Transcript of Glenn Diesen interview, 1 August

Transcript submitted by a reader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEO16V1X7Fg

Prof. Glenn Diesen: 0:00
Hi everyone and welcome back. We’re joined today by Gilbert Doctorow, an international affairs analyst, historian and author of books such as “War Diaries: the Russia-Ukraine War”. So welcome to the show. I want to ask you about the state of relations between the European Union and the United States, because as we all know, von der Leyen and Trump, they reached a US-EU trade agreement. And for many people, myself included, it looks more or less like a complete capitulation and subordination, and something that could, I guess, change the relationship between the EU and US, but also something that can undermine the internal cohesion of the European Union itself. So given that you’re located there in Brussels, what does this agreement actually include? And can you make any sense of it?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 1:03
The agreement that was reached in Scotland has two important sides to it. One is what everybody is talking about, the tariffs. And the tariffs are now set at generally 15% down from a tentative 25% before an agreement was reached. But that doesn’t cover all products and services. Airplanes or airplane parts, for example, are not included in this. They are at a much lower tariff rate. There are other products which will be negotiated still.

For example, wines and liquor, which are of great interest to one of the leading countries in the EU, that is France, and that probably will be negotiated at a different level, lower level, in the wishes of the French. But looking at the tariffs, that is severe. It is compared to where we were at the start of the year. It is less than the dramatic and ruinous tariffs that Trump had spoken about before he would negotiate a deal.

And will this bring European manufacturing across the ocean to the United States at the expense of jobs in Europe? It’s not quite clear. There is very little discussion of what Europe actually sells to the States and how vulnerable it is to loss of market share due to price increases. That’s something we can perhaps get into, but what I have in mind is that mass products, products that are bought and used by the vast majority of the population, they are not typically European products. They are Chinese products. European products include a lot of luxury goods, and luxury goods are being sold to wealthy people for whom a 15% tariff won’t make a big difference.

3:07
So the real impact on European sales in the States from this agreement in Scotland still has to be refined. One cannot make definitive statements yet, because it’s not complete. There are these negotiations at the margins. But what was most outstanding and of course what impressed observers of all political stripes by the way, not just observers who are anti-American or pro-American. No, no.

All observers came to one conclusion. It was, as you say, a capitulation. To put it in other terms, it was an enormous humiliation for Europe. Von der Leyen went to Scotland, cap in hand, as more or less a beggar without any, not negotiating from strength, as I like to say these days. On the contrary, she’s negotiating from weakness and from the fear that the failure to reach an agreement would end in a tariff war that could cost Europe five million jobs.

So she was under enormous pressure to ingratiate herself with a man whom she knows despises her. Trump has never made that a secret. And she came away with something that isn’t too terrible. That’s the consensus, again, of observers here in Europe. It’s not too terrible, but it’s bad and it’s particularly bad for the way it was reached, because it demonstrated that there is no leverage from the European side.

4:40
But that is one side of the story. The other side of discussion was the commitment by Europe to purchase 650 billion dollars in American hydrocarbons, that is, liquefied natural gas and petroleum, over the next three years. That is potentially a far bigger impact on Europe from this whole tariff discussion, because it locks in the non-competitive situation of European wares on world markets. The single biggest factor in the deindustrialization of Germany that has gone on for the last three years at least, when the Nord Stream pipelines were destroyed, when Europe swore off buying more Russian pipeline gas and cheap oil. That was a decisive factor making the German economy uncompetitive.

5:47
It was a decisive factor in whole sectors of industry shutting down completely, those sectors that were highly dependent on cheap energy, like glass manufacturing, for example. And fertilizers, of course. These were hit enormously. And the fertilizers being hit, of course, has passed along to consumers in higher prices for all fresh produce, which is produced with less efficiency, with lower yields when the fertilizers are used more sparingly because it’s more expensive.

So this aspect is not in the featured news, when it deserves to be. As I said, it locks in the uncompetitive status of European products on world markets. Now, can that figure be reached? That is another question. Will they actually reach it? Will they actually achieve that over the three-year period?

