Transcript of Glenn Diesen interview

Transcript submitted by a reader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni6gF3JH3cA

Prof. Glenn Diesen: 0:00
Hi everyone and welcome! I am joined today again by Gilbert Doctorow, an international affairs analyst and historian, for the purpose of discussing the US-Russia diplomatic developments to end the proxy war in Ukraine. And my main thought was: will this end with diplomacy or on the battleground?

But before we get to this, there’s been some … an interesting development. That is, before Trump’s phone call with Putin, he said that he would discuss territories and power plants, also a reference to dividing up assets. Now, [the] key dispute obviously has been the Zaporizhzhye nuclear power plant, which is the largest nuclear power plant in Europe, which is on international recognized Ukrainian territory.

0:53
But as we know, it’s under Russian control for many years now. And also the territory itself has been annexed by Russia, so it’s contested territory effectively. Now, while both Ukraine and Russia claim ownership to this, which will be one of the issues which has to be resolved, the most recent development is that the US suggests that it should take over ownership of Ukraine’s power plants. So, yes, how can we make sense of this? How are you reading this situation?

Leaviit:
… Ukraine’s electrical supply and nuclear power plants. He said that the United States could be very helpful in running those plants with its electricity and utility expertise. American ownership of those plants would be the best protection for that infrastructure and support for Ukrainian energy infrastructure. President Zelensky also thanked President Trump for continuing to push humanitarian concerns.

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
I’m astonished that this proposal was made by Donald Trump, because it, for me it suggests that he has some very clever people in his entourage who are doing the thinking of how to resolve the very complex thorny issues surrounding the war.

2:09
We’ve had very smart people with Yale degrees, with Harvard degrees, who were in the entourage of Joe Biden. I think Jake Sullivan was a case in point. Tony Blinken was a case in point. But they all had no experience. It’s strange to say. They had no understanding of how the world works. They had no practical brains. They and the people around them were typical of the intellectuals who have always been drawn to foreign policy discussions in the States, who are … again, who have no real life experience. We’re in a very serious issue here between real life experience and academic experience. Now, you have an academic degree, I have an academic degree, and I’m not intending to in any way question the value of an academic degree for what it intends to do.

3:13
But for most of us, It does not intend to run the world. And there you have the question, is a businessman the right person to run the world, or is an academic with a Yale law degree the right person to run the world? I vote for the former, not the latter. There’s been so much said about Donald Trump — that he’s just transactional. He doesn’t have any strategic vision. He has no foreign policy concept. The actions that he does or takes credit for are horrendous, like the recent green light to Netanyahu to resume bombing in Gaza or the attacks on the Houthis. These things are taken separately. People get outraged. They decide that Donald Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing.

I disagree completely. I am an academic who went into business. I had 25 years in business. I saw a lot of nitwits at the top of corporations. So let’s not make any mistakes about it. No one discipline or role in life has a monopoly on intelligence and others are stupid. No, you have stupidity everywhere. There’s a old Russian expression, I think it was back to Pushkin, But for one wise man, there’s a lot of simplicity. And that was true 300 years ago; it’s true today.

4:37
There are very few wise men, and the question is to identify who’s the wise man and who’s the fool. It’s not as obvious as it seems. Donald Trump is not a genius. He’s a man who has some problems reading, so forth. Nonetheless, I know I’m going some distance away from your direct question, but I have every intention of coming back to it.

I was impressed with this proposal for at least three reasons. The proposal of the United States to take possession of the, take possession doesn’t necessarily mean operate three of the several nuclear power plants in Ukraine, of which the outstanding one is the one you mentioned, Zaporizhzhye, that is under Russian control. There are several others which are in Ukrainian-controlled territory. Trump, I think, was talking about all of them. The logic, what is the logic?

5:30
It is a good substitute for the expectations of rare earths, which were touted by Zelensky several months ago and were picked up by the administration as being a way to compensate the United States for its contributions to Ukrainian defense running between 100 billion dollars and $350 billion, depending on whom you want to believe. Well the rare-earths venture, I think, will peter out. The Russians, the Soviets had among the world’s best scientists and practitioners of exploiting the Earth’s wealth. They never found anything worth bothering with in Ukraine, and I think they were not wrong. But that’s a separate issue.

