https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYactL5y58E
Transcript submitted by a reader
Note: one and the same reader has been providing all of these transcripts for the past year. He requested anonymity, which I have been obliged to respect although I regret not having had the opportunity to thank him publicly for all these efforts which many readers have found very useful
Prof. Glenn Diesen: 0:00
Hello everyone and greetings from Dubai. In today’s program I am joined by the excellent Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, historian and an international affairs expert. So the US prepared this proposal for ending the war in Ukraine, yet we see now that Zelensky rejected it quite publicly before it could even be presented, and the Europeans are seemingly encouraging him to do this as well. So as a result, we now see Marco Rubio canceling his attendance and their entire thing more or less collapsed before it had even begun.
A very dramatic development, given that the US now threatens to wash its hands [of] this war and walk away unless the parties start falling line. How do you make sense of all of this?
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 0:59
I think the Russians have finally mastered a technique that was outside their competence for decades: public relations. This weekend was quite remarkable that Vladimir Putin took the initiative and launched, without any prior consultation with the Ukrainians or the Americans or anybody else, he launched his proposal for a 30-hour ceasefire in honor of Easter, and he assumed that the Ukrainians would follow suit. The result immediately of his announcement was Zelensky appearing before [cameras], disheveled, looking confused, and making a rather spontaneous and not very kindly or agreeable statement, denouncing the Russians for never agreeing to the 30-day unconditional ceasefire that he had proposed and instead of offering a 30-hour peace pause.
That was in bad humor, and it showed that the Russians had really caught him flat-footed. Now, the next move was obviously a leaking of information to the “Financial Times” that Vladimir Putin was ready to abandon the maximalist ambitions of Russia to take all of the four oblasts, which it has incorporated into the Russian Federation after referenda in the fall of 2022, but which it has not fully captured. We know that Donetsk province or oblast is only about 65-70 percent held by the Russians. The Lugansk was always very well kept by the Russians, it’s about 98%, 99% in Russian hands.
3:07
But the other two oblasts are not. They’re maybe 50 or 60% Russian. And Kherson, the very capital of Kherson oblast is in Ukrainian hands on the right bank of the Dnieper river. So the fact that he would violate actually the constitutional requirement that Russia not sacrifice any territory that is deemed to be fully Russian. That is quite extraordinary. And it was meant to demonstrate to the Americans that Russia is not after a land grab, that Russia is after security and the other principles that were announced at the start of the Special Military Operation.
3:53
And the “Financial Times” took close note of this and remarked that probably the Russians in exchange for this concession, very considerable concession, would be looking for their other interests to be fully adopted by the Americans in the final peace settlement that would be on the table.
Well, here you have the Russians making an important seeming concession, although when asked about this by reporters, the press secretary of the Kremlin, Pieskov, said, “No, no, no, this was fake news.” That’s understandable. I believe that this leaking of information to the “Financial Times” and to the Western media was intentionally done in this– to catch again, to smoke out the Ukrainians and to avoid unnecessary discussion of this concession at home in Russia, where it would raise eyebrows, where it would come under strict criticism from real patriots who say, “Ah, it violates the constitution. We cannot sacrifice the land that has been duly incorporated into the Russian Federation.”
5:16
Well, they smoked out Zelensky in more than one way. It occurred– when you turn this around in your mind, you see that the Ukrainians– probably at the suggestion of what the Russians call their curators in London and in Washington and in Paris– the Ukrainians were proposing and were advancing the unconditional ceasefire with intent to divert attention entirely away from their rigid position on the end game, for their unwillingness to accept anything other than a Russian capitulation as the basis for a peace treaty.
And here you have it. The Russians have publicly or at least are assumed to have made a concession of great importance. And Mr. Zelensky turns around and says that Crimea is Ukrainian and always will be, and he will not recognize it as Russian territory.
6:19
Now, that’s one level of analysis. There’s an additional point here. Let’s be honest about it. The Ukrainians diverted attention from the endgame because if Mr. Zelensky were to propose anything less than the maximalist program that he has from the beginning set out as his peace objectives, which is essentially Russian capitulation, trial and tribunal of Putin and the other Russian leaders, reparations and so forth, as if Russia lost the war and Ukraine won the war…
if Zelensky would back away from any of this, he’d be lynched the next day. He cannot make any compromises. It is not a question of whim, it is a statement of fact. He’ll be lynched and he knows it. So the Russians have been very clever in setting up the stage.
