Transcript submitted by a reader
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsAk2E2YWl0
Diesen: 0:00
Hi everyone and welcome back. We are joined today by Gilbert Doctorow, historian, international affairs analyst, and also author of
_War Diaries: the Russia-Ukraine War_. So welcome back to the program.
Doctorow:
Well, very good to be with you.
Diesen:
So China, they used to be a leading power in the world for a few thousands of years until the mid-19th century when they were defeated by the British and they went from being the leading power to a country pillaged and purged by others, great powers. So this is what the Chinese refer to as a century of humiliation from the mid-19th century to the mid-20th.
0:44
Now, we’ve had now Europeans being quite powerful for some would put it as 500 years, if not dominant. And it appears that Europe is falling down pretty quickly. That is some concern that Europe might be entering its own century of humiliation. I’m not sure how you see the situation, what is going on in Europe these days, because one can look at the security problems, one can look at the economics not going well, the political stability, but in the overarching picture, one gets the impression that Europe no longer has a seat at the table, but it’s looking at the risk of becoming mere pieces moved across a board. How do you see the situation of Europe at the moment?
Doctorow:
It is lamentable. And for a number of reasons, a number of dimensions, the ones that you touched upon, of course, are highly relevant. The question that we discussed in the weeks gone by was the low level, low political intelligence, the low level of competence, which is very distressing. I’m speaking now of the leadership.
There’s 25 of the 27 member states of the European Union plus the United Kingdom where you have the same display of very low level people running the show. Institutions that were built, but I’m thinking now of the European institutions, going back to the 1990s, when you had brilliant socialist-minded, let’s be open about it, intellectuals like Jacques Delors who were working to create a united Europe, a future-looking Europe, a harmonized Europe, and they created institutions without paying– to my understanding today– without paying enough attention to balance of powers and to ensuring a genuine democracy. They assumed that people like themselves, highly intelligent, highly educated, well-meaning, outgoing, would succeed them. And here’s where there’s a great fallacy. We had institutions in Europe which can be abused and which violate all the principles of democracy. And that’s what we have today, when someone like von der Leyen has grabbed all the power, and around her there is silence.
3:19
And there’s reason for the silence. Sadly, it comes from the way that the European institutions were engineered in the early new millennium to sacrifice the sovereignty of individual member states. That was done consciously to the point where, as one former Belgian prime minister said publicly, the level of power of a head of state in Europe today is equivalent to the powers of a mayor in the past.
Now that is bad enough within Europe. What we see currently, what is particularly, say discouraging, is that Europe as a whole has given up its sovereignty, not just individual member states passing to Brussels decision-making, which had in the past been at this national level, but the whole of Europe has given up sovereignty to the United States, in the hope of buying off Trump and ensuring the backing, the military defense backing of the United States for Europe against Russia, since all of these gentlemen and ladies were scared out of their boots at the start of the Special Military Operation, when they realized, very correctly, that they had no armies, that they had no air defense, that they were totally at the mercy of Russia if the United States did not step in and provide all of the equipment that Europe doesn’t have to protect Europe.
5:14
So that is the present situation. That explains the economic damage that we see as well. Because in sacrificing everything to keep Mr. Trump on board, the leaders of Europe have compromised the future prosperity of the whole continent.
Diesen: 5:41
The French, though, for a long time, for many years, they talked about the prospect of a common army as a reason for the point of integrating Europe.
And they called for greater autonomy from the United States, again, something that they did all the way since the 1990s. They did recognize that if they wanted stability, they would have to find a role for Russia in Europe, not simply say that they have to stand on the sideline even though they’re the largest country and they shouldn’t have a say. So they seemed to recognize all the right things. But these days, they seem to have gone a bit off the rails. They no longer pursue a clear policy of strategic autonomy or European independence. And how do you see the political crisis raging now in France? Because it’s hardly stable. Is this rooted in economics or is it internal politics? Is it a security issue? How can we understand these tremendous changes?
Doctorow: 6:51
There are fragile governments in the locomotive countries of Europe, both France and Germany, and in the now outsider, but still very important partner in European defense in the UK.
All three countries have fragile situations, but they are fragile largely for domestic reasons. Domestic fight for power, for banned policies that are unpopular and have brought down, in the case of France, brought down several governments and probably will soon bring about the newest government that Macron installed, for his defense minister to replace Beyrou after that prime minister faced and lost the vote of confidence.
7:41
What is the volatility in France is largely on domestic issues. And the same can be said in Germany. The only area where geopolitics and what interests you and me and most of the viewers of this program, the only weak spot, but a very important weak spot in Europe right now is the European institutions, and particularly the European Commission.
There is now pending, I believe it’s a few weeks from now, one or possibly two different votes of confidence against Ursula von der Leyen. And the most important one was introduced by Viktor Orban, by his group called the Patriots for Europe. I think about a quarter of the members of the European Parliament are, announced themselves, as members of this bloc.
And it comes from– his confidence in making this direct attack on von der Leyen– comes from a victory he was given by the European Court of Justice over the punishments, withholding funds, the kind of blackmail that von der Leyen has used against Hungary to punish them for violating Brussels’-made rules on immigration, which are very lax and which Hungary, the Orban government disagrees with, and has established in Hungary much harsher rules for admitting immigrants or refugees or whatever you want to call them.
9:38
He won that. And this was quite dramatic. And since this is not the first time I mention this, nor is it the first time I’m mentioning on air the pending votes of confidence, I want to explain since people have asked, “Oh, Mr. Doctorow, where’s your source? The _Financial Times_. So I’m not relying on alternative media for these basic facts, that he won a victory, Orban, and that he’s pursuing her. It’s not the only case, but having spoken about 10 days ago with a very well-informed and non-aligned– that limits the possible people I’m talking about to 30 in the European Parliament. One of them spoke with me and said that he believes that Ursula will be thrown out of office within six months.
It could be she’ll be thrown out of office within two weeks or three weeks. What that means is the whole Commission will go. Now, I don’t mean to say that the European Parliament would change from its present globalist anti-Russian, very censorious policies to something more civilized and looking for peace on the continent. That isn’t going to happen overnight. But Ursula von der Leyen has assembled a group of incompetents who are coming from the most viciously anti-Russian part of Europe, the Baltic states, and who are totally dependent on protection from her, which she deals out in good measure.
11:28
Therefore, these people will be swept away. And perhaps in the fighting for commissioned seats, the larger members of the European community who are less radical and more reasonable will assume seats. That isn’t a dramatic change in Europe, but it’s an important step towards revival of common sense and a less hostile view towards the neighbor to the east, and perhaps a step back from the militarization that is now the official policy of the EU as led by von dert Leyen.
