Conversation with Professor Glenn Diesen: Restoring Russia’s Deterrent or Emboldening NATO?
My latest essays and video interviews with Americans, Indians and Iranians disseminated as podcasts on internet channels in the USA, in India and in Iran set out my impressions from Vladimir Putin’s 4-hour speech and Q&A session on Thursday, 2 October in Sochi at the 22nd annual Valdai Discussion Club gathering. They stirred considerable controversy as you can see in the Comments sections of the respective videos and in my substack.com entries presenting the links.
I insist that stirring controversy in this way is good and is necessary. Too many of the Alternative Media broadcasts resemble the Mainstream Media they supposedly are countering by borrowing from one another and standing shoulder to shoulder behind interpretations that are not challenged. When there is no debate, the results tend to be second rate whether in the camp of the ruling class or in the camp of the Opposition.
The chat that Professor Diesen recorded with me this morning is likely to stir even more debate, which hopefully will remain polite and constructive. I am suggesting that the era of Vladimir Putin is coming to a close, that his performance at Sochi demonstrated that he no longer has the courage of his convictions, that his threats meant to deter Western enemies are empty verbiage, indeed that himself he has pulled up the red lines he clearly set out just one year ago with respect to long range missiles being supplied to Ukraine, and that he is drawing out the war in Ukraine by not using the Wunder Waffe that Russia has in the form of the Oreshnik and other hypersonic missiles to end the war now, without taking or inflicting further casualties on the young and not so young men at arms on either side of the demarcation line, without letting the war roll on for several years until the West succeeds in the remilitarization that is now underway and has a chance of defeating Russia in a conventional arms war.
This question of Putin’s succession will play out in Russia whatever we may think, but I am saying that this eventuality which we never openly discussed now is ripe for discussion here in the West even if it is verboten in Russia.
I particularly recommend this video to the Community because you will find in it the impressions of someone who watched the Valdai proceedings from afar on the internet (mine) compared with the impressions of someone who was present in the auditorium in Sochi when Putin delivered his address and who compared notes with ambassadors, political scientists and other participants of the event (Glenn Diesen). Do check to see how our impressions did or did not match up.
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025
Gilbert Doctorow 
ESCALATION DOMINANCE (VALDAI EXCERPTS 2 OCT. 2025)
Putin:
00:38:34
“Is it any wonder that conflicts, instead of being resolved, have only worsened, leading to bloody armed conflicts and humanitarian catastrophes? Such actions solve no problem. There have been countless examples of this over the past 30 years.
One of these is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which Western unilateral diplomacy, which shamelessly ignores the history, traditions, identity, and culture of the people there, has failed to resolve. It has also failed to stabilize the situation in the Middle East as a whole, which, on the contrary, is rapidly deteriorating. We are now learning more about President Trump’s initiatives. I think there may be light at the end of the tunnel after all.”
00:39:26
_________
Professor Marandi, Iran.
01:39:45
M. Marandi (as translated): Thank you for the opportunity to ask a question, Mr. President. I would also like to thank Valdai; it’s a fantastic conference.
Of course, we are all saddened, because over the past two years we have seen genocide in Gaza, the suffering of women and children, who are tormented day and night. And recently, we saw President Trump make a peace proposal that felt like an offer of surrender, especially when it was made to Tony Blair, given his history in these relations.
What can the Russian Federation do to put an end to this sad situation?
Thank you.
01:40:49
Vladimir Putin:
The situation in Gaza is a horrific event in history, in the modern history of humanity. It is even known that the pro-Western Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Guterres, publicly declared that Gaza has become the largest children’s cemetery in the world. What could be more tragic and sad?
Regarding President Trump’s proposal on Gaza, you know—this may surprise you—but Russia is generally willing to support it. Provided, of course—and we must carefully examine the proposals—it leads to the ultimate goal we’ve always discussed.
