Transcript submitted by a reader

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ttYcjybLWBY

Diesen: 0:00
Welcome back to the program. We are joined today by Gilbert Doctorow, a historian, international affairs analyst, and also the author of the “War Diaries, the Russia-Ukraine War”. So thank you for coming back on the program. I understand that you are in St. Petersburg now.

Doctorow:
That’s correct. My wife and I maintain an apartment here. And so it’s like living at home. Of course, when you’re away from a place for five months, you forget how this apparatus or that apparatus works, how do you work the dishwasher here, that sort of thing. But otherwise, those little inconveniences are nothing compared to the pleasures of being here.

Diesen:
Well, what I wanted to discuss with you was the decline of Russia’s deterrent or at least the credibility of its deterrent. And this is quite an important matter, that is a credible nuclear deterrent kept at peace during the Cold War as both sides knew that they shouldn’t step over certain lines. Once those lines are no longer respected, one risks going further and further down the line and the further one waits to restore one’s deterrent, the more it risks to upset the entire balance. But one of the key criticisms within Russia or concerns at least within Russia has been that the Kremlin has let their deterrent become less credible. That is, over time, Russia didn’t really respond forcefully to any of NATO’s escalations, especially the long-range strikes deep into Russia, both military and commercial targets, but also what we saw back in June, the attacks on Russia’s nuclear deterrent. It appears to me that there’s some push now for a major course correction. I was wondering if you were hearing the same thing.

Doctorow: 2:06
Well, it’s obviously being debated in the highest circles of the foreign policy establishment in Moscow. And I want to make a point clear that wouldn’t be obvious to the general audience. What you and I are about to discuss is a matter of very considerable importance and attracts the attention of foreign policies professionals and defense professionals.

The general public, in light of what I’m about to say about Mr. Putin’s conduct, view him differently. They speak about the man’s gentlemanly behavior, his tolerance for the juvenile behavior or the insulting behavior of American presidents, I use the plural here, and of European leaders. And they find this credible, they’re very comfortable with that, they’re happy that we’re farther away from a war as they see it. As people who are professionals, and you certainly are the most professional, but that is really your your first speciality, We are of a different view, and the world that we live in is “might makes right”.

3:21
And so that– I’m not making a judgment, I’m making a statement of fact. In the world of geopolitics, might makes right. And the meek and the timid tend to be crushed. That is not something the general public likes to understand. They also don’t get the idea that when people are introduced to a public event, which we are told brings together the great and the good, that very distinction is foremost in the minds of the organizer of those events.

There is a distinction between great and good and powerful and people who are decent. They are not necessarily the same people. This is what we face today. And the problem that is arising now, and you’re describing it as a failing deterrent value of Russia, And we discussed this last time, as you said, there are the three components to it. And what Russia seems to be missing at present is the demonstration that it’s willing to use the wherewithal it has and the communication of that determination, both to its adversaries and to the broad public.

4:35
So this seems to be going down. It didn’t just happen yesterday. I take this back, when we’re speaking about Mr. Trump, to the period before he even took office in his first mandate in December of 2016 when the outgoing Obama administration presented him with a poison chalice when they confiscated Russian diplomatic properties in the United States. And they were expecting that that would elicit a violent response from Moscow and which would spoil relations from day one.

Well, there wasn’t any response from Moscow, any credible response. They didn’t do what they should have done then. So the weakness and the failure to respond in a traditional way and according to diplomatic tradition and rules of behavior was being violated by Mr. Putin and his administration back then. It didn’t just start yesterday and it just accumulated over time with more strategically important assets being put in jeopardy, as you just described in the introduction, without Russia providing an adequate response.

5:54
All that they have done is to emphasize from 2018 that they had world-beating military hardware, which was being put into mid-serial production and entering the armed forces. When it came to proper response to demeaning acts that were wrought by Biden, nothing happened. And so there was a confidence that built up in the United States and in Western Europe, which only Mr. Trump recently said, when he called Russia a paper tiger. Of course, all the pundits started talking about the Chinese reference, where it came from.

That’s really irrelevant. That exists as a term that we all understand today. It is a country that projects power, but is unable or unwilling to use that power or to wield a big stick when it needs to defend itself. And that’s where Russia is today. I’m perplexed.