Diesen:
Well, we always have to look at the extent to which some of these policies are coming from the EU institutions or the member states. But to have people like Kallas, so in a key position as the EU foreign policy chief, is quite concerning.
I’m sure you watched the recent speech she made where she argued that the Russians and the Chinese believe that they defeated fascism, that they had a leading role in this. And she was saying, well, this is what people think when they don’t read books. I mean, it’s quite extraordinary that you can have a person in such a prominent position who doesn’t seem to be aware of the leading role that the Chinese and the Russians had in defeating the fascists.
But I did want to ask you though about von der Leyen, and to what extent her involvement in the EU is, for example, influencing the efforts of stealing, or seizing they say, Russian sovereign funds. Because what we read now in the _Financial Times_ and other papers is that the EU would like to take the money, but they want to pretend to still abide by international law and not stealing the assets of the Russian central bank.
So they are looking at what they call creative legality or legally creative measures, which entails taking the Russian money, but using it to buy zero interest EU bonds. And somehow this will make it legal, the theft. So, I mean, this is, again, a great exercise in self-harm, but is this coming from the von der Leyens, or is this something that is being pushed by member states?
Doctorow: 14:19
Well, some member states indeed have been behind this, but I would look at von der Leyen. She is a law unto herself. And I say not just because she is so ambitious, but because everyone around her are cowards.
They are cowards. They’re the leaders of Europe by and large are cowards. Now when you mentioned the policies in Europe, and we’re speaking about EU member states, I want to take a step aside and what is the UK doing? And I want to reflect on what King Charles said in the banquet, the state banquet with 160 invitees that took place yesterday in honor of Donald Trump. King Charles said that we, Britain and the United States, have stood shoulder to shoulder, well, I’m not, I’m paraphrasing what he said, in two world wars.
15:16
Now we stand together to protect Europe from, well, what was his word? Tyranny. Tyranny, exactly right. Tyranny. There you have it in a nutshell.
England, this is the coming from Starmer, but it’s not just from Starmer. Most of the British elites and governing class, whether they call themselves Laborer or call themselves Conservative, they have this deeply distorted propagandistic approach to security in Europe.
So when you look at von der Leyen, she is not unique, except that she has the authority, absent any protests or challenges, to direct where Europe is headed, in the absolutely wrong direction, of course. And that is what– the fulcrum may shift if she loses a vote of no confidence. I’m told that she held on by her fingernails in the last vote of confidence, which is over her handling of contracts for the covid vaccine.
And then lack of transparency in negotiations and actually the violation of her authority as Commission President. So this vote which will also have transparency among the non-transparency as a fundamental accusation against her, It may go against her. We’ll see. But looking at France, yes, the French government may fall and indeed, even Mr. Macron, who according to the French constitution has royal powers essentially for five years, theoretically he cannot be removed.
17:18
But he may go, because his unpopularity is so overwhelming. It all depends on the intensity of the demonstrations that have begun in France over the new government and over policy, the budget and so forth. They will not name militarism and his increase, his budgetary plans to increase spending on arms and on Ukraine while everything else in the budget is slashed, it may not be over that. But at the end of the day, who cares? If he falls, he will not be replaced by anyone who is so pigheaded and unrealistic as he is. And that can only be to the good.
18:10
As for Mr. Merz, he is, of course, doing better. They just had state elections in Germany, in the Western Lander. And for his party, they claimed great satisfaction that they hadn’t lost any seats. They held their own in percentage of the votes. However, their coalition partners, the SPD, the socialists, took a beating. And the main beneficiary of the lost seats of the socialists was the Alternative for Deutschland, Ms. Alice Weidel, who was picking up more power. And the question is, at what point will the fragility of the coalition be its downfall and the Chancellor be forced to call new elections, as a result of which it is very likely we’ll see him removed from office, simply because it became apparent not long after his taking power that he is deeply unpopular.
19:20
So a change in Germany, of course, would also be a great benefit to those of us who are hoping for a return to samity, as opposed to what he’s been saying of late about Russia, generally, about Europe’s needs, defense needs. Indeed, Europe needs defense needs. And going back to your remarks, the question of European Army, indeed, that goes back decades. I was looking not long ago at, I think it was 2014, 2015, there was a study by CEPs, a think tank, a major think tank in Brussels, which had Solana, the former head of diplomacy and military policy of the EU, he headed it and other people of great experience in the EU institutions were on the team performing this study of a European army. A result of which was the conclusion that, yes, we can try to proceed with this, but we don’t have the money.
20:35
This sounds very familiar judging from 2025. They don’t have the money and they also didn’t have a consensus of what they need because going back several decades, the issues in Europe over a united army were who’s the enemy, where the threats coming from? Spain and France looked south traditionally. Germany looked east traditionally. And the needs, the military needs for these different threats [are] entirely different.
That was a major impediment back then to creating a European-wide army. And I don’t know that has been resolved or can be resolved.
Diesen: 21:18
Well, that is a key problem though for Europe. I mean, this, the unity or relative unity we’ve had across Europe since World War II, it is unusual for our continent. And it’s worth looking at the distribution of power it actually happened because in the bipolar world the Europeans had to unite under the leadership of the United States because of the obvious threat from the Soviet Union.
And then that was replaced with a unipolar world after the Cold War. And this, I think, was organized around the principle of collective hegemony or unipolarity for the United States with the Europeans aspiring to be its equal partner through the collective bargaining power in the European Union. And also this was the reason for the United States to prioritize Europe and its foreign policy, which would prolong the relevance for Europe. But I guess it looks as if one of the key challenges for Europe is how can it have a role in a multipolar world where the key centers of power are the United States, Russia, China, lesser extent India. And did Americans want to pivot away from Europe?
22:34
I mean, in such a system, what actually unites Europe? Can we live without a Russian bogeyman or even in the security issue, as you said, they see threats from different areas. But if we would unite around economic issues, collective bargaining power, do we even have the same economic interests? Surely if the Germans would look at their national interests, they would seek to patch up with Russia very quickly. While, yeah, the polls will be more concerned about both the German and Russian power. You would have the Spanish Portuguese looking in completely different directions.
I mean, did you see Europe surviving without, Russian bogeyman? I mean, what happens after this war is over? Is this the end of the European unity?