7:17
And what is the end act of this stage presentation that they prepared? That the United States wash its hands of its whole existence, walk away from it, probably cut all further intelligence systems to Ukraine, say, “let the Europeans do it if they like Ukraine so much”, and continue the progress on normalization of relations with Russia. This is a scenario that I see in the making.
Diesen:
So the seeming Russian concessions, as you mentioned, they were quite significant as reported in the “Financial Times”. Do you see the reports as credible, that the Russians actually did offer to freeze the conflict along the existing lines, given that this would provide a problem within the Constitution, or were they simply betting on Zelensky not accepting these terms? How are you reading this? Because if it is correct, it is, it was, well, it was significant concessions on the Russian part.
8:32
Well, this is not the first time that I’m airing these views. And I can tell you that some comments came back on the previous video in which I mentioned this, saying, “Oh no, the Russians can’t possibly give up this territory. Doctorow doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” Well, I think I know what I’m talking about. And again, you have to look at what are the Russian war objectives. They were never to seize more territory. The … corporation of these four oblasts of the Donbas and the Novo Rossiya oblasts into Russia was done post haste.
9:10
It was done in what, in September, I believe, 2022. It was done when it was clear that the western supporters of Ukraine — United States in the front row and the British next to them — were on a war footing and had no intention of letting this go and letting the Ukrainians settle with the Russians. When this was clear, that’s when the incorporation of these four oblasts became a necessity and was carried out. But that was not the original game plan. The original game plan was denazification and demilitarization, and no NATO, and rollback of NATO in general from its advanced positions in Eastern Europe as infrastructure and personnel.
10:04
So Mr. Putin is not making any great sacrifices here. He’s simply returning to basics. And it becomes very attractive to return to basics when he sees the prospect of some normalization with the United States, that is not just a theoretical idea, but already has been demonstrated by what I see as the cooperation of Team Trump and Team Putin on resolving the nuclear issue in Iran, which is a great indicator to Trump of how Mr. Putin can be as useful to him as he was to President Obama in resolving the question of the chemical weapons in Syria, which the war hawks in Washington wanted to use to justify massive airstrikes in Syria.
11:02
This scene is being replayed now, as I understand it. Just to put a dot on the “i”, it is not just consultations with Witkoff, and also with the Urainians. Let’s get this straight. Before he went to Oman on the first visit, Witkoff stopped over for half a day in Petersburg, and you can be sure that they talked about what he was going to do in Oman the next day in negotiations with the Iranian foreign minister through an intermediary.
I believe it is reasonable to expect that the Russians are presenting themselves as not the only, but among the key supervisors and inspectors of any Iranian settlement made from the United States to ensure that it is being respected. Probably the Chinese also will put themselves up in that role.
12:09
And it would make a lot of sense for these two powers to be the guarantors of Iranian good behavior, as opposed to the absolute wimps from the United Nations Atomic Energy Group, who are afraid to say anything that becomes political.
Diesen:
So this diplomatic flop, how does it change now the nature of the war? Because [on] the face of it, it does seem to put Russia in a good position. Even the American media recognized that the Russians were prepared to make great concessions to reach a peace. Meanwhile, Zelensky is seen now as taking a very maximalist position, even again rejecting this proposal before even the meeting took place in London, so in doing so quite publicly.
13:05
And of course, now the United States has an excuse, if you will, to divorce itself from the war if it wants to leave before the collapse and, I guess, dump the whole mess on the Europeans. So do you think, do you see it in, I guess, such dramatic terms, or how will the war be affected by this?
Doctorow:
I see it in precisely the terms that you just set out. I think that the United States is receiving the reason, a justifiable reason, for walking away from this. The Europeans in holding the hand of Zelensky are setting themselves up for a big fall, because the disaster in Ukraine will become their property, not the United States.
13:55
While Trump and Team can go ahead and find points in common in international affairs and business affairs with the Russians, without anybody’s nose being turned the wrong way. The hawks in Washington will have to accept this. Now, what nobody is saying is what I just said. It isn’t just the whim of Mr. Zelensky over his bad mood or his bad temperament or his stupidity, Lord knows what, no.