I’m perplexed because Mr. Putin from the day he came [into] office was praised or denounced as an alpha male. The whole feminist movement at once hated his guts because he was clearly with his– bare- chested, riding horses. This man was a man of great physical presence, even if he’s small in stature. And he certainly, when he spoke about his childhood in Leningrad as a scrapper, a guy who was in the courtyards and was challenged by bullies who were always, this always happens among kids. And he stood up and struck first.

7:42
Well, where is that Mr. Putin today? Gone. Now, we’ve all, all of us who’ve been watching this war have been called out, have been shown to be false prophets repeatedly.

And we are rightly criticized by readers or viewers who point out that we have been saying and saying and saying that the end of the war is around the corner when each time a new level of escalation is introduced, which made irrelevant and inaccurate all of our projections of a near-term end to this war if it were being fought on traditional military values, where certain losses are considered to be decisive and you just withdraw from the contest, pay your fees, and look for another day.

8:40
That hasn’t happened. And so it is, I finally became very tired of making false projections. As some of my peers are still doing, that “Oh yes, the Russian economy is crumbling, the Ukrainian army is being bashed.” Well, it is being bashed, but it’s been bashed from the first month of the war.

For the first month of the war, the Russians had a 10 to 1 artillery advantage and presumably a 10 to 1 advantage in deaths and casualties. But the war didn’t stop. And as I see this confiscation of 145 billion euros in frozen assets now in Belgium. If this indeed is realized, which it may well be because the Europeans now are desperate to continue the war at whatever costs in violation of international law. And if that happens, then the war will go on for three or four more years.

9:36
You mentioned I wrote volume one. I expect to have volume two and three published in Q1, 2026. But I don’t want a whole library shelf of these volumes. I don’t think anybody wants this to go on three or four more years. And the latest statements coming out of Vladimir Putin, he’s done– we speak about the flip-flops of Trump– well, he has flip-flopped from the Thursday evening phone conversation he had with Donald Trump on the evening before the arrival of Zelensky for his latest visit to the White House, when he was stern. Oh, we were told he was stern. We, of course, didn’t have a public reading of the words, but what he said was repeated by Trump the next day to to to Zelensky, the words which we assume that he received from Putin. Because before Putin said them, Vladimir Salovyov said those same words on air. And certainly those words came to Salovyov from Putin’s people.

10:44
So those words were, “If you dare to provide Tomahawks to Ukraine, we will destroy Ukraine.” That’s pretty strong stuff. And then a week later, Putin is backtracking. And yes, he’s saying, “Oh, yes, well, we’ll no longer destroy Ukraine.” It’s “Well, that will be a real dent in our relations.” So this is not serious. If I were any of Mr. Putin’s enemies in the United States Senate, or elsewhere in the US government, or sitting in Brussels, I would say, “My goodness, that man is weak.” And weak is the opposite of deterrent force.

Disen: 11:41
Yeah, this, well, I can understand why, especially after Trump came to power, there would be some desire to favor reducing tensions as opposed to upholding the deterrent. Because in the diplomatic sphere, Russia will never see another Trump. One that has spoken friendly about Russia, said he wanted to get along, recognized that NATO expansion, on more than one occasion, he recognized this is the cause of the war. Again, there seems to be a pathway there to peace. And well, it seemed, let’s use past tense there, but also those reasonable concerns about escalation and given that the war was going Russia’s way, they didn’t want to make any waves.

But of course, the situation today is very different. We see, as you said, the pressure on Putin to do something, to retaliate is growing. I think it’s fair to say that diplomacy is dead now. Trump for all his talks, everything that was talked about in Alaska, about dealing with the underlying causes of the war, well, now he’s back on the ceasefire again. So everything they talked about, everything is now out the window. And also the sanctions on the Russian oil or, well, technically secondary sanctions, because they’re going to go after Russia’s partners, India, China.

13:18
And as you said, the Europeans essentially legalizing the theft of Russian assets to further fund the war a few more years. This is all the indicators of preventing the fall of Ukraine and keeping the war going for a few more years. But not only is the pressure on Putin, and I think there’s recognition more widely now that diplomacy is dead, but Russia stands on much firmer ground now if they now decide to go up the escalation ladder. I’m thinking then a few months ago, the Oreshnik was a, you know, a test missile. Now it’s in industrial production.