Doctorow: 23:23
No, I think Europe can survive very well without the Russian bogeyman. It has to take a step back. The idea of Europe playing a geopolitical role is new. The European uniting forces were economic. Now if that sounds weak, let’s remember that until the United States started poking the Chinese in the eye, China was very happy to be an economic force and not a military force. Now, same thing with Europe. There is nothing to be embarrassed about by not looking to be a self-standing worldwide policeman and to be one of the world’s largest economies and most attractive and vital economies.
24:14
Not to mention the cultural factor. I’m speaking to you today from Venice, and the cultural factor is all around me, and it’s not bad. It’s brought in hordes of American tourists right now, even at the end of the season. That’s what Europe was until they got into their heads, and this is partly the achievement of Ursula van der Leyen, that Europe has to be a geopolitical force. Wrong.
They don’t need a bogeyman in Russia. They can do very well just being one of the world’s biggest economies, biggest and most attractive markets and a center of global civilization. That’s my answer to your question.
Diesen: 25:09
Well, one of my favorite scholars on European integration is David Mitrani, who wrote back in the 1960s that, well he predicted that Europe could take two paths towards integration. He called one the functionalist, where they would integrate in areas where it delivered specific benefits in terms of good governance, security or economic competitiveness.
And in other words, the form would be dictated by the purpose and then the alternative model he called the federalism, where he already had a goal in terms of form. He would want to centralize power and create the United States of Europe. And in this area, you would look for areas to integrate for the mere purpose of integrating, irrespective of serving economic or security interests.
And I guess his, well, his prediction was that many of the Europeans, especially the Germans, would push for the federalist model, that is the United States of Europe. And his prediction was this would not actually look like the United States of America, but more like Soviet Union, because it would force the integration through.
So if it doesn’t make sense, if you can’t convince the public that this delivers better economic benefits or security benefits or better governance, then it would have to be more or less forced and not responding to the national interests. And this would then fuel a lot of resistance over time. It seems at least to me that some of these predictions seem kind of fair. But do you see any signs of a pre-revolutionary moment in Europe, that is, the political leadership lacking in legitimacy, people willing to experiment with radical alternatives? I’m not sure I put AfD necessarily in radical, but what are you expecting, I guess, over the months ahead?
Doctorow:
When you read the literature, the federalists that you’ve mentioned in passing, it all seems reasonable and may sound very progressive. That’s how they position themselves, as being progressive, to take Europe one step higher and one step further. But when you look at how that plays out in practice, these are our class enemy. They are, all of these, they are globalists. Who are they?
To name names. All right. My home state is Belgium, and one of its former prime ministers, Kiefer Hofstad, was one of the leading personalities in the Federalist movement, and head of a group, a bloc within the EU that was called Aldi. And that group, after Mr. Macron came to power, merged with Macron’s reform group, forming a very significant block in the present day parliament, and they are all federalists.
28:25
Now, when you look at what those federalists want to do and what Kiefer Hofstad wanted to do, he and their group are [a keyword] who are talking exactly the talk of von der Leyen. It’s a continuum of all of the ideologically driven, anti-Russian, uniting around the enemy, about opposition to that enemy, that we see around us today. So these principles, which sound very nice to a political scientist, are not self-standing. They are attached to a whole worldview in other domains. Economics and sovereignty and open immigration, as no borders.
29:21
All of these things come together in the persons of the champions of federalism. Now it may be an accident or maybe there’s something deeply philosophical uniting these trends.
Diesen:
Well, I’m glad before you mentioned Britain, because it takes me to my last question that is with this comment of tyranny, we see that, well, historically when countries are ramping up for war, they like to present conflicts very much in one-dimensional terms of black and white, good versus evil, to rally support and discredit any dissent. But once there’s defeat or doesn’t look like it’s going our way, you would expect the rhetoric to change a bit along the lines of the United States now, now that the recognizing the war hasn’t gone that well.
30:23
You would then begin to humanize your opponent. You would identify legitimate security concerns of the other side and look for ways to harmonize interests, because you can’t really harmonize when it’s a struggle between good and evil. Yet as you mentioned from the United Kingdom that they’re still talking about tyranny, the fight against tyranny as if this is some cosplay or replay of World War II. How do you see the possibility of, I guess, new political forces emerging in this climate? Because at the moment, anything is seen as treasonous. Any political force coming up opposing the war rhetoric would be seen as more or less traitors, Putinists, apologists for Russia.
They don’t care enough about Ukraine. Do you see anyone in Europe possibly breaking through this? Because anyone who seems to want to have a serious chance of challenging the status quo kind of has to fall in line with this rhetoric, that they’re fighting against the most recent reincarnation of Hitler.
Doctorow: 31:39
Well, we know that there are at least two personalities. I spoke of 25 out of 27 European leaders who are incompetent or caught happily living in a bubble of propaganda, I didn’t include two. That is Mr. Urbán and Fico. So they are sane people who appreciate what you’re just saying. Coming back though to Britain, it is a really sad case. They are the biggest foot-draggers in a return to realism. And the remarks which King Charles was hand-fed by his government, which is normal, that’s the way it goes.
It’s been going in Britain for a couple of hundred years, and the speeches are written by the government. But I suspect that Charles himself deeply feels the same way. And this is, they are going to be last to be pulled screaming and shouting into the new world which is possibly coming rather quickly, if the Russians continue their acceleration of their offensive against, in Ukraine. I am hopeful that these things will come together, but as I said there are different levels of the cause for optimism. The greatest one, because it’s directly on a geopolitical issue, is in the EU institutions.
33:09
The luck element of Europe turning away from its present policies to something more reasonable and realistic [is] in the three key countries that we discussed. I really have nothing further to add on that issue. We keep our fingers crossed, but then frankly speaking, I’ve been keeping my fingers crossed on various hopeful signs, either in the US or in Europe, for the whole duration of the special military operation. These hopeful things have not panned out, but I think we’re coming to the end where this optimism will finally be rewarded.
Diesen:
Well, on that, let me just add the last follow-up question here, because I’ve listened to people like Alastair Crook, who’s also been a British diplomat for a long time.
And people like him, they expect that what is required for Europe to essentially wake up from its 30-year slumber or dreaming away about this end of history and its enduring central role in the world is an actual, well, a big defeat or at least feeling the consequences of its wrong policies. Essentially forcing some of the key politicians to have to be held accountable and to reconsider some of the policies. [He] and others suspect that this would likely come from defeat in the proxy war in Ukraine.
34:54
So since you mentioned that we might be reaching the end of this, do you see a critical shift on the battlefield? Given, I mean, there’s been this gradual disintegration or collapse or weakening at least of the Ukrainian army, but it does appear that this, what we’re witnessing now is something quite fatal.