6:31
In taking charge, in taking ownership of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants, the United States would [be] receiving real assets, which are not just worth what the cost of building and replacing them is, but are worth a lot in the future because they are the main and can be the main standby of Ukraine for several years, during which time Ukraine has to rebuild its non-nuclear power plants, which have been destroyed in the last two years of bombing by the Russians.

Let’s face it, Russia has taken on– they didn’t touch the nuclear power plants for obvious reasons, that’s internationally sanctioned to touch them– but they did destroy in the last two years, and I specify two years, because the first year of their bombing was only on distribution, not on generation. But in the last two years, they destroyed generators, and that cannot be replaced in a few months. That’ll take years to replace. However, the nuclear power plants are all functional, because they were not touched.

7:40
The Zaporizhzhye plant is an exception; it was touched. It was bombed by the Ukrainians who tried to blame the Russians for this. And for that reason, it lost its own generating necessary to maintain the operation of the nuclear components. Therefore, it is now idle, but it could rather quickly be brought back on line. And what is the value of this?

Well, let’s say it replaces or at least substitutes for a large part of the missing Ukrainian generating capacity. Generating capacity is important in general, and specifically if AI is to proceed in Ukraine, which is highly demanding on energy. If energy, the earth, rare earths is to proceed, I mean, who knows, maybe there is something worth exploiting, that all takes a lot of energy. So the United States, in taking control of these power plants, would have a very important role in the Ukrainian economy. It would provide a feeling of continuity of American presence and support for the Ukrainian economy even after the United States stops being a provider of money and materiel for the war.

9:01
In this sense, it removes the necessity for the awful plans being hatched by Mr. Starmer and Mr. Macron and Mr. Merz and Ursula von der Leyen to put boots on the ground in Ukraine, which is utterly unacceptable to the Russians and which if implemented would push us well towards the start of World War III. So there you have two very important reasons why this idea is _genial_, is brilliant, addressing very concrete challenges that the further movement on a ceasefire slash peace treaty requires.

Diesen: 9:49
But the actual, yeah, the power plants within the Ukrainian-controlled territory could fall under this idea of more or less a US security guarantee. Again, as you said, this is also the logic which is applied to the rare-earth minerals. That is, it would give the US a presence, it would link its national interest to that of Ukraine and more or less it would make the Russians think twice before attacking this. But with the focus on the Zaporizhzhye nuclear power plant, given that this is under what now Russia considers to be its Russian territory, That is, it seems very unlikely as well that they would give up any of its territory in a peace agreement. Indeed, they would likely push towards full control of all the four Oblasts they annexed. So how do you see this being worked out?

Doctorow: 10:48
You’re touching on a fundamental issue. Each of these actions, initiatives by Trump, each of these crimes committed by Trump as in the Middle East if taken in isolation and weighed by itself, it has a certain value, often quite negative. Taken in combination with the overall vision that Trump has, which is a global reset of Russian-American relations. And that reset is only a small part of his vision for a new internationalism, which is basically carving up the world in the Yalta sense.

When you take it in that global understanding, of course there have to be compromises. The Russians can’t have it all their way. I don’t think that Vladimir Putin in any way expects to force the issue of territorial gains above the issue of a global settlement that provides security in Europe and the globe. So in that sense, this would be a small sacrifice. Now let’s look at the technical issue which I omitted.

11:56
The first Ukrainian reaction is, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Of course the United States can’t do that. The United States does not run Russian, Soviet nuclear power plants. Rosatom does. He wants to prevent the United States from subcontracting the continued operation of those plants to the same people who have been operating them.

It is in Russia’s interests that the Zaporizhzhye power plant be in safe hands. That’s why they took it. That’s why they’ve held it. Now, why would that be important to Russia? Well, because right outside the plant is the graveyard of used nuclear fuel.