The Russians are in a much stronger place now it seems if they do want to start to restore their deterrent. But do you think this would trigger a direct war between NATO and Russia if Russia escalates or would it prevent it?

Doctorow: 14:22
First, let’s take one step back. You said everybody agrees that diplomacy is no longer an option. Everyone except Mr. Putin. In the last day, he has repeated that, well two days ago, he was speaking and saying that talking is much better than confrontation. And then he sent Mr. Dmitriev to the United States on a fool’s errand that has the image that the United States and Russia are still talking to one another and are thinking about big business in the future. This is absolutely empty show and it only demonstrates a complete lack of understanding by Mr. Putin and the people who are advising him of who Mr. Trump is, what the American administration is, and how do you deal with them. He is dead wrong. This Mr. Dmitriev’s mission is empty of content, because everything– Dmitri is a brilliant man who is very ambitious and is serving the boss of bosses with a view obviously to where his political career will go in the future.

15:35
I have no objection to that. But what he’s doing now is utterly stupid for the interests of Russia. He rewards the United States by pretending that they’re still in talking terms and have great business plans for the future, the day after the United States has slapped secondary sanctions, which– this was discussed with Trump, it was discussed with Putin, what is the outcome or the likely result of these sanctions? And Putin said, oh, we will get along, it’s not a deal. And Trump said, we’ll see how you’re doing in six months.

Between the two, I agree with Trump but I disagree with Putin. What has happened– I just did a little diversion here, we’re speaking about the secondary sanctions on the two biggest consumers, buyers of Russian oil, that is India and China. These sanctions against China are almost without effect, not just because China will stop supplying rare metals to the United States and the US industry will shut down the next day, but because China has most of its oil coming to it by pipelines, which are really in no way affected by the sanctions that have been imposed, because they are directed against seaborne oil.

16:56
India is the opposite case. India does not have a stranglehold on rare metals. It has no cudgel to use to beat back the Americans the way the Chinese do. And its oil, which is roughly the same volume as what China’s importing, is all coming by sea. And yesterday, I think it’s called Reliable. It’s a privately owned single biggest importer of Russian oil into India. And they said they’re not going to buy any more oil.

Now, that isn’t the end of the game, of course. The Russians and the Indians are probably scrambling to find workarounds for this, but there will be a loss of sales. And what does that mean for the Russian budget? Mr. Trump is right.

If we just say that the Russians cannot bring around the Indians to maintain the same level of imports, they will lose 10% of the state budget. 10%. Now they are not running a deficit because the Russian government is jointly prioritizing guns and butter. That is all social benefits are rising, indexation is going up, the standard of living of the grandma is better than it was last month. All that’s going forward.

18:18
And they have a deficit in the budget. You make a 10% hole in the budget and Russia is going to be suffering enormously. And Trump knows that, and Putin is denying it. He also knows that.

So they’ve got a big problem. He is not dealing honestly with his own people and he is not making decisions that are rational in light of the behavior of the Americans. The worst thing he could have done was to send Dmitriev to the States just after these sanctions were introduced. And the whole Dmitriev affair in general, just to back up for a moment, is total nonsense. It’s only that “We, Americans and Russians, will have great business together. We do big business.”

Yeah okay. I’ve heard that since 1975. In 1975 on, I was very deeply involved in all the big business that the United States and Russia would have. And frankly speaking, it was nil. Not because of bad will, but because the different structures of the economy.

19:35
And they simply are not, there’s nothing to harmonize, the way there was and is with Europe, where the two fit together very well. Supplier of raw materials. United States doesn’t really need Russian raw materials. And this project, this mega project, this again shows a very poor understanding of Mr. Trump. Oh, Trump is a big real estate developer. So we’ll propose to him, we’ll build an $8 billion dollar tunnel connecting Alaska and the Russian Far East.

To carry what? Nothing. There’s nothing to carry. So they were, they thought they were being very very clever with Mr. Trump and they have not been very clever. And that carries over to this question of deterrence. I think that Putin has made some very bad choices.

Sending Demetriev was the worst thing he could have done. Making that lame speech a day ago that we still have an option for diplomacy and we don’t want to confrontation. That is exactly the– directly against what you were saying, what I am saying, and what people like Dmitry Trenin and Dmitry Simes, who are really very well plugged into the power structure on foreign affairs in Russia, are saying. So there’s a problem there.