Doctorow:
Well yes, I’ve said for some time, that I expect the war to end in a political collapse in Ukraine, not in the whole army running the other way and or holding up white flags.
I don’t think that’s going to happen. But the losses are so considerable, the inability to cover the holes in the front are so obvious to everyone now, that I think the end of the war is nigh. How the war ends, in what kind of a document, to what extent there will be general recognition of Russia’s basic objectives as legitimate, that remains to be seen. It is very hopeful that Mr. Trump has done as you said, has begun to humanize the enemy and has denied the latest false flag operations, these drone attacks in Poland and Romania.
36:23
This is all to the good. It doesn’t solve all problems. But just to take a step back, just looking at European history and the Dickens’ famous line about the French Revolution, the best of times and the worst of times, it always was that way and probably always will be that way, so long as human beings are around. And again, what I see around here in this hub of European culture is something so attractive and so sublime that it addresses all people who have open ears and open eyes. The collapse of European civilization is certainly exaggerated as an issue.
And I believe even in Russia, of course, any Russian viewers watching this will immediately attack me over this. But it’s not just fifth- column people in Russia who have great love for European culture and feel themselves to be Europeans. That is an absolute truth. So it’ll take time to heal the wounds, but they will be patched up. And therefore I’m not pessimistic for the long run about Europe coming to its senses and saving for itself a place in the world, not a geopolitical place in the world. That’s clear.
Diesen:
Well, I hope you’re correct. I would like to see some revival in Europe, but I do think that the secret, though, is to start with, look for, ways of reviving Europe as a non-hegemonic power, not out of some idealist aspirations, but simply as a recognition of reality, because I think this ignoring reality is coming at an increasingly high cost.
38:28
But I’m, rarely we end on a very positive note, so on the possible revival of Europe, it looks like a good place to wrap up.
Doctorow:
Well, we’re in completely agreement.
Tag: politics
Transcript of ‘Judging Freedom’ edition of 17 September
| Transcript submitted by a reader https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHzPmbvNCYU Napolitano: 0:32 Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for “Judging Freedom”. Today is Wednesday, September 17th, 2025. Professor Gilbert Doctorow will be with us in just a moment on Is Europe Collapsing? But first this. [ad] 1:56 Professor Doctorow, welcome here, my dear friend. Thank you for accommodating my schedule, as you always do. Before we get into the current state of geopolitics in Europe, what has been the reaction in Europe and maybe in the Kremlin, if you’re able to gauge it, to the United States-approved and facilitated and Israeli- perpetrated attack on a residential neighborhood in Doha, Qatar last week? Doctorow: 2:31 The reaction– I’ll concentrate on the Russian reaction. What I detect in the last few days watching Russian state television is a significant hardening of Moscow’s position with respect to Israel. They were sitting on the fence. They didn’t want to create difficulties in their relationship with Israel. That’s all over. What I see now is very frank statements condemning Israeli genocide in Gaza, and of course what happened in Doha is part of the overall picture. So in that regard there is a change in Moscow’s position vis-a-vis Israel and the ongoing land offensive in Gaza City is part of that picture as well. In Europe, of course, what we see is a greater willingness to talk about sanctions against Israel, though of course nothing has happened as yet. So far it’s just jaw-burning. Napolitano? 3:36 Is the Kremlin going to do anything about it? I mean, how should we read this public change in the Kremlin’s attitude? Doctorow: I’m afraid to say that it doesn’t indicate any particular actions to protect Palestinians or to intervene in the conflict. That is not the present state of affairs. I think that the Kremlin takes its cue from what the Gulf states are doing, and as you know, the Gulf states are doing nothing. Therefore, it is useful, interesting to see the Kremlin has finally broken with this mystique around Israel and is taking a moralistic stand and not afraid to condemn the Israeli government. Napolitano: 4:28 Has there been any reaction that you’re able to detect to Prime Minister Netanyahu going on international television and before Charlie Kirk’s shooter was even caught or named, denying that the Israelis murdered him. Who denies that they committed a murder before they were accused of it? Doctorow: Well, in the case of the Kremlin, there has been almost no commentary on that issue. I understand that it is highly visible in American media. Even in Europe, I don’t see much commentary on that particular question, but for Russia, it doesn’t exist. Napolitano: 5:12 President Putin’s recent trip to the Belarus-Russian War Games wearing a military uniform, Do you read anything into that? Doctorow: Well, it’s the first time, to my knowledge, it’s the first time that he has donned a military uniform. It was quite impressive when Mr. Belousov, his very civilian minister of defense, first shifted from a formal suit to a military uniform. And now Putin has done that. I don’t think it’s necessarily a message to the West, though it would be appropriate to say it’s a hardening of his position, and his position on the war, of course. And I think that the occasion was to be one of the boys when he was meeting with the 20 or so foreign delegations who were present as witnesses and some as participants in the military exercises, war. This 2025 is taking place, as you say, in central Russia, not far from the Volga River in the territory of Nizhny Novgorod. That is a remarkable event. It’s understandable that it attracted so many foreign visitors, from the global South in particular, Because there are 100,000 Russian soldiers in these exercises, an extraordinary large number. Napolitano: 6:53 Were NATO officials invited to observe this? Doctorow: I believe they were. But of course, when Mr. Putin had his address to the foreign contingents, NATO people were not in it. Napolitano: Why would NATO be invited to observe a hundred thousand Russian troops and gleaming new military equipment? Doctorow: I don’t think there’s any particular meaning to that, because by convention, all military exercises, both Russian and Western, usually invite everyone. So it would be exceptional if they were excluded, not that they were included. Napolitano: 7:44 What is the Kremlin’s public position on the drones over Poland? Doctorow: I think the public position was stated clearly by their ambassador to the United Nations last week, Mr. Mabenzio, And he spoke of this as absolutely not Russian drones, that they had no participation in this. He made mention of the Belarusian reporting in real time on the incoming flight headed towards Poland. And as a demonstration that Russia was in no way involved, the Belarusian authorities hardly would be alerting the Poles if their fraternal Russian military were sending drones at Poland. So the flat denial. I don’t see, though, any particular accusations as to what the intention of this Ukrainian action was. 8:55 From the very beginning, we assumed it was to spark some kind of a conflict between Poland and Russia, which would immediately broaden into a NATO-Russian conflict. But I don’t see this as being reasserted or any other particular interpretation being presented by the Kremlin. Napolitano: 9:15 Is this, in your view, the dirty work of MI6 and CIA again? Doctoorow: I’m skeptical if the CIA at this stage would be involved, given Mr. Trump’s position on Ukraine and Russia, That the MI6 is involved is on the hundred percent. So that is a fair game. Pick up, there have been so many statements by various observers with considerable technical expertise explaining why this was a fake attack, why this was an attempt by Ukraine to set off the parties against one another. But this has not been, as I said, hasn’t been in Russian news. And I don’t think it’s a current issue for Russia. What is interesting is that, for example, the _Financial Times_ today is speaking about these drone incursions as if they were Russian without any question, that this is not a contentious issue. That’s a statement of fact. The Russians sent these drones in, and we in Western Europe have to react by strengthening, by investing more in our defenses, and of course by increasing our cooperation with the Ukrainians who have far more experience in liquidating, destroying