That used nuclear fuel, which the Ukrainians attempted to bomb at one point or another, is the material for a dirty bomb. That’s no secret. The Russians want that plant secured. That is far more important than the territorial issue of how much of Zaporizhzhia they hold. It can be secured by the United States. The United States would not allow any of the madmen who are in these civilian and military elites of Ukraine in a revanchist move to seize this very dangerous radioactive material that is all around the nuclear power plant in Zaporizhzhia.

13:30
Well, yeah, I thought it was an interesting discussion that this was actually a theme being discussed because, well, it came as a surprise, but it does make sense that the power plant issues and of course, especially with nuclear power plants, this is something that has to be resolved.

But what do you see in the wider diplomatic front? Where do we need to get in order to actually bring an end to this war? Now I know it’s usually condemned that it’s the Russians and Americans who are negotiating this that the Ukrainians and Europeans aren’t in the room, but this is to a large extent a proxy war.

14:10
So I think it does make sense that big players of Russia and the US resolve some of the issues between them before they move on. And also a lot of the issues are not really only up to Ukraine. For example, NATO expansion, this is not only a Ukrainian issue. Security guarantees from American troops is not only an Ukrainian issue. So there are other things to be dealt with that is the European security architecture. But that being said, What do you think has to be resolved to get an end to the war and where will the most, what will the most difficult parts be?

Doctorow: 14:54
I think that the Ukrainians and the Europeans are not at the table because they are on the menu. That is not something that’s happening as a consequence of their not being at the table. It is the reason why they are not at the table. What I see, let me explain my vision of the reset and why I think that the discussion between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump took place, this telephone call of two hours and 28 minutes, was so heartening to the Russians.

15:33
I believe that most of it– I say “believe”. Let’s be open: this is speculation. Nobody, absolutely nobody among the general public or experts has received a transcript of that phone call and they never will, I mean in the foreseeable future, 50 years from now perhaps, not now. Because what they likely discussed was of such a delicate nature, there’s no way it could be revealed. My guess, and this is speculation, I do not say it’s more than that, but I think it’s educated speculation, is they are discussing a reset in terms that nobody’s talking about.

16:15
It is a revisiting World War II alliances in which the new allies are the old allies, partially; the allies are the United States and Russia. And the new Axis powers are Germany, England, and France. And that’s how it is. The United States and Russia have a common interest in defeating the Axis powers. Now Mr. Merz said it all three days ago in the Bundestag when he said “Germany is back!”

You bet it’s back, just as it was before. We are speaking of the continuation of the Russia-hating Germany that gave us World War II, And that’s where we are today. That’s where Baerbock is, whom Merz has now in the most astonishing way put up as a candidate to lead the General Assembly of the United Nations to its end and doom. We are speaking about Mr. Macron and Mr. Starmer, who are arguably, and I would happily make the argument, criminally insane.

17:24
We had people who were delusional in the Biden administration. They were operating in a bubble. They had no sense of what was really going on or care. They had no concern about what was the facts because we were in a post-factual world.

In the case of Macron and Stammer, they know what they’re doing. They are intent on defeating and sabotaging Trump and his plans for peace. They are intent together with Ursula von der Leyen on turning Europe into a war project, which it’s well on its way to being. And for that reason, I think any understanding that Trump and Putin may have had in their phone conversation would have been founded on their common understanding of where Europe is today.

Diesen: 18:22
Many people might think that looking at the Europeans as an enemy might be hyperbolic, but there is a lot of crazy statements coming out of Europe. I mean– by the way, you mentioned Medvedev, it is being the, well, on the Russian side that this is, you know, Europeans, they’re not [at] the table, they’re on the menu. He actually sent out a tweet more or less outlining this specifically. But with Merz, it’s worth noting that the incoming German Chancellor now he made a speech in the German Parliament, Bundestag, where he argued that Russia is not only [at] war with Ukraine, they’re at war with all of Europe. They’ve gone to war with us and then calling for hundreds of billions to be spent on military. It is a war against Europe and not just a war against the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

Merz: 19:05 [English subtitles]
The circumstances, and this is what colleague Klingbeil just pointed out here, the circumstances are mainly determined by Putin’s attack war against Europe. It is a war against Europe and not just a war against the territorial integrity of Ukraine. It is, even if you see it differently there and there, it is also a war against our country, which takes place every day.