Diesen: 20:52
Yeah. I don’t understand quite why the Kremlin still thinks it has a peace president in the White House because I mean, when the United States approaches countries, the ideal scenario it has is where it is allowed to bomb other countries a little bit, like most of Middle Eastern countries. So moderate attack every now and then. And with the understanding if there’s any retaliation, then it would escalate dramatically. Now the only way you don’t end up in a situation like that is if you have a deterrent who is, that is credible. So Iran, for example, made this very clear.

Any attacks on it, it will respond and they know they will respond. So doesn’t mean a war isn’t coming, but nonetheless, it creates some caution. But we created this strange scenario now where initially it’s kind of open that the NATO countries were backing Ukraine within the war, confined within Ukraine. But then came this idea that, well, why should the war be confined here? Let’s bring it to Russia.

Now you see, again, not only did Trump put sanctions directly on Russia, which even Biden wouldn’t do, the oil, but now also having all these NATO countries, because you have now Zelensky in London with the coalition of the willing as they call themselves, discussing what long range missiles, how NATO can assist probably using these weapons and what targets to pick. And well, essentially, there’s hardly going to be any Ukrainian engagement at all. This is– we’re now in direct war. And while they’re being punched in the face, they are essentially saying, well, let’s let’s talk instead. I mean, the whole point of the turns is if– there’s a one-way hostility here, where NATO can strike Russia but Russia doesn’t respond, why would NATO talk to Russia then?

22:59
I’m just saying in political theory you often assume that countries will push and push and push until they’re pushed back. Once there’s a balance, then you start to talk and find a way of enhancing mutual security. So it is strange indeed to see that Putin hasn’t, that he still behaves as if he buys into Trump’s rhetoric, that it’s not his war, he’s trying to end it. The fact that Trump hasn’t once over the past few months now mentioned an end to NATO expansion, it just makes the whole thing look like a fraud, especially now walking back this whole idea of addressing the underlying causes. But if the Russians were to restore their deterrent now though, again, it seems like a good chance we could end up in war exactly because well, at the moment, the Europeans at least, they seem to be almost looking for a reason to pick a fight.

24:08
Every time we have a little drone near a German airport it’s defined as a hybrid war you know even though they’re arresting Germans for it. But what do you think a possible conflict could arise though? Because as the, as well, Keir Starmer is celebrating Trump’s sanctions And he said that we will keep, we will help to take Russian oil off the market. Now that we can name in many things, it could be in sanctions. It could mean start seizing Russian ships.

Again, it could mean assisting more with long-range strikes on Russian refineries. How do you see the escalations coming forward? Because it looks like NATO is preparing another round of the attacks on Russia.

Doctorow: 24:57
Well, I think that Mr. Putin’s team understands the concept of window of opportunity. The opening of the special military operation in February, 2022 was precisely based on a window of opportunity, based on the technological advantage in strategic weapons systems that Russia had satisfied itself, was operational, and could be used at any moment. Russia for the first time in 70 years was technically, strategically ahead of the United States, not three steps behind. Now that consciousness of window of opportunity, which determined the timing and the manner of the special up military operation, is exactly what’s missing now. In answer to your point, this is the moment for Russia to strike. The Europeans acknowledge that they have nothing and they are putting out and publicizing 2029 as a date when they will be ready.

26:06
Why in hell do they think that Russia’s going to sit around waiting to be struck by them because the Europeans are finally ready? If Mr. Putin’s team has any strategic thinking, they will recognize that fact and wipe out Ukraine now, before Europe can do anything. Europeans will be left wringing their hands. The Americans will say, we told you so.

And that’s where it will end. If Ukraine’s military potential, decision-making centers are taken out now, which those Oreshniks make manifestly possible, end of game, or game and match. I am dumbfounded that Putin’s team has forgotten the notion of window of opportunity. Russia will never have the same advantage it has over Europe militarily that it has at this particular moment.