Russian drones than we in Western Europe have. That is the official word coming out of the _Financial Times_, and I take it to be prompted by MI6. Napolitano: 11:05 I thought of you this morning when I saw these absurdities in the _Financial Times_. Has the Kremlin indicated at all how much longer it will take for the Russian military to achieve its objectives in Ukraine? Doctorow: No, no. They don’t put out any timelines or any indications of what they’re going to do next. The daily news on Russia hasn’t changed in the last several weeks. They speak about capturing this or that village in Zaporozhye, in Donetsk oblast and elsewhere, but they don’t give you a strategic vision of where they’re heading or whether they’re going to take Odessa, how soon they’re going to take Odessa. There’s nothing of that sort in Russian news. Napolitano: 11:53 Let me back up to Poland for a minute. I neglected to ask you this. Did the Polish government send troops to the Polish border in significant numbers? Doctorow: o-fly zone in the face of the Russian military. Let’s jump to Europe. Over the weekend, there was an enormous march in London. The British police said it was 110,000 people. The media says it was north of a million. It’s a huge, huge number of people fiercely opposed to the government, doing something that I honestly didn’t know was unlawful in Britain, which is waving the Union Jack. You know, you see these American demonstrations, people wave American flags all the time, but this was apparently unprecedented in Britain, or at least rarely done. Is Prime Minister Starmer on thin ice? Is the Labour Party going to go through this musical chairs as Prime Minister, as the Tories did a few years ago? Doctorow: Starmer has serious political problems at home. I wish I could say that they were caused by his various positions in geopolitics, but they’re not. The difficulties that Starmer has are very traditional in British political history, which was laden with sex scandals. Well, in this case, the domestic issues were the forced resignation of his deputy prime minister over scandalous, really scandalous tax manipulation. And there are other members of his cabinet who are teetering. 14:59 There is severe criticism within the party of Starmer, who is now being called by leading figures in his own party as being incompetent and not up to the job. On the outside, the conservative party, the normal conservative party is also in tatters. The only rising force, the people who could succeed Stammer in case he loses his grip, is ousted, then has to hold an election and loses the election, which would be quite likely, is Nigel Farage, who is doing very well. He has been consistent going back a dozen years. He has a very statesman-like image. Let’s remember that Mr. Farage had difficulties in the past. He was known to tiple too much, to drink too much. All that is gone. He’s quite serious. And his policies on immigration and on Brexit and otherwise, have been useful to him because of his very consistency over a decade, whereas others have waffled, gone this way and that, in both parties. Napolitano: You know, I know him well. He worked with me at Fox News. He was there for about two years. In those days, it was almost inconceivable that he would become the prime minister, but you’re telling me there is a spanking new Nigel Farage who’s perceived as a statesman by the British people and could very well be living at number 10 Downing Street in the future? Doctorow: 16:46 It is possible. I agree that he had difficult times, and for the reason I just mentioned, he wasn’t taken so seriously, but that’s all gone. He has sobered up in every way, and his positions are of great popularity, particularly on immigration. It’s very hard for other parties to get their arms around that. Napolitano: 17:10 Let’s look at France, which is in its fifth government in two years. How stable is the government there? Doctorow: Well, it’s a question of how many weeks or months this new government will last. The peculiar thing is that Beyrou was replaced now by the defense minister, who was close to Macron. But it’s the heart of what is wrong with Macron government. After all, Beyrou was fired, was lost the vote of confidence over his budget. Which– what was wrong with the budget? That everything was being cut, that the number of public holidays [was] being cut, that health, welfare benefits were being cut, and only one budgetary item was going up, and that is defense. It is inconceivable that this fact– this basis for the new prime minister in an increased military spend when everything else is being cut– it’s inconceivable that that will go on for long. In the meantime, the French government has a different problem. That is the loss of confidence of investors and of the business world in its ability to keep the national debt within sustainable, financeable terms. Today’s _Financial Times_ is reporting that exceptionally the French private company bonds are giving a lower interest to their purchasers than government bonds. It should normally be the other way around. It means that the markets have lost confidence in Macron. And I don’t see how he can stay on for long when the markets where he came from disown him. Napolitano: 19:10 Fascinating observation. In Germany, the AfD gained recently, but at the price of the socialists, as I understand, not at the price of Chancellor Merz’s party. I don’t know if that makes Merz stronger or makes the AFD stronger. Doctorow: It makes the government weaker. He has a coalition government. Napolitano: Right. Doctorow: And his coalition partners are precisely the people who took a battering in the West German elections. Now, this Alice Weidel and her Alternative for Germany, they didn’t rise, I think it’s about 15 percent, which doesn’t give you a ruling position in the government. But considering the loss– that everything she gained was at the expense of Merz’s coalition partner, it puts in jeopardy his coalition government. And if that government should fall, he’ll be obliged, most likely, to call elections, in which case all possibilities are open. And his continued service as chancellor has a question mark over it. Napolitano: 20:29 Last subject matter, von der Leyen, is she confronting some sort of a vote of no confidence, and if the vote of no confidence prevails, is she out of a job? Doctorow: Well, when we last spoke a week ago, I mentioned what I’d heard from a well-informed, independent member of parliament from Germany who said his prediction was that she won’t last six months. And he reminded me that on the last vote of confidence, she was held in power by one vote. Now, what has just happened? And why is it possible that she will lose this vote of no confidence? There are two of them, apparently scheduled in a week’s time from now. 21:18 The one that’s most important, I think, politically, is the one that is being sponsored by Victor Orbán’s bloc. There are deputies from various countries, but he is– the bloc that he formed is called Patriots for Europe. And that is interesting because Viktor Orban is now in really a fighting mood. He just won a very important decision by the European Court of Justice, in which the core issue was whether Orban’s very restrictive policies on immigration, which are in contradiction with the much more lax immigration regulations of the European Union, whether he would continue to face blackmail and suspension of monies that are owed to Hungary in the EU budget for violation of EU immigration rules. He won the case. 22:20 This just happened. And that put him really in a fighting mood, as came out in a message to his parliament yesterday. He initiated a vote of no confidence against von der Leyen. And who knows, they may unseat her. Napolitano: Wow. Professor Doctorow, thank you very much. I know you’re traveling, and I deeply appreciate the time you’ve given us. Enjoy your travels, safe travels. We’ll look forward to seeing you next week. Doctorow: Well, thank you so much. Napolitano: Thank you. Coming up today, a busy and full day for you: at 11 o’clock this morning, Pepe Escobar from somewhere in China. At two this afternoon, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson. At three this afternoon, Phil Giraldi. At four this afternoon, Professor Jeffrey Sachs. 23:06 Judge Napolitano for “Judging Freedom”. |
Transcript of ‘Judging Freedom,’ 9 September 2025
Transcript submitted by a reader
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2saYUvFeCY
Napolitano: 0:34
Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for _Judging Freedom_. Today is Tuesday, September 9th, 2025. Professor Gilbert Doctorow joins us now. Professor Doctorow, I know you’re traveling, figuratively and literally, and I appreciate very much the time you’ve given us and what you’ve gone through to make this connection so we can chat.