Russia has always—from 1948 and again in 1974, when the relevant UN Security Council resolution was adopted—advocated the creation of two states: Israel and a Palestinian state. And this, in my opinion, is the key to a definitive resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
As far as I know, I haven’t looked at the proposal closely yet, but it involves the creation of an international organization that would administer Palestine, or more precisely, the Gaza Strip, for a period of time, (AND MR. BLAIR WOULD BE ITS LEADER) and Mr. Blair would be its leader. (HE IS NOT KNOWN AS A GREAT PEACEMAKER ) He’s not known as a great peacemaker, but I know him personally. Moreover, I’ve visited him, stayed overnight with him, had coffee with him in his pajamas in the mornings, and so on. Yes, yes.
F. Lukyanov: Was the coffee good?
V. Putin: Yes, absolutely.
But what I’m trying to say is this: he’s a man with his own views, but he’s an experienced politician. And generally speaking, he could, of course, play a positive role if his work, experience, and knowledge were channeled through peaceful channels.
Several questions naturally arise. Firstly: how long will this international administration last? How and to whom will power be transferred? As far as I understand, this plan outlines the possibility of transferring power to the Palestinian Authority.
In my opinion, it would, of course, be better to transfer everything to President Abbas and the current Palestinian Authority. It might be difficult for them to resolve security issues. But as far as I understand, the proposals of my colleagues with whom I spoke on this topic today provide for the possibility of transferring control of the Gaza Strip, including to local militias for security purposes. Is that a bad thing? In my opinion, it’s a good thing.
We must understand, I repeat, how long the international government will be in charge there, and what the timeframe is for the transfer of both civilian authority and security matters, which is very important. And in my opinion, this must absolutely be supported.
On the one hand, this involves the release of all hostages held by Hamas, and on the other, the release of a significant number of Palestinians from Israeli prisons. Here too, we must understand how many Palestinians, who, and within what timeframe can be released.
And of course, you know, the most important question is: what does Palestine itself think about this? This is absolutely essential to understand. This includes the countries in the region, the entire Islamic world, and Palestine itself, the Palestinians themselves, including, of course, Hamas. There are different attitudes toward Hamas, and we have our own attitude, but we have contacts with Hamas. It is important to us that Hamas also supports this, and that the Palestinian Authority supports it.
But these are all questions that require careful and meticulous study. All in all, if it happens, this will of course be a very important step forward in resolving the conflict. But, I repeat, in our view, it can only be fundamentally resolved with the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Israel’s attitude toward this is also important, of course. We also don’t yet know how Israel will react to this. I don’t even know of any public statements on this; I simply haven’t had time to look into it. But what’s important isn’t even the public statements, but how Israeli leaders will respond to them and whether they will implement everything the President of the United States proposes.
There are so many questions. But generally speaking, if all the positive things I’ve mentioned happen, it will certainly be a breakthrough. And that breakthrough could very well be positive.
I repeat for the third time: the establishment of a Palestinian state is an essential part of the overall settlement.
F. Lukyanov: Vladimir Vladimirovich, weren’t you surprised a few weeks ago when a US ally, Israel, attacked another US ally, Qatar? Or is that normal now?
V. Putin: Surprised.
F. Lukyanov: And the US reaction? How did you react to that? Namely, the lack thereof.
(V. Putin throws his hands in the air.)
I understand, thank you.
01:47:35
_______
Anatoly Livyn.
A. Livin (as translated): Thank you very much, Mr. President, for visiting us.
Recently, a discussion has arisen in the West about two potential escalation points: the delivery of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine and the possible seizure of ships carrying Russian cargo on the high seas, not just in territorial waters.
Could you tell us how dangerous this is in your opinion and how Russia would react?
V. Putin: It is dangerous. As for the Tomahawks, they are a powerful weapon. Admittedly, they are no longer entirely modern, but they are powerful and pose a threat.
Of course, this doesn’t change anything; it doesn’t change the balance on the battlefield at all. I’ve already said it: the fundamental problems of the Ukrainian armed forces—no matter how much you bombard them with drones, no matter how much you create seemingly impenetrable defenses with drones—if there are no troops, there is no one to fight. Do you understand that?
I was talking about changing combat tactics due to new technology. But look at what we see on television, where our troops are advancing. Yes, it takes time—two or three at a time, but they are advancing. Electronic warfare works, they suppress them, and they advance. The same will happen here.