Diesen: 27:13
But the whole, the ideal of a deterrent is exactly that it shouldn’t have to be used. That is, if it’s credible and communicated properly and these capabilities are evident. Now everyone knows that the capabilities are there, but it’s not credible any more. And the communication is poor. I mean, if the language would be firm to the point where NATO would read it as Russia would not have, well, the Kremlin wouldn’t have an opportunity to essentially walk it back if red lines would be violated, then it would be credible. But this is why I’m looking, one would expect a speech where President Putin would say, you know, if long range strikes with missiles operated by NATO countries strike our our land or soil, then we will do A, B and C.

If it’s made clear and they know that the Russian public wouldn’t accept anything else or the military leadership, the political leadership wouldn’t accept any walking back of very clear commitments, then they wouldn’t have to use any of their deterrent. There wouldn’t have to be a strike on Ukraine’s decision centers. They wouldn’t have to do this escalation, but I guess my concern is, as long as they don’t communicate it, you walk further and further up the escalation ladder, and when they finally do strike back, then you end up in a war situation.

Doctorow: 28:46
What I was suggesting was not a war with NATO. I was suggesting destroying Ukraine. They’re two different things. The destruction of the political elites in Kiev would be a warning. It would establish or reestablish Russian’s deterrent.

Let’s go back in history a little bit. There was 1956, there was 1968. Russia had at the time all kinds of deterrent powers in its military arsenal. But it invaded both Czechoslovakia and Hungary and it hit a fly with a hammer, and it worked, and that’s what I’m saying now. I’m not saying that they should– and there are Russian hotheads who are saying, well, we have to bomb Germany, we have to wipe out London. I’m not saying this at all.

What they have to do is go to the heart of the problem, which is the antechamber of the Russian-NATO war. It is not creating a Russian-NATO war. If Ukraine is eliminated, by the method I’m saying, and it’s not my idea, I’m repeating what is on– the words of well-respected Russian thinkers. All right, there is disputes over how well-respected Mr. Karaganov is, but nonetheless, He is a major figure in the political establishment of Russia.

30:19
And so at that level, and I say even less than that level, because he was speaking about using a tactical nuclear weapon in Western Europe to demonstrate Russia’s willingness to go all the way if necessary. I think the sword is needed. Oreshniks destroying a few hundred people in downtown Kiev who are the regime, could do the job and reestablish Russia’s deterrence to all of the war-hungry people who happen to be the heads of government in Western Europe.

Diesen: 30:59
This is the risk though, when you let your deterrent become weakened, if not undermined completely, suddenly you do get these proposals from quite respected people who argue for use of tactical nuclear weapons against European countries in order to restore the deterrent. This wouldn’t have been an issue.

I mean, I think if … they would have upheld it, that’s what I meant at the onset, that is, I think the whole, both sides, the world in general, it loses when one of the great powers lets its deterrent slip. This is when there will be an overcompensation later on. It just feels like, based on the shift in rhetoric and also the situation on the ground, the accessibility now of the Oreshnik on a much larger scale, it looks like we’re reaching that point where the retaliation will come. But if this is the case, one would expect to see a change in rhetoric because if, if, President Putin stepped up the rhetoric, then perhaps, they wouldn’t have to go to the extent of actually using this weapons.

Doctorow:
He doesn’t have to personally step up the rhetoric, but he has to stop calling, rebuking the person in his government who was best able to do that. I’m speaking about Sergei Ryabkov. Ryabkov is the one who in December 2021 presented the ultimatum or the draft agreements which were in fact an ultimatum to Washington and to NATO. That either go back voluntarily, withdraw your establishment of NATO, the structures, to where they were in 1997, or we will push you back. Now that’s pretty tough language. And the same Ryabkov is the one who was slapped down by Putin less than a week ago for saying what you just said at the start of this conversation. That diplomacy has outlived its usefulness.

So these people like Ryabkov, and there aren’t too many like him. He’s really quite outstanding and brave because he knew what he was heading into when he said that. He knew that he was putting his career in jeopardy when he said that. They’re there inside the government, not on state television.

And the– what worries me most of all, is something that’s going to sound a bit peculiar, I think, to viewers. We have been living with the neocon stories about appeasement. We cannot deal with this dictator in Iraq. We cannot deal with these people in Libya and so on. We cannot appease them and so forth. And always with a reference back to Chamberlain and his speech of “peace in our time” after his meeting with Hitler, and the surrender of the Sudetenland. All of that was rubbish. It was pure propaganda. But what I heard Mr. Putin saying a day and a half ago was a Chamberlain speech. And that got me very unhappy.