These are quite big question marks. The United States now exports 80 billion dollars a year of hydrocarbons to Europe. To go from there to 215 billion dollars a year is a big stretch, particularly since it’s not obvious that America has the production capacity to fill orders should they come in. So that is all debatable.

But if it were to be exercised, if in some way the United States could achieve these exports and Europe could absorb them, that will be a big dent in the European economies. And Europeans, the middle-of-the-road supporters of Atlanticism, had been searching hard to explain why they were so disadvantaged in the negotiations with Trump, how he was able to vanquish and have von der Leyen kneeling before him and kissing the ring. This is something that they’re debating. The Belgian leading French-speaking newspaper, “Le Soir”, blames the problem on Europe’s over-dependence on exports to drive economic growth. That is not a convincing argument to anyone who is aware of global trade, since that is precisely the formula that China has used and continues to use so successfully to achieve its enormous growth, presently 5% per annum, whereas in the first quarter of ’25, the Europeans were displaying great pleasure to have 0.1% GDP growth.

Diesen: 8:33
Well, isn’t the real dilemma of the European Union then not that they’re dependent on foreign trade, but that they’re excessively dependent on the United States as a partner? Because it seems as if the EU wants to have a reliable dependency on the United States as it had in previous decades. And in order to do this, they have to win over the … I call it the good will or affection of America by doing as they’re told, which includes reducing their economic ties with countries such as Russia, China, Iran, and well, American adversaries. But by trying to win over the love of Washington, they isolate themselves more in the world and become more dependent on the United States.

9:25
So is this, by committing themselves solely to the US, will this strengthen the relationship with Washington, or will it undermine it by giving the Americans too much leverage in this partnership?

Doctorow:
If “strengthen” means for both parties, of course not. Strengthen the American leverage over Europe, definitely. The question is why did Europe submit to this? Did it have to? What was the overriding consideration?

I think there is a certain understanding among many observers that the driving force was defense. And they hope that by staying close to Trump, by submitting to his will, they could maintain an ongoing conversation with him and persuade him to do what they want most of all, which is to continue to support Ukraine in its war on Russia, because they have made that, arbitrarily they have made that an existential threat to themselves for the sake of the leadership staying in power. That is to say, they’re singing and dancing and moving from the story of last three years that “Russia has to be defeated” to the story of the present, which is “We have to stay united. We need the present leadership in power because this is the only way that we can rearm Europe and prepare for a war with Russia that may take place as early as 2029.”

That is the current story that the present leadership in 25 out of 27 countries of the EU is putting forward to the press, to the public at large, as their re-election bid and as their bid for support. This is based on the same delusion that we’ve seen in their understanding of the Russia-Ukraine war from the beginning. The delusion here is that they can persuade Mr. Trump of anything. They can’t.

And they’re listening to what he says, which is a terrible mistake. Mr. Trump has nothing but contempt for the press. He has nothing but contempt for most of the European leadership. He knows that they are weak, that they are cowardly, they are conformist, and that they will be bullied.

And that is essentially what he is. He is a bully. He’s a bully who is successful at this trick. And he is telling them one thing and doing something else. What he’s doing is stopping supplies to Ukraine.

What he’s doing– this is something we can get into– is probably aiding and abetting the eviction of Zelensky from office and his replacement by somebody who is capable of negotiating a peace treaty with the Russians. So they are going to be bitterly disappointed. They’ve made a bet, they have allowed themselves to be humiliated, for the sake of continuing a war with American help, which will not happen.

Diesen: 12:43
Yeah, this is a comment I made all the way back in Munich when Vance gave this speech. And I was making the point that the Europeans’ efforts to show their loyalty to the United States instead of being rewarded, I think not just Trump, but at some general level across the political class, they’re getting some contempt for the Europeans for the, well, their spinelessness or the inability to stand up for their own interests.