What difference does it make if there were ATACMS? Well, they did cause some damage. Eventually, Russian air defense systems adapted, despite their hypersonic nature, and started shooting them down. Can Tomahawks harm us? Absolutely. We shoot them down and improve our air defenses.
Will this damage our relations, which have seen a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel? Of course. But how could that be? Deploying Tomahawks without the direct participation of American troops is impossible. This would herald a completely new, qualitatively different phase in the escalation, including in relations between Russia and the United States.
What’s so good about hijacking ships? Piracy. What do they do with pirates? They destroy them. And how do they deal with them? This doesn’t mean a war will break out across the ocean tomorrow, but the risk of conflict will certainly increase significantly.
Taking the French Republic as an example, I think this is precisely what’s happening: this escalation of tension, this heightened escalation, is, in my opinion, currently primarily due to an attempt to distract their citizens from the growing problems in these countries, which are now talking about them or trying to do so. As I say, they’re waiting for a response from us.
This immediately shifts the political focus: “Help! We’re under attack!” – “Who?” – “Terrible Russia! Everyone must show solidarity and unite around the political leadership.” This is the main goal, and the citizens of these countries must realize that this is the goal: to deceive them, to cheat them, and thus distract from protests, including in the streets, while simultaneously suppressing their civic activism and clinging to power themselves.
But the citizens of these countries must understand that this is a risky game: they are being pushed down the path of escalation and potentially a major armed conflict. I wouldn’t do that.”
_______
LikeLike
The idea of Putin getting replaced would have sounded farfetched even a year ago. I no longer rule it out after watching your interview.
The view that Russia’s slow war of attrition is a calculated strategy to wipe out a whole generation of Ukrainian men of fighting age has gained currency among notable analysts in the alternative media. They are well-known names. As you have rightly observed, they seem to be converging into group think by frequent interaction with one another. Yours is the only voice I have come across drawing away from this consensus to raise this once unthinkable possibility.
Even if the entire population of Ukrainian men of fighting age is wiped out, what about Europe and US? Is Russia going to wage a similar war of attrition against all those countries while decimating its own fighting capability?
Putin’s laid back reactions to one redline after another of his toppling over like a domino are inexplicable. EU, even without US, has the technological prowess and population advantage to put together a fighting force to outnumber and outgun anything conventional Russia has in three years’s time. At that point, Russia will have no choice except its nuclear and/or non-conventional weapons of mass destruction. The war of slow motion attrition might have made sense a year ago. No longer.
Dismissing EU’s military potential to wage a war against Russia is foolish. Europe was where the first and second industrial revolutions took place. It might not be the engine of the third and fourth industrial revolutions, but it has virtually unrestricted access to the technologies of these coming out of the US. That Russia has caught up in many areas, perhaps even surpassed Europe and US in some, is nothing to be complacent about. If Russia, coming from far behind during the first two revolutions, could catch up, so can the West which is hardly that far behind. The existential danger to Russia is very real.
Putin’s bending backward in the face of escalating strikes – more frequent and farther out – against Russian oil infrastructure, gas pipelines, nuclear facilities, even its strategic bomber fleet, all on the belief Trump will bring NATO to heel, seems naive. Trump is an aberration, a cult-like figure risen out of the ashes against the odds (or perhaps the game was rigged for him by militant Zion this time). He has a little over three years left in his second and last term. If he had wanted to pull the rug from under NATO’s feet by ceasing all US support to this war, he would have done it. Either he can’t or he won’t.
If Putin is playing 4D chess and pinning all his hopes on Trump…well, hope is not a strategy. He might be approaching his Churchill moment.
LikeLike
What is said behind the scenes between Trump and Putin nobody knows.
Maybe Trump and Putin are crazy like a fox and are throwing commentators and others into a spin.
LikeLike
What is said behind the scenes between Trump and Putin nobody knows.
Maybe Trump and Putin are crazy like a fox and are throwing commentators and others into a spin.
LikeLike
What is said behind the scenes between Trump and Putin nobody knows.
Maybe Trump and Putin are crazy like a fox and are throwing commentators and others into a spin.
LikeLike