Diesen: 34:41
So that’s, I guess, a final question. Do you have any predictions where we’re heading now though? Because you make it sound like Putin is standing his ground. I got the impression that he was making a bit of a shift, that a response could be coming again. I’m not certain in this, but that’s the impression I was left with.

Doctorow:
Well, I hope you’re right. But I’m dismayed that he sent off Dmitriev, because that undermines any such notion of his move from expectation of productive diplomacy to restoring Russia’s deterrent power by communications and by show of grit. I don’t know. None of us knows what he’s going to do next.

But he has been inconsistent in the last two or three weeks, and I think you’ll agree with me. As inconsistent in his own way as Trump is. One of the criticisms I have from colleagues, confidentially on the side, not in a public dispute, is that Putin has to behave this way because he gets reports from Russian psychologists who have done readings on Trump and his volatility. And the man is unpredictable and such a dangerous person has his finger on the nuclear start and therefore they are playing with Trump in this way.

36:33
I don’t believe that at all. From my way of thinking, Mr. Trump is a good Christian, a real believer, a family man, and the last thing he wants to see is the United States, including his own family, incinerated. So I wouldn’t worry for a minute about Trump rushing Hegsteth. I don’t believe any of this. I think people are trying to cover their backsides for being apologists for Putin.

I’m not an apologist for anybody. We’ve gone through this question before. I’m just trying to keep reading it as I see it. And maybe you’re right, I hope you’re right, that he has definitely seen the light and will be tougher and a better protector of Russia’s interests, but I’m not persuaded yet.

Diesen: 37:25
Well, my impression of the Trump administration was that they are quite transactional but also pragmatic, that they do assess their policies based on cost-benefit analysis.

So previously, people like Marco Rubio was asked, why don’t you push more sanctions on Russia? And his response was, well, that would derail the possible possibility for diplomacy. But then the Russians removed this cost. So I’m saying, no, no, no, you can sanction all our oil companies and we’ll send Dmitriev the next day over to the US to discuss a peace tunnel. I mean, it’s– you would think they would be communicating more costs by escalating, but no, this is very, it’s very dangerous.

Again, people often interpret this as Putin, you know, being trying to preserve the peace or something, but as we discussed, when the deterrent weakens, you know, peace becomes more fragile. It’s more likely now that there would be war. One, again, everyone would lose from. But yes, let’s see what happens. I get the sense now that something is shifting in Moscow, but it remains to be seen. Anyways, thank you so much for taking the time.

Doctorow: 38:51
Well, very kind of you.

Yesterday I spoke of 2 interviews, the one of that morning and the one from Friday. NewsX sent me two links which I assumed was for both, though I had no way of checking given that youtube does not open in Russia. Now the kind gentlemen who does the transcripts has informed me that the two links relate to one and the same interview, probably the one from yesterday. Sad but not tragic. I believe this interview is well worth a read because the hosts allowed me to speak freely about highly relevant issues

OTH LINKS GIVEN INCLUDE THE SAME DOCTOROW SEGMENT.
PROBABLY THEY SENT ONE WRONG LINK.
================================================

Transcript submitted by a reader

World: 0:00
–during 13 others. The strikes hit multiple locations including energy and infrastructure sites. Officials have said residential buildings and a kindergarten were damaged as well. These have sparked several fires across the city. Meanwhile, Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Svydenko has posted on X saying that Russia is trying to create a humanitarian catastrophe as the winter approaches.

She has called the attack a deliberate act of terror against civilians. Svydenko has also praised emergency workers for their quick response and urged allies to provide stronger air defense systems to protect Ukrainian cities. Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry Andriy Sibiha said that Russian strikes also targeted the energy grid, railways and homes in Dnipro, Kharkiv and Sumy. On the other hand, Russia’s defense ministry has claimed the attacks were aimed at Ukraine’s military and energy facilities. It also said Russian forces shot down 121 Ukrainian drones overnight, including seven headed towards Moscow.

1:11
Now for this discussion, we are joined by Gilbert Doctorow. He’s a Russian affairs expert, joins us live from St. Petersburg. Thank you very much, Gilbert, for joining us again. Good to see you.