I do want to spend my usual time with you about attitudes in the Kremlin and events in Ukraine, but there is breaking news as we come on air this morning. And that is that the Israeli defense forces have attacked the Hamas negotiators who were about to enter a negotiating session in Qatar with their Israeli counterparts to address President Trump’s proposals to bring about a cessation of military activity in Gaza. And as they were approaching wherever this place was in Qatar, in Doha, Qatar, the IDF attacked and killed 37 of them. If these facts are accurate, is the US complicit in this murder?
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 1:53
Oh yes, there’s no question. They’re tolerating all of the war crimes of Netanyahu. We don’t have to take any one of them as a spelling complicity, but the whole lot of them are results of American complicity and refusal to deny Netanyahu what he needs in materiel to carry on his crimes. So of course, as I say, any one element of their behavior is part of the big picture which the United States is supporting.
Napolitano:
Notwithstanding its wealth, or their wealth, the people that run Qatar have made it pretty much subservient to the United States. The US controls the airspace in Qatar. So if the IDF was going to either use jets or missiles to enter the airspace, they would have to know about it. Stated differently, the United States, which lured the Hamas negotiators to this negotiating site would [have had to know] that they were luring them to their deaths, because the US controls the airspace. The Israelis would need US permission to enter the airspace, and it obviously was given.
Doctorow: 3:07
It’s not a pretty picture, any which way you look at it, but it’s a subject I hope we can get into as we consider Mr. Trump in general, and what I was just discussing with one of the very well-informed European deputy of the parliament, what we can make of Trump and where are the pluses that may offset the minuses like the one you just mentioned.
Napolitano:
I believe that that was the same conversation. Is this an EU member from Germany who has past experience living in Iran? Are we talking about the same person about whom you wrote to me recently?
Doctorow:
Exactly.
Napolitano:
Can you … share with us what this person told you he believes was the communication between Washington and Tehran before Trump dropped those huge bombs on Iran in June?
Doctorow: 04:24
Yes, what he– he interprets the scenario as follows: that Trump was aware of Netanyahu’s plans to use Israeli nuclear bombs on the Iranian sites if Israel were going to act alone. And with that knowledge, Trump approached Netanyahu and said, “Just sit still; we’ll take care of it for you.”
Meaning the bombing that eventually took place. But this did not just happen. The United States was in communications with Tehran, according to my conversational partner. They were in contact with Tehran. The Iranians knew perfectly what was about to happen. And of course, their response was calibrated accordingly.
Moreover, they had every opportunity to remove personnel and critical material in the time between [when] they had been given a forewarning and the actual bombing by the United States.
Napolitano:
So was the bombing by the United States intended to make Netanyahu and company believe that the US was really trying to destroy and set back the Tehran nuclear capabilities, but to satisfy Tehran that this was just for show and give Tehran time to get their nuclear material out of the way of our bombs? Is that what this argument is?
Doctorow: 5:59
I think the chief point here was to prevent an Israeli nuclear strike. And whether or not they would actually disarm Iran, do much damage or whatever, was not the key consideration. I don’t know that this was sold to Netanyahu in that respect. It was just, “Don’t make a move; we will do it.”
And this raised the whole question of how we interpret Trump’s behavior, his major foreign policy decisions, including what we just talked about a couple minutes ago, how he is supporting the genocide in Gaza. I found this very important to find a person who is so well informed, by his present activities within the parliament and by his past experience of dealing with other high officials across Europe, and not only, but also in Iran and other countries where he was stationed for long periods of time.
7:03
I was very heartened to see that he had a similar reading to myself about the pluses and minuses of Mr. Trump and tends to believe that the pluses outweigh these awful minuses that we were just discussing.
Napolitano:
So the Qatari foreign minister has just released the following statement: “The state of Qatar strongly condemns the cowardly Israeli attack that targeted residential buildings housing several members of the political bureau of Hamas in the Qatari capital Doha. This criminal assault constitutes a blatant violation of all international laws and norms and poses a serious threat to the security and safety of Qataris and residents in Qatar. While the state of Qatar strongly condemns this assault, it confirms that it will not tolerate this reckless Israeli behavior and the ongoing disruption of regional security nor any act that targets its security and sovereignty.” Close quote.
8:07
Interestingly, no condemnation of the United States, since the Americans obviously knew about this and facilitated it.
Doctorow:
Yes, that’s clear. But you can understand that this rather small power, regional power, Qatar, would keep its mouth shut about the United States and not issue public condemnation. Suffice to say that they have roundly condemned Israel. What will come from this is another question.
It’s hard to believe that this will go unnoticed and there will be no reaction from the neighborhood or farther afield. It is utterly unbelievable the brazen nature of this act.
Napolitano: 8:52
When the US bombed Tehran, whether by knowledge and consent or whether it was a surprise, the Iranian negotiators were about to attend a negotiating session. So we have seen, if all of this is true, we have seen yet again, President Trump lure people into a negotiation only to attack the negotiators or their colleagues or their homeland at the very time that these people thought they’d be negotiating under the auspices of or directly with the United States.