Diesen: 19:31
There’s not that many ways you can really interpret this. And you have Starmer insisting [on] putting troops on the ground and planes in the sky, even though it wouldn’t have American support and they would end up in a direct conflict with the Russians. Even Macron said that he doesn’t care what Russia thinks about putting French soldiers in Ukraine, even though he knows that they, or been warned that they would be considered a legitimate target. So we are moving in a very extreme direction.

Keep in mind that only not that long ago the main argument was that Europe was not part of this conflict. Now, this is obviously out the window. And there is also the idea that the Europeans are making themselves into enemies of the United States. It’s not as controversial as one would think any more. Indeed, if you see the intervention, the way the US has been well, cheering, I guess, for AfD in the election in Germany, Elon Musk keeps going out in Twitter and suggesting let’s get out of NATO.

The EU is over-bureaucratic and authoritarian. This also [is] reflected to some extent in the comments of Vance. That’s [not making US] anti-Europeans. It just means that they don’t like the path the Europeans are on. So there is a huge shift obviously coming. But you see the US and the Europeans getting into conflict?

Well we’re already in an economic conflict I guess, but over what can be interpreted as Europeans’ efforts to sabotage America’s efforts to end the war and reorient itself to have this great power rebalancing.

Doctorow: 21:18
The unreality on the part of Starmer and Macron and Merz and von der Leyen is: they don’t understand, to put it in Donald Trump’s terms from his talk with Zelensky, they don’t hold the cards. The United States holds the cards. They can talk big until the moment of truth.

Donald Trump would probably like to exit NATO, but that is not something that would receive approval within the Senate. He knows that. And so I think what he’s doing is allowing the Europeans to do it for him. By their open defiance, by their plans to set the stage for World War III, I think he is just biding his time till the opportune moment comes to tell them, “Ladies and gentlemen, do as you like with Russia. You don’t have our support any more. You don’t have our nuclear umbrella any more. Good luck to you and _do svidaniya_ [good-bye]. I think we’re coming to that point.

So in terms of will it be a military conflict or something? No, of course not. Will Donald Trump invade Denmark? Of course not. These are otherworldly, the scenes for somebody’s movie. But in the world in which we live, it will only take the reminder from Trump of who holds the cards, who doesn’t, to put an end to this nonsense.

22:57
And I think those who are the most exposed, like the three gentlemen and lady whom I mentioned, they will have no room for retreat. The die is cast, and their only option will be at some point in the near future to resign. Because the policies– they are ruining European defense. When Pistorius– you mentioned the speech by Merz– Pistorius’ speech in the Bundestag was even worse. And these people are saying they’re putting up one trillion euros for re-creation of the European German military machine and to destroy the euro in effect, because that will be it and to raise gold to new unbelievable heights.

23:54
These will be the direct consequences of their policies that have been passed through the Bundestag in the last few days. They are setting the stage for Europe’s demise. Now, how long the general public will put up with this– because it is a disaster for the standard of living in Europe– that remains to be seen, but I cannot imagine that will go on very long.

These people will be out. Trump has a chance to triumph. I have– these are all possibilities. They are not probabilities. And I don’t say, I don’t characterize anything I’ve said as more than speculation, because none of us can be based on solid facts, when the solid facts are being discussed behind closed doors, where they should be. But looking at where the feet are moving, this is what I see.

Diesen: 24:53
Yeah, well, I would have supported the Europeans developing some military independence to have some political autonomy, but this is something very different, though, because when you’re talking about hundreds of billions in the rearmament, and this is at the same time as the foreign policy chief says she refused to even talk to the Russians and is sitting on stage talking about how great it would be if Russia’s defeated so we can break it into many smaller countries.

25:23
Yeah, European leaders talking about “We have to prepare for a war with Russia.” There’s not that many ways you can interpret this. This is very, I’m not saying this could be just beating their chest, it doesn’t mean that they actually want a war or they’re planning for it to be a likelihood, but nonetheless, the rhetoric is very, very dangerous at the moment.