Now today we saw comments coming in from a Russian envoy, Kirill Demitriev. He said that the United States, Russia and Ukraine were quite close to a diplomatic solution to end the Russia-Ukraine war. But we see all these escalations from both sides as Russian strikes hit Kiev, and Kiev was targeting Russia’s capital, Moscow. So how do you analyze this current situation of Russia and Ukraine, and is there any chance of trilateral or bilateral talks?

Doctorow: 2:03
Mr. Dmitriev is in the United States now on a mission to discuss trade prospects, and he is suggesting that there is a path towards negotiated settlement and that there will be very big business between the United States and Russia. I understand his position. It’s an official government position within Russia, but I don’t believe what he says for a minute. Mr. Dmitriyev is a very smart, very capable, I should say very ambitious person, who is doing the bidding of the president of the Russian Federation.

And this trip is symbolic. Its actual content is, to my understanding, close to zero. I think it is very unfortunate that this trip is proceeding just days after Mr. Trump has imposed what are hoped from Washington’s perspective to be crushing sanctions on Russia’s oil trade, particularly on trade in oil with India, because India is, together with China, the largest consumer today of Russian oil. Whereas China is fairly safeguarded from Trump’s sanctions, and whereas China receives almost all of its oil from pipelines, which are untouchable by American sanctions, India receives it all by ships, and it’s seaborne oil that the sanctions are going to hit. So in this light of this very severe sanction, it is surprising that Mr. Dmitriev is in the United States at all. I am dumbfounded.

World: 3:49
Yes. Building on that, why do you think, what does this timing suggest of this statement?

Doctorow:
I think it is a very bad indication of the way the Russian administration is reading Mr. Trump and what comes next. It’s surprising that they are forgetting what happened in December of 2016, soon after the election of Trump to his first mandate, when Mr. Obama gave a poisoned chalice to the incoming president by confiscating Russian diplomatic properties in the United States. And the Russians didn’t respond. Mr. Putin didn’t respond. He hoped that still then in 2016, going into 2017, that good relations would be established. But we know what happened. Mr. Trump proceeded to introduce a vast number of sanctions on Russia, and he proved himself in his first term to be no friend of Russia.

4:55
I am dumbfounded that that lesson from the past is being forgotten or ignored at the present, because the imposition of these sanctions is like the confiscation of the diplomatic missions in 2016. And here again, we see no proper response from Russia. Instead, it turns the other cheek and sends Mr. Dmitriev on a fool’s errand to talk about big business opportunities in the future. I do not understand the strange behavior of the Russian government today.

World: 5:34
And building on that, what are the potential implications? As you have mentioned, it’s very questionable, but Russia did state that Russia and the United States are maintaining dialogue on issues beyond Ukraine. What could that be?

Doctorow:
Well, there are many issues that they have in common. Their activities in the United Nations are, to a certain extent, coordinated today on areas of common interest. There is of course coordination on how to deal with the Gaza settlement, because Russia is also an interested party in everything that happens in the Middle East. The Middle East is much closer to the Russian Federation than it is to the United States. So there are subjects that they are discussing, some of which will be constructive. But the major issue between the United States and Russia is destructive, not constructive.

6:30
And Mr. Putin in the last several days explained how it would be tough and he would give a determined and shocking response if the United States sent Tomahawks to Kiev. Well, that was looking brave about a situation that’s already been resolved. The United States is not sending any tomahawks to Russia. But when it comes to the question of the challenges that Mr. Trump has just imposed by the latest sanctions, Mr. Putin is doing nothing and saying nothing. Now these sanctions– let me be very specific what we’re talking about. If India does not fulfill its, or carry on its present level of purchases of oil, that will create a 10% hole in the Russian state budget. That is a severe loss of income. And Mr. Putin is pretending that it’s nothing. He’s pretending that it doesn’t exist. That is not the way to deal with this issue.

World: 7:33
What do you think, should India consider providing technology or defense assistance to Ukraine, or maintain a neutral position to protect its strategic partnership with Russia on this matter?

Doctorow:
Well, if India were to put, to extend defense equipment and technology to Ukraine, that would ruin BRICS. Let’s just be very open about it. India has nothing like that in the plans. The damage that India would do to Russia is if it decided, this is a reasonable thing to do, that Mr. Trump’s sanctions and tariffs on India are too expensive to accept, and that although Russian oil is being sold cheaply, it’s not being sold cheaply enough to compensate India for the losses that Trump is imposing.