So, and again, this is something I’ve heard from many people as well, so the assumption here is you make a deal, a humiliating deal, a bit of subordination and then somehow this would be rewarded by the United States locking in its presence in Europe. But we also had the Ukrainians making the same assumption with this minerals deal. If we just sign this deal, then Trump will be locked into the Ukraine conflict. But a counter-argument would be then that he can come home to his own people and say, “Look, I got our money back. Now we can leave.” I mean, do you see this? You said they make a mistake by trusting that he will stay there. But how do you see Trump’s commitment to Europe in the months to come, because he has been making a lot more aggressive rhetoric towards the Russians. Is this essentially what the Europeans bought themselves with this horrible trade agreement?

Doctorow: 14:17
Well, he keeps everybody guessing, including those who have bet the House on the unsuccessful relationship with Trump by the handshake agreement this past weekend in Scotland. He keeps them all guessing. Even yesterday, there was this expression of horror that was picked up by major media here in Western Europe that Trump was about to do a deal, cut a deal with Vladimir Putin, that would be vastly destructive of all the ambitions of the EU. I don’t think he’s going to cut such a deal. I don’t think that he has anything to offer the Russians that could persuade them to yield in any way on their conduct of the war, when the victory on the ground is so close to being achieved.

So that is also nonsense. But they are uncertain. The Europeans here are hoping that they have him on line and can persuade him by pointing to these terrible acts of bombing that the Russians are committing now in Kiev and elsewhere. They can persuade him using Melanie perhaps, all kinds of levers that they believe, want to believe, can get Trump to change his mind in the hope that he is not a serious man, that he does not have long-term vision, and that he can be changed from one day to the next by somebody whispering in his ear. That is all false, completely false.

Nonetheless, it persists as a widespread notion of who Mr. Trump is, here in Western Europe. And then you have the special relationship with Keir Starmer, which would seem to demonstrate the validity of such assumptions about Trump. But also, Starmer went to Scotland. Trump didn’t come down to London.

16:33
He was also a supplicant, and the relationship there with the British, they have the most-favored tariff deal out of all countries with the United States at present with a 10% tariff. And they’re gloating over that. But they still have 50% tariffs on steel, which were a very important export product to the United States. And so the British have been given the hope that they have a favored position with the United States as against Europe. But it can change at any moment.

And I think that, again, looking at politics, who stands where? Mr. Starmer, head of the Labor Party, which is to the left, shall we say, of Mr. Trump’s politics. I don’t think he enjoys real respect.

Trump has it his way. And he gets a meeting with the king, that’s fine. He likes pomp and circumstance. But I don’t think that he is genuinely influenced in making policy on these superficial acts one way or another with this or that state leader. He has his own determination to self-impose sanctions on the United States by way of tariffs for the sake of re-industrializing the United States. And I don’t think it’s a vain proposal.

Diesen: 18:00
No, but some of these threats, though, they seem to become actions. Well, I’m thinking then especially what Trump is doing with the Indians, that is putting this additional tariffs on and justifying it by their trade with the Russians. And this is why I was wondering as well, these 10 days, which he has put on, well, it was 15, now it’s 10. Obviously, this could become another 50 again.

So these deadlines doesn’t necessarily have to mean anything, but it does beg the question why he would make himself vulnerable in terms of putting these deadlines to begin with. What is the thought process here? What is it that he’s trying to achieve? And not if, when Russia predictably ignores this, what will happen on day 10?

Doctorow: 18:52
Well, let’s, there’s speculation about day 11. But let me add to the complexity of the analysis, by bringing in what Russians are talking about on their talk shows. I think it’s a different perspective from what is being said by any of my peers in the United States and Western Europe. And that is: why the 10 days, what is it all about? It’s because 50 days, inconveniently, inconveniently expires on September 3rd.

And that is much too close to the celebration of the end of the World War II in the Pacific, which will be marked by the visit of heads of state from all over the place in Beijing. Putin will be there, I think 20, 30 or more heads of state from around the world will be there. And Mr. Trump wants to be there. He wants to have his face-to-face meeting with Xi during that time.