Doctorow:
That may well be, but there is a “but” that I throw into this. It was not the United States that made that attack. In either case, it was Israel that did the dirty work. Whether the United States believed it was luring diplomats into negotiations only to have them killed by the Israelis, that is an open question. One can assume the worst, and I agree with your interpretation, but it isn’t necessarily what happened.
Napollitano: 10:10
Understood, understood. Let’s transition to the area that you have scrutinized so nicely for us. How close do you think the Ukrainian military is to the end? I mean, by the end, I mean either the Russians have clearly achieved their military objectives or there’s no firepower left, insufficient human beings or insufficient equipment for the Ukrainian military to resist the Russians?
Doctorow:
The Ukrainian military is suffering disastrous losses across the Donbas. In Donetsk in particular, in the neighboring oblasts, Zaporozhye, in Kherson on the right bank of the Dnieper River. In various hot points, they are losing a lot of soldiers, and they are withdrawing under pressure from the Russians. That is not the same thing as speaking of a complete Ukrainian collapse. The Russians have no plans to go beyond the Dnieper River.
What they may do is seize Odessa. What they may do is seize large parts of these other oblasts in the neighborhood, in particular Dnieper-Petrovsk. That may happen, but it’s not the same thing as wiping out the Ukrainian army. And the question is, within Ukraine, will the power structure survive these devastating defeats? Or will it not? It’s not the same thing as saying there’s no Ukrainian army left, there is.
11:50
But these are very embarrassing, politically very sensitive losses, and they should bring down the government. And as for the Russians, what is the Kremlin thinking and doing, on Russian state television, a lot of attention is being given to the defection of the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Kuleba, who is now in Krakow, having by stealth crossed the border when, just after Zelensky had put in effect an edict that barred diplomats and former diplomats from leaving the country. That is looked at as a sign of the breakup of the power structure in Kiev. And the Russians are also looking at the breakup of the power structure in western Europe.
12:45
There was a lot of attention to the fall of the Macron government, Mr. Beyrou, who lost his vote of confidence yesterday. They are paying great attention to the political collapse, as well as to the military defeats on the battlefield in Ukraine. Both elements are receiving close attention of the Kremlin, and they are feeding this to the general public via state television.
Napolitano: 13:16
Do you accept the theory that President Putin is very slow, methodical, and patient in the manner in which he wages the war, not because he’s virtuous, not because he possesses the virtue of patience, but because he wants to obliterate the Ukrainian army and kill as many Ukrainian soldiers as he can so that Russia doesn’t have to go through this again for at least another generation. Do you accept that thesis?
Doctorow: 13:50
There’s a lot of merit to that thesis. Of course, nobody can prove it. But when you consider how the Russians have not pressed to the highest advantage their gains on this part of the front or that part of the front, pure military doctrine would suggest that they would keep on running, that they would pursue the enemy in his flight. They’re not doing that.
Instead, they advance and they stop. And they are baiting the Ukrainians to make a counterattack, which they do, and they get slaughtered. So there is a large merit to that interpretation that the Russians could move faster if they wanted to, but would rather destroy the manpower of the Ukrainian army.
Napolitano:
Apologies for going back and forth, but breaking news and commentary keeps coming from this attack in Doha. Prime Minister Netanyahu on his X account, quote, “Today’s action against the top terrorist chieftains of Hamas was a wholly independent Israeli operation.
Israel initiated it, Israel conducted it, and Israel takes full responsibility.” Close quote.
A Professor Saeed Mohammed-Murandi, who’s been a guest on this show, has said, “Why weren’t US regime anti-missile systems activated to help protect Qatari airspace? Because Washington was helping Netanyahu.”
So the words are flying thick and fast. I think the most profound words I heard were yours a few minutes ago, and that is expect some sort of a serious response to this. I don’t know. [Did] the Israelis ever attacked the Qataris before? This is the location of the negotiations. The Israeli negotiators were there as well. They obviously weren’t in the building that was being attacked, but they were all getting ready to meet. I don’t even know if Witkoff was there, but they’re meeting over supposedly Trump’s proposal, the essence of which we don’t know.
Doctorow: 16:06
This is totally outrageous. It is in line, if you want to speak of a moral level, with the outrageous behavior of Israel under Netanyahu in Gaza, in the West Bank, in Syria, in Lebanon. This has gotten totally out of control, and it’s hard to see how this can go on without some violent response. Who will lead that response is unclear, But Mr. Netanyahu, who has done his best to destroy the state of Israel and certainly to destroy the moral weight of Judaism– it’s an enormous attack on the religion, his behavior– and that will take a generational or more for any recovery.
Napolitano: 16:53
Back to Ukraine, if I could. How do you read– you alluded to this a few minutes ago– the fact that French President Macron is now confronted with choosing his fifth, one, two, three, four, five, prime minister in two years. Is this personal unpopularity of him? Is this a rejection by the French General Assembly of his bellicose attitudes toward Russia? How do you read this, Professor Doctorow?
Doctorow:
I wish it were the last, but I don’t believe it is. That is, your last comment, that the bellicosity towards Russia has some impact here. I don’t believe so. I think it was largely decided on domestic issues, although the domestic issues themselves are shaped by the war in Ukraine and Macron’s taking the lead in the coalition of the willing and promising all kinds of financial and arms assistance to Ukraine. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Beyrou’s budget, which was the reason for his defeat, introduced austerity to everything in the French budget except defence, which would rise.
18:15
They would be cutting medical care, They would be cutting back on national holidays, two major national holidays would be taken off the calendar. There [was] a lot of economic hardship being imposed on the general French public, while the military would be rising. I think that is the area where the two meet, the domestic opposition to Macron for his many reforms which were hated by large segments of the population and brought his approval ratings down below 20%. I think his, Beyrou had 15% approval rating. The domestic side of it has been impacted by his belligerency towards Russia and support, unqualified support for Ukraine, with money coming from those taxpayers in France.
19:11
The likelihood that France will find itself in the arms of the IMF for emergency funding because they cannot meet their budget requirements from taxation presently, and they’re five percent or more of a budgetary deficit, which is more than two and a half times what is allowed under EU and central bank regulations. This cannot go on. So the Russians of course are following this very closely because of Macron’s leadership of the coalition of the willing and with good reason.
Napolitano: 19:51
I want to ask you a few more questions about Starmer and Merz, but more breaking news, but this is news in respect of allegations. The Israelis are claiming that the senior Hamas officials were eliminated.