8:29
So there you have the critical issue for India. It is not against Russia, but it is whether or not India submits to the diktat of Washington and curtails or stops completely its purchases of Russian oil. You know, as I know, that your single largest importer of Russian oil, I think the company is called Reliance, has just stated publicly that it will no longer buy Russian oil. So I imagine that the Indian government representatives and Russian representatives are talking furiously now to find a workaround so that some imports of Russian oil will continue despite the sanctions.

World: 9:18
And how– now bringing EU to the conversation, how do you analyze European nations’ perspective? Do you think they are discouraging direct US Russia communication, or they’re encouraging direct US Russia communication?

Doctorow:
Well they’re working against any communications. The majority of European Union member states and by majority I mean 24 out of the 27 member states because three member states Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary are in opposition to the others. But the others all want a continuation of the war. They find it advantageous to punish Russia and to keep it distracted by the Ukraine while they proceed to invest a vast amount of money in remilitarization, meaning restoring and raising the production levels of European arms manufacturers and allotting money for the training and salaries of enlarged armies. Germany wants to expand its army by about 40% to 50%. That takes a lot of money, a lot of training, and it’ll take some time.

So they all want to keep Russia busy for the next three or four years while they prepare themselves for a 2029 attack on Russia. That is where they stand. European countries and the European Union are predominantly hawkish, warlike and anti-Russia. That is the present leadership today.

World: 11:07
Well, thank you for sharing that insight, Gilbert Doctorow. Please stay with us as we come back to you for our next discussion as well.

Now the European Union is developing a new plan to curb its reliance on Chinese critical raw materials. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has criticized Beijing for its expanded restrictions on the export of rare earths. The European Union has for years attempted to reduce its dependence on China for the minerals that are needed for the transition to cleaner energy, the defense sector and electric vehicle production as well. Now Ursula von der Leyen has also stated that the EU would seek to speed up critical raw materials partnerships with countries such as Australia, Canada, Chile, Greenland, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Ukraine.

12:01
The plan would also include greater efforts to recycle critical raw materials in products sold in Europe. This comes in response to China’s export restrictions on rare earths and battery materials which were imposed on 9th October.

Now for this discussion, we go back to Gilbert Doctorow. He’s a Russia affairs expert, joins us live from St. Petersburg. Thank you very much, Gilbert, for staying with us. Now how can EU’s efforts to reduce independence on Chinese critical raw materials reshape global trade dynamics for them and their strategic partnership and their strategy moving forward? And is this feasible in short term? How long will it take for them to change this, to replace China with other countries?

Doctorow: 12:54
Well, you put your finger on the critical issue. It’s time. They can make arrangements with Australia and Canada and all kinds of other countries. But there is no rare-earth production going on of any significant amount outside of China. Because it is a dirty business, that is to say, it is a polluting business, which all of the very ecologically proper nations of the Earth have avoided, China picked it up. And China became, by default, not by intent, but I stress by default, the world’s largest producer and almost monopoly producer and processor.

You can dig this stuff up, but you have to know how to refine it. And you have to do this in an ecologically acceptable way, which is not easy. Accordingly, it will take years. And Von der Leyen’s statement about how they intend to get around the Chinese limitations. My goodness, Europe is lucky that the Chinese are selling one ounce of these metals to them altogether, given the hostility of European policies towards China.

14:08
The United States, of course, is more active, but look what has happened. And if we want to consider the real negotiating strength of Europe in this issue, look at the United States. Mr. Trump threatened China with the most drastic dire sanctions, 150 percent tariffs and so on. And where is that now?

Nowhere. Because the Chinese said, gentlemen, you pursue this and you won’t get a gram of our metals. And if you don’t have that, Western industrial production of high technology products collapses, not six years from now, but next week. Therefore, the Americans learned to their regret that the Chinese have leverage over the Americans. And if they have leverage over the Americans, where Mr. Trump is the world’s biggest bully and biggest loudmouth, then they surely have leverage over the European Union. And Madame von der Leyen is whistling in the dark.

World: 15:16
With that, I would like to thank Gilbert Doctorow for joining us and sharing that insight and staying with us throughout this news. Now we move on.