So just to blow this off, it seems also extremely dangerous. But if we go down this path and the Americans decide that, well, you can’t work with the Europeans any more. And I think you’re kind of spot on because when America decided to, that they wanted to get away from Ukraine, they did say they didn’t have to convince the Europeans to take over the project. The Europeans jumped on it. They saw Ukraine fully failing and they wanted to get rid of the ownership and Europeans immediately jumped on it.

26:25
And you see the same now, a few statements from Trump and the Europeans are already talking about a post-NATO Europe. And the rhetoric has a tendency to overwhelm the Europeans and push them all in one direction. So yeah, I can’t be dismissive of what you’re saying either because it does appear we’re moving somewhat in that direction. But if diplomacy…

Doctorow:
It is foolhardy. What is impossible to fathom is how they think they can say that in 10 years they’re ready for war, and Russia will not listen to them, and Russia will not react. The … idea of investing one trillion euros in the German military machine, that will take 10 years before it gives results that would be valuable on the battlefield or otherwise. And we live today. We don’t live 10 years from now.

27:24
Today, if the United States stepped back from NATO, Europe is defenseless. How do they expect when Trump says “no help from us” to face the Russians having just made these violent threats against Russia?

Diesen:
If it’s all, yeah, chest beating will be one thing, but the fact that it’s not backed up or balanced out with any diplomacy, this is my greatest concern. That there is no diplomatic pathway, that they keep making these really maximalist demands. But, and I think this is also why, as you said, why the Europeans are making themselves irrelevant, because how can you have a seat at the table when you’re seen as being unrealistic and also unreliable?

But I guess my last question, though is: if diplomacy will fail, if it doesn’t work, if Trump doesn’t get what he wants and the Russians don’t get what they want, how will this end? What do you see happening on the battlefield at the moment? Because as you said very correctly, this war won’t look like this in 10 years. I know that the Ukrainian military chief, Budanov, he reportedly said in January that if the war doesn’t end by the summer, then the existence of Ukraine could be threatened. He later walked this back or said that, challenged the statement that he hadn’t made it, because it had caused too much problems. But obviously things aren’t going well. So how do you see, how long can this thing go on in your opinion?

Doctorow: 29:01
Well, the critical issue here is whether or not Donald Trump would do the logical thing should the talks fail because of the Ukrainians. And that is the logical thing is to stop all US military and financial aid and intelligence aid to Ukraine. This would be a devastating blow to Ukraine and it would compromise their chances of maintaining themselves in the battlefield for more than a few months while the US-delivered arms are still in stock.

In which case we’re talking about a capitulation. I don’t think the Russians want a capitulation as their first objective. I think their first objective is precisely a negotiated settlement such as Trump is trying to bring about, because it would end the sanctions, it would end the legal challenges to their occupation of the lands that they have taken on the field of battle. It would certainly give them full legal title to Crimea as a first step. These are all objectives of great importance.

30:18
Let’s keep in mind what Russians are saying now on their talk shows. They have three years to finish up with the security problems in Europe. Why three years? Remaining time of Trump in power. No one can say with any confidence that his successor as J.D. Vance will win the next elections. If the Democrats come in, then we’re back to ground zero and it starts all over again. In the case of the Russians, Mr. Putin is not going to be there forever. So there is a limited time horizon for solving this from a Russian perspective. And if that means making compromises, I am certain they are ready to make compromises for the sake of the bigger goal.

Diesen: 31:05
Yeah, well, my great concern as a European residing in Europe is irrespective of what was said in this phone call or in this phone call, the fact that we’re making ourselves almost, the fact of declaring war on Russia while also making an enemy out of the United States. We’re putting ourself in a very, very vulnerable position. So to again, look back at this tweet by Medvedev, because I thought this was quite telling when he argued that what’s on the menu is the French, the British, the Ukrainians. It’s worth taking this seriously I think.

So anyways, Dr. Doctorow, I do appreciate your time as always. Thank you so much for your insights. It’s been very interesting.

Doctorow: 31:55
Well, thanks for having me.