And possibly he could also have this, use that to have a face-to-face meeting with Putin. So I think in consideration or reconsideration of how inconvenient the September 3rd closing was in light of the new aspiration to meet with Xi in Beijing, which is supported by a number of other things, namely his refusal to allow the president of Taiwan to visit New York. I think their whole visit to the States was scrubbed with the intent to avoid any embarrassing conflict with the Chinese that would interfere with his being invited to the festivities in Beijing. So with that in mind, there’s a different focus entirely on what his deadlines are about. There’s more than one consideration when he sets these deadlines.

Diesen: 20:57
When we look though at the Europeans, there is a strange development. That is, they seem to solely focus on foreign policy these days. This is as you mentioned with Starmer, this is seemingly especially the case in the UK, where he spends very little time on domestic issues. I guess you can say the same about Macron. And again, this trade deal as well seems to sacrifice a lot of domestic priorities, that is to develop an economy, deal with social issues.

All of this is being, well, reduced in priority in order to instead buy some favor with the Americans to, again, for foreign policy objectives, no matter how foolish they might be, such as continuing the war in Ukraine. But how long do you think this can go on for the Europeans? Because this kind of doubles down on the disaster of first cutting themselves off from Russian energy and then of course destroying, the destruction of Nord Stream. Did you see the political instability permitting such an agreement to be passed, or not really?

Doctorow: 22:12
Well, one thing I wanted to bring up is what we mean when we say “Europeans” and who makes European policy. I’ve been rereading my materials going back to 2015 in preparation for the volume three of my memoirs.

And I was very focused on Germany in 2015, spoke about it at several conferences, and wrote about it in what I consider to be a very important policy analysis that was published in comparative politics of Megimo, the Russian university that prepares diplomats. What I was saying then is the European policy is made in [Berlin], And this is a well-kept secret. In 2015, just as in 2025, all the top posts in the European institutions are German designated. They were appointed by Germans. And they have appointed in this present case, von der Leyen has appointed people like Kallas, people from Lithuania, people from Poland who are under her thumb.

23:33
They are representing small countries, insignificant weight compared to the 450 million population of the EU. They are often people with– intellectual lightweights like Kallas who can be dominated by a strong and willful personality like von der Leyen. And that is to say, the commissioner, the head of the president of the commission, the head of the parliament, the president of the parliament, yes she’s Italian, but she’s appointed by the majority which is dominated by the European People’s Party which is dominated by the Christian Democrats. It all goes, but the strings all go back to Berlin, just as they did in 2015 when Junker was there. Yes of course, he was a Luxembourger, but he was a weak man who was … nominated and supported by Merkel, because she knew she could controll him, because there were scandals around, just as Tusk at that time.

24:37
He was made the president of the European Council. Tusk, who could hardly speak English, but spoke very good German by the way, was– she appointed him. And nobody bothered to think about what the German connection was there. He was under her thumb. So that was how it was in 2015. That’s how it is today.

And just as– the only thing that’s changed is that Europe, is that Germans today have come out behind, from behind the apron strings of EU institutions and are saying openly that they want to become, for example, the main military force in Europe. So the, who is Europe? Europe is Germany. Mr. Merz is the decisive voice on whether the tariffs agreed by von der Leyen will go through. And many other policy decisions. Your question about why foreign policy? That’s what you do when you’re losing and you can’t control domestic policy. You’re speaking about very unpopular leaders.

25:45
Keir Starmer has lost control of the Labour Party on domestic issues. He had a very severe setback when his reforms on support of the needy, of the wealth, of the benefits reforms were rejected by his own party and watered down to almost nil where they hoped to save a lot of money in the budget. Starmer on domestic issues is very weak. Therefore he can only hope to shine on international issues where nobody can say much.

The same is true of Macron. His domestic standing is negligible. He has very little popular support. And so he goes trotting around the globe, speaking like Mr. France and getting the press to listen to him. This is normal politics of the losing side.