The man understands, and it was said publicly, that if he betrays the neo-Nazi gang that has controlled the Kievan government since 2014, they’ll be strung up from a tree. It’s not my speculation. This is on the public record. So you don’t find that on the front page of the “Financial Times”.
14:54
But it’s obvious as day. He cannot give any concessions. Not that he won’t give them, he cannot. If he has to give concessions, he’d better get on a plane a few minutes later, because his life will be worth nothing.
Diesen:
Yes, well, that was kind of something that Boris Johnson also suggested happened in 2019, that he was unable to implement any of his peace mandate because of the nationalists. But it was an interesting commentary out today by former advisor of Zelensky, Alexei Aristovich, who argued that Ukraine should accept this, the loss of these four regions because, in his words, the alternative was there will be a loss of eight regions instead.
15:43
So in other words, the alternative isn’t victory, it’s further defeat. And I guess anyone who’s following the conflict now kind of recognizes this, that the war is being lost, that the more it’s delayed, the more men and territory will simply be lost. So I understand the position that Zelensky is in. He’s had to live with this threat by the nationalists since 2019. It’s not much he can do to reverse course now.
But the Europeans, what is the objective here? Because if the Americans are prepared to walk away from this, what is the benefit of prolonging the war now and further extending it? It’s– I guess of all the actors, I have the hardest time understanding the Europeans.
Doctorrow: 16:36
Right. Well, step back, Aristovich remarks, he’s in the United States, isn’t he right now? He hasn’t been there for several years unless I’m missing something. Where was he when he said made this statement?
Diesen:
I’m uncertain. He was on one of these podcasts he usually attends. I’m not sure. I heard it was in US, then I heard it was in Turkey. I don’t really know, to be honest. But he’s not in Ukraine at least, that’s for sure.
Doctorow: 17:00
He’s not in Ukraine. Otherwise, he wouldn’t dare said what he said.
Diesen:
No.
Doctorow:
So this– you can be objective, and you can make valuable contributions as that statement appears to be, when you don’t have your life on the line, because you got these fellows behind you who are ready to lynch you. And that is a situation of Mr. Zelensky, which he has gotten himself into the whole time he’s been in power.
17:24
But as to the Europeans, why are they so stubborn? Well, you’ve discussed this and the various, various analysts, and I think generally it’s been, what I’ve heard or understood, is that they have … dug a hole for themselves, and it’s very hard for most of them to extricate themselves from the commitments they’ve made, and they have no intention of retiring early from political life. So they keep on doing it. And they’re hoping that Mr. Trump will flip-flop, because he seems to do a lot of flip-flopping these days, and will come around to their view.
18:00
And he has done nothing to disabuse them of that illusion. He has not done what he should have done, that is, to read the riot act to the Europeans. He never did that. Instead he sent Kellogg a week ago to meet with them, and to hold their hands, and to give them some hope that the Trump administration is sympathetic to their efforts of securing a peace by their sending peacekeepers and whatever, which is total rubbish, of course. Trump should have read the riot act and he hasn’t had the guts to do that, which I mean, I have to hold this out as a severe criticism. He is trying to let everybody see Trump through their own lens, rather than to understand his real position, which is quite close to the Russian position.
Diesen: 18:57
So will the Americans actually walk away from this war now? Because Trump keeps making the point that this is not his war. It was Biden’s war. But nonetheless, he keeps sending weapons. He keeps providing the intelligence. I know at the moment it’s a huge effort to reposition the US from a participant in the war to being a mediator, but if he continues down this path, surely it will be too late.
19:27
He will gain some ownership of this war. And as he’s now reaching his 100 days of, well, which was the date, well, the time he set for himself to resolve the war, how likely do you see it as the United States actually walking away from this?
Doctorow:
Well, the moment that Trump stops providing weapons and perhaps stops providing intelligence, that is a moment when he has taken a clear decision and when those among his opponents domestically and abroad will be ready to strike. So he’s postponing that moment, but the moment will come. And I think the longer he postpones it, the worse it is for him.
