the surrender of national defense sovereignty in the framework of NATO, which is why they had an out and in. They left under De Gaulle; they came back finally under Sarkozy. But they still are a bit nervous about that.

They want their sovereignty back. The Germans have not used those words till now. The question of German sovereignty, the reality that Germany has been occupied country since World War II, that was never part of public discourse. It was off limits. The Alternative for Deutschland has brought it back in.

46:00
Well, I shouldn’t say it was never. The Dillinga had this as a subtext. It had the “Ami Go Home”, Americans clear out, the popular songs. But it didn’t drive it home as a central issue. And I think that the Alternative for Germany is doing just that.

It is central to that, to Weidel policies when she feels it’s safe to talk, which is what she’s doing around the country as she’s making her campaign to become chancellor. But it was something that she avoided taking up in the interview with Elon Musk for obvious reasons, not to touch off all the alarm bells among the EU censors who are watching that interview very closely.

Alkhorshid:
Thank you so much, Gelbert, for being with us today. Great pleasure as always.

Doctorow:
Well, I thank you for having me.

Alkhorshid:
Bye-bye.

Doctorow: 47:07
Goodbye.