Diesen: 26:46
What does it say about the future of the European Union though? Because not only was this a terrible agreement being made, but as you suggested before, the optics wasn’t great either. That is, von der Leyen coming to Trump’s golf course in Scotland. And well, the general benefit, I guess, or attractiveness of the European Union to begin with has always been this collective bargaining power, that they can negotiate from a position of strength. With obviously the US being the most important partner; that you can have some equality between Europe and the US as opposed to having 27 member states stand on their own.

But if we look back in the ’90s, early 2000s, this was the main selling point of the European Union as well. That is, it could set this asymmetrical interdependence with its neighborhood in the wider world. That is, when the EU sat down to negotiate trade with another state, Moldova or anyone, then the EU could dictate all the terms and not only having a favorable economic agreement, but they can also translate this into political power. So they set political conditions for trade, which became a form of external governance, which is why many people in academia refer to the EU as a regulatory power or regulatory superpower. If you want to trade with us, you have to follow our rules.

28:12
And this imperial model is maybe a bit over the top, but nonetheless, what will happen to the EU now? Because there is no equality with the US. The EU has … kissed the ring of Trump and subordinated itself and also with the rest of the world as the economic power of the EU continues to decline, as its leaders look more and more incompetent and corrupt and unable to reach proper agreements, this whole geopolitical EU, It seems to become more of a burden. If you’re Germany, you want to have good trade deal with the Chinese, you don’t bring the EU along because they will come with their geopolitical objective, which means to insult the Chinese instead. So, well, what does this say about the future of the European Union? Is this club, you know, is this a death sentence or is it, you know, expiring? How are you reading it? It’s not a good sign at least, I would say.

Doctorow: 29:17
To relax, I often turn on YouTube and just see what they’re proposing to look at. And mixed in with the geopolitical videos, they have a lot of animal videos, particularly dogs.

I think about one of these little videos which has a German shepherd and a golden retriever. They’re in the middle of a maze, And the golden retriever is saying, “We’re doomed.” Europe is doomed. The present configuration is doomed. This cannot continue.

They are driving down the welfare of people directly in measurable ways. As I’ve written recently, the rejuggling of the Belgian budget, which the new Flemish-dominated federal government has put into place, takes away benefits from what has been outstanding medical services, severe cuts. This is typical. The cuts are being made to make room for the burgeoning re-armament program, which is all a result of a dead wrong foreign policy. I’m just wondering when this will come out and we will have demonstrations similar to what we saw in Kiev a week ago.

31:03
This cannot go on forever. It defies gravity that the national leaderships in Belgium and in 25 out of 27 other member states of the European Union are working directly against the interests of the people who voted them into office. That is becoming more and more apparent as the budgets are revised to take away benefits for the sake of raising arms manufacturing, for the purpose of fighting a war which is unnecessary, which is driven by the same personal ambition as Mr. Netanyahu and his war in Gaza. That is called out by the Western press now openly.

This is not just a supposition of people like you and me. It is accepted as mainstream that Netanyahu is fighting a war to keep himself from going to court and prison. I say the same thing about all of the European leaders. They are pushing re-armament to avoid being put out in the street where they belong, because the budgets that they are submitting to the member states are anti-popular, they are against the people. It cannot go on, and so I agree with that … golden retriever: we’re doomed.

Diesen: 32:34
If, well, if you’re going to look at how this will affect Europe, then obviously, given that the main purpose of this trade agreement was to tie the Americans in and commit them to Project Ukraine. But also a lot of, as you said, a lot of the political elites there, they see their hold on to power that is in Brussels, dependent on the continuation of the Ukraine war again.

Continuation of Ukraine war is necessary to keep America in Europe, it’s necessary to keep these political elites in power. But beyond that, we also see that not just the European Union, but the European member states bet a lot of political legitimacy on defeating Russia. And not just the political legitimacy, the entire economy has been thrown into this and sacrificed. So what happens when the Ukraine war is eventually lost? And well, it depends what a defeat looks like, but what the Europeans were promising, they’re destroying Russia and having the Ukraine join NATO, all of this obviously is not going to happen.