20:08
The present state of flux and fluidity and uncertainty about his intentions has reached its limit. Will he walk away from it? I believe he will. Right now, he has every justification. It’s very hard for someone the least bit objective to say he should stand by the Ukrainians when they’re being totally unrealistic, not facing the reality on the ground and demanding that the victor take the lot of the loser. So I think that he will prevail, but only if he acts, and not just if he fudges as he’s doing now.
Diesen: 20:55
Well, I guess it takes me to my last question. If the United States does leave now after this flop, What do you see happening? How long do you think Ukraine can hold out on the battlefield based on what you’re seeing now? Because some of the weaponry has shifted from this, for example, the huge need for artillery shells to more cheaper weaponry like the drones which the Europeans are able to supply.
I’m not saying that the Europeans can fill the shoes of the Americans, but how long can realistically the war go on if the United States decouples completely this?
Doctorow:
Well, you’ve touched upon a key issue. The nature of the war has changed. There have been multiple changes over the last three years. There have been turning points which make all of us observers and commentators look foolish, because our expectations were based on a steady-state nature of war, and it has changed, first by the introduction of lethal weapons by the United States and its allies, which was unanticipated, and by the ever-more-lethal and ever-more-sophisticated weaponry that they have supplied to Kiev.
22:06
So these turning points have existed. In the last few months, there is a decisive change in the nature of the war, which makes it, frankly, easier for the Ukrainians to hold out longer. And you just touched upon it. It has become a drone and electronic warfare, a battlefield scene, which works against massing of troops, which will be decimated by kamikaze drones, and which makes it possible for a relatively small number of computer nerds and video game players to constitute an effective military force using drones and to make it very risky for an attacking force to go out on the field and expose itself to these weapons that, as I say, are controlled by relatively few people. So the whole question about, “Ah, the Ukrainians are short on manpower”, well not really, if it is a drone situation.
23:10
And just to come back to a very important issue, this nature, the changed nature of the war, I believe is expressed in the number of kills. When it was clearly, as you were saying, an artillery war, and the Russians had, as they almost in the beginning had, a seven to one or ten to one advantage in available artillery shells versus the Ukrainian supplies. It didn’t happen in the middle of the war. It happened from the first days of the war. When it changes from that to drones, where the Brits have sent thousands of drones and where the Ukrainians themselves are manufacturing them in underground workshops and perhaps supplying 30% of their needs domestically.
23:56
When that shift took place, the number of kills went down. Three months ago, day after day, the Russian news is reporting 1800, 2000, 2200 Ukrainian casualties day by day. Now when I listen to the Russian state television news reports from the field, I hear about on this front, we killed 50 Ukrainians on that front. What is it? It’s a different scale.
It is an order of magnitude different. And so this has a decisive importance for us as we consider how long can the Ukrainians hold out. On the other side, war is not just technical and material, war is psychological. And on the psychology side, the United States abandoning Ukraine can have decisive importance in destroying the self-confidence of the Ukrainian people in their ability to resist the Russians. So this makes it very hard to give a reliable or confident prognosis how long the war can go on.
25:09
But I believe it will be over before the end of this year, probably because of psychological impact and the departure of the United States and a collapse of morale on the Ukrainian side. Not because they don’t have any bodies to put on the line. They have some bodies and the front lines have not collapsed. And in the case of the little scraps of land that were being held by the Ukrainian forces in Kursk province, my goodness, it’s down to 99.5% of the land recovered. That last 100% is awfully difficult for the Russians to capture.
25:49
The Ukrainians are going to their deaths knowingly, rather than surrender or flee. Flee is rather problematic, but they’re not doing that. And so the Russians recognized a long time ago that their Slavic brethren in Ukraine have the same kind of guts and the same kind of determination that they do. And that hasn’t changed.
26:20
Therefore, as I say, it’s very hard to get a serious date when will the war end. But I believe it’ll be sooner rather than later, and it’ll certainly be before the end of this year.
Diesen:
Yeah. Well, when I heard about the huge US pressure and the Russians making great concessions, I was struck by a moment of optimism that this war could possibly come to an end fairly soon, but it appears it will still go on for some time. But I do agree though that it is a huge limit now on how far, of course, it can go.
26:57
So, yeah, Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, Thank you very much. It’s always very fascinating to get your insights. Well, thanks again.
Doctorow:
Well, my pleasure.
Gilbert Doctorow 