33:59
And I think that’s an important question now, that Zelensky looks as if he is somewhat in a weaker position. He’s no longer the reincarnation of Churchill, apparently. And suddenly the Europeans, you know, a few weeks ago, it was Russian propaganda to say that he was an authoritarian. Now, suddenly, it’s permitted. So what do you see happening with Zelensky and Ukraine? How does this affect Europe once we eventually lose this war?

Doctorow: 34:35
It’s permitted not just to YouTube channels, it’s permitted to the “Financial Times”. They use that word in a headline of an article dealing with the new law stripping the anti-corruption agencies of their independence. He is damaged goods now. And he’s damaged goods in the Anglo-Saxon press in particular, on both sides of the Atlantic. Now, the question that I’ve had is: who was behind the enabling of the demonstrations that took place, the mass demonstrations that took place in Kiev and in other major cities in Ukraine over the course of several days, in the past week, against the law, which ultimately ended in the revocation of the new law and restoration of what is said to be the independence of these agencies.

35:36
The speculation, and again, I will share with your audience what the Russians are saying about this. They’re saying that we can expect in the immediate future, very scandalous trials. Already yesterday’s indication [was] that the newly installed prime minister was about to be charged with corrupt practices for having used together with Yermak, the head of the presidential administration, Ukrainian airplanes which are only to be used for state purposes. She as the prime minister has the right to use it. Yermak didn’t.

It was pretty obvious that she was doing the man who was behind her, who protects her, Mr. Yermak, she was doing this trip with him for his benefit, not for her own. So that’s the first shoe to fall. There are going to be some very big accusations made in the next few weeks against people in the close entourage of Zelensky and probably of Zelensky himself.

36:53
We are now in the last stages of Zelensky’s time in office. The question is who is pushing this most? Is it Britain with the MI6 who helped arrange that the Ukrainian police and military would not attack the demonstrators? Or was it the CIA?

There are two. These are now, you could say in the past they were one and the same, but not any more, because the United States and Britain have parted ways on the Ukraine war. For the Brits to have done this, it would be to replace Zelensky probably with Zaluzhny. Let’s remember for the last year and a half Zaluzhny, who was the head of the armed forces of Ukraine for several years and who was viewed by Americans in particular as being a good candidate to replace Zelensky, was moved out of Kiev and sent off into exile to London precisely so that to avoid that eventuality, that he would be on the inside, being able to muster support if the West nodded to him as the one to succeed Zelensky.

38:16
Well, he’s been biding his time in London. He’s been learning English, because he hardly could say two words when he arrived there. And he got there because he had said at the time what was true, how badly the Ukrainians were losing the war. And that was unacceptable to Zelensky. Now, that is one possibility. Another candidate, one that I call out on the American side is a very different story by saying Zaluzhny would be put in if the intent was to continue the war and to have somebody who has more credibility with American and West European suppliers of arms to Ukraine, because he is a genuine military person, and his orders would not be for PR stunts like Zelensky’s were, but having some genuine military foundation. Now, the other I’m saying is the Americans probably have a different game.

If they were behind this, then it is probably to install somebody like Umerov, who is now the leader of negotiations in Istanbul. Umerov is a civilian. Umerov is a Crimean Tatar, a Muslim by the way, probably speaks some Arabic, some Turkish, it would be logical. He has been a leading personality in Ukrainian meetings with the Gulf States.

39:45
More importantly for the United States, he’s their boy. When he was in secondary school, he spent a year in the United States living with an American family. When he went back, finished his higher education, became a successful businessman in high tech area, made a lot of money, he established fellowships for Ukrainians at Stanford University. Why Stanford University? Why United States? So he has an American connection, which is always looked upon. He doesn’t have an American wife, but you can’t get everything.

40:21
So he would suit the Americans very nicely as a stand-in and it is reasonable to assume that he could and would negotiate a peace treaty with the Russians, not on the ridiculous basis of Russian capitulation, but something close to Russian demands.

Diesen: 40:41
Yeah, this is interesting though. Of course, who Zelensky is replaced with will be a good indication of what’s intended for Ukraine to go. That is, is it continuing the war or not?

But yeah, I remember back in the days when it looked as if Zelensky was on very shaky grounds and I thought that he might be going away and then instead of course he shipped Zaluzhny to London which is an interesting thing. So I guess Zelensky would, well people like Aristović have said he will probably leave. I mean, I would also expect him to go to Miami or the south of France, but there will be a lot of pressure in the future to have him return to Ukraine. He made himself a lot of enemies and it wouldn’t be very difficult to put in a criminal case against him. However, how do you see, as I guess my last question, how do you see the war progressing from here though?

Is peace agreement now completely off the table or will it depend on who comes after Zelensky? Because it seems as if it would be possible to get an agreement on Ukraine’s neutrality that is going back to Istanbul. The problem is the plus, Istanbul plus the territorial concessions, especially humiliating would be to have a recognition of territories which aren’t even seized by Russia yet, that is of the four regions. But as Russia progresses on the territory, that humiliation wouldn’t it be reduced. That is the Russians are controlling more and more territory.

In other words, the gap between what they demand and what they already have is reduced. Do you see any possibility of anyone in Ukraine accepting these terms? Because you said they’re quite draconian. It’s, you know, I’ll be the first to say that Russians have some very high demands upon Ukraine.

Doctorow: 42:59
They are especially high demands when you’re demanding a concessionary territory that you haven’t even won on the battlefield. I think that problem will be solved before September. I think it’s entirely to be envisaged that Russia will sweep to the Dnieper. Chasov Yar was fought over for more than six weeks, seven weeks. This is a logistics center that was highly contested, very well armed, protected, fortified, and Russians finally overran it in the last few days. The next big center is in Pakrovsk, which the Russians call Krasnoyarsk, that is now facing Russian troops on the outskirts of the city. This has been going on for months, of course, this progress.

43:58
The Russians draw it out because they have wanted to avoid close-contact fighting, which can be very expensive in human life for both sides. They’ve mostly been conducting their war on Pakrovsk with aerial bombing, artillery bombing, and so forth, which costs them very little in lost soldiers and officers, but it’s quite devastating to the Ukrainian side. Once they take Pakrovsk, it’s a clean sweep across to the Dniepr. And so I think that if they take Pakrovsk in the next few weeks, they will take the whole of Donetsk and possibly Zaporizhzhye by September. And then the Russians can be generous in the terms of a settlement, because they will not have to haggle over taking territory that they didn’t win on the ground.

45:04
So that would be a good time to look for a settlement. Again, coming close to Mr. Trump’s original deadline of first days of September, in anticipation of the general meeting of world powers in Beijing to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the end of the war in the Pacific. I think these things come together. And so I would look for a change of leadership in Kiev within that timeframe, engineered either by the United States or by the Brits, depending on – now that will depend whether a peace treaty can be negotiated. But on the ground, the Russians will have gotten what they want.

Diesen: 45:53
Yeah, it looks, yeah, I think people– often you look at the defensive lines, obviously it’s not much west of Pakrovsk, but as you pointed out in this war especially, the logistics is really important and these logistics centers of Chasuviar, Kopiansk is what we can put in this. And Pakrovsk I think will be very important to crack the final stretch towards the Dnieper. So–

Well, thank you as always. It’s always a great pleasure to get your insights on this. So thanks again. And for people who want to follow you, you have your Substack. And of course, I’ll leave a link to your book, anywhere else people should look for you?

Doctorow:
No, no, that sums it up. If they look at the substack, just look at the last few issues because I’m particularly proud of, as I say, of 2015, which was quite a remarkable year for understanding who is who in Europe.

Diesen: 47:03
Oh, thanks again.

Doctorow:
All right.