Qatari TV says Hamas delegation survives assassination attempt in Doha. So we don’t know which is the truth. Obviously, we’ll find this out as time progresses, but I thought I would mention that because it’s coming across what used to be called the wires as we speak.
Do you foresee Chancellor Merz and Prime Minister Starmer suffering a similar fate? Either personal popularity so low that they can’t govern or personal popularity so low that the legislative bodies vote no confidence.
Doctorow: 20:58
Let’s separate these cases. Starmer, yes, he can suffer that fate. His government is in disarray. They have had a series of scandals. Once again, the belligerency towards Russia as expressed in appropriations for Ukraine and arms deliveries to Ukraine, they are in contrast with the attempts to cut back on benefits to the population.
He has had a recent scandal in his deputy, the deputy prime minister. This was over domestic issues entirely. But nonetheless, he is being challenged now very effectively by Farage. And he is being challenged within his own party. So the chance of his surviving, I say, is also declining.
22:03
As for Merz, it’s a different story. The real issue here is money. Money talks, Merz has got it. Starmer doesn’t have it, Macron doesn’t have it. And that, when they try to cut the benefits of the general population, then there is seething, loathing, and they are at risk.
Mr. Merz doesn’t have that problem. He may not be liked, and he certainly isn’t liked, but his appropriating of one trillion euros for defense– a large part of it to encourage production, long- range contracts with Germany’s arms manufacturers– that is going to pump some vigor into the economy. This may not be the best way to raise the economy, We certainly don’t believe that, but it has an impact. Money speaks and he’s got the money.
Napolitano: 22:57
Professor Doctorow, thank you very much. Thanks for allowing me to question you all across the board here. And thanks for taking the time out of your unique day and your travels to find time for us. All the best. Godspeed in your travels. We look forward to seeing you again next week.
Doctorow:
Well, thank you, thank you.
Napolitno:
Okay. And coming up very shortly, we’ll have all the latest for you as we can gather it on the Israeli attacks in Qatar and truly one of the more profound people on the planet to analyze it for you at 11 o’clock, Colonel Douglas Macgregor; at 1.15, Scott Horton; at two o’clock, Max Blumenthal; at three o’clock, Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski.
23:49
Judge Napolitano for _Judging Freedom_.
Transcript of Espoire et dignite interview
Transcription submitted by a reader
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZMub8zcb4s
Jawad Husain, Espoir et Dignite: 0:00
Good morning, everyone. Today we have the great honor of speaking with Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, a respected political analyst and writer on international affairs, especially Russia and Europe. We will ask him about the current tensions between Europe and Russia, the role of the United States and the future chances for peace. My first question, Dr. Doctorow, why do you think Europe is so invested in the idea of a final and total confrontation with Russia?
Doctorow:
Europe discovered after the first six months, eight months of the special military operation which began in February, 2022, that Russia is a much more formidable military force than it had imagined.
1:04
And when it looked around, it looked in the mirror at itself, it understood that it is naked. It has virtually no modern armies in Europe, if you take out NATO, by which I mean if you take out the American component. The Europeans are unable to defend themselves. This didn’t just happen accidentally, it happened because there was no reason to defend themselves after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the accommodation with the new Russian Federation, which wanted very much to become integrated into Europe and into the Western world.
1:46
It didn’t play out that way. The Americans decided to take maximum advantage of their situation as the only surviving superpower after 1992. And they used the 1990s to economically destroy Russia with very good advice, they said, on transition from the communist centralized economy to a market economy, the result being shambles was left. Most of industry in Russia was destroyed, and the rest went into the hands of some rich people whom we call oligarchs.
2:26
That was the outcome of the ’90s, and it took some time for Europeans and for Americans to understand that Russia under its new president, Putin, was capable of and was in fact restoring its strength. Of course, being half the size and population of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation could not be the equal in terms of economic output and other parameters, but it was doing very well since it had no dependencies to feed.
That is to say, Russia’s kind of colonial relationship with its Warsaw Pact countries no longer existed. It did not have to give subventions in cheap supplies to those countries and receive back shoddy commercial merchandise. So Russia was paradoxically strengthened by getting rid of its empire, and it became as it demonstrated particularly in year two of the Special Military Operation, when it slaughtered the Ukrainians’ so-called counteroffensive, which had all the weight of the United States and NATO countries behind it, and the Ukrainians were destroyed.
3:46
This vision of a big neighbor whom they had been poking in the eye for more than a decade, and being militarily vastly more powerful in conventional weapons than they were, frightened them out of their boots. And when you are afraid, one of the normal emotional responses is hate. And hate took hold in the leadership of the European EU member states to the point where they were fanning Russophobia, Russia hatred, from the towering heights of power.
And that is how you have– to their surprise, to the European surprise, Donald Trump won the elections last year, and he came in with a policy that placed primary emphasis on an accommodation with Russia, on recognition that the war was lost, and to move on to areas of cooperation with Russia in geopolitical terms, which the United States deemed important. That is to say, to change the balance of power and relationship with China by way of removing Russia from China’s arms and WArm embrace.
5:06
So the Americans started making movements away from the confrontation between Russia and Ukraine, and the Europeans doubled down and insisted on continuing the war, because it would keep in power those who had got Europe into the war; and they would not be shown up to have made wrong bets and to be on the wrong side of history. So that is how we got to today. Europeans have been encouraged by the Biden administration to support Ukraine in every possible way, which they did. And now Donald Trump was doing the opposite and renouncing such policies and they were left hanging in the air. That’s how we got to [today].
Husain: 5:54
Okay, thank you sir. How would you describe the present relationship between Russia and Europe?
Doctorow:
Terrible. The Europeans under the, shall we call it leadership, of the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, are collectively committing suicide. There are only two sane members among the leadership in Europe, and they are Fico in Slovakia and Orbán in Hungary. It’s not that they are Russia friends. It’s just that they would like to live. And the leaders in the other 25 countries seem to be betting on suicide.
Economically, Europe is going down the drain. I live in Belgium. It’s a small country. And this small country, like many other small countries in the EU, is largely dependent on a strong German economy to maintain its export business and generally for its economic prosperity. Germany is now in the second year of recession. Germany has slipped from being the fourth largest economy to behind Russia.
7:13
Russia has now taken over from Germany the lead as the largest economy in Europe. And this has happened because the Germans have been at the forefront of the proxy war against Russia and with sanctions, and they have allowed their economy to be destroyed by their renouncing Russian energy supplies. That is the situation today. The Europeans, unfortunately, European leadership doesn’t care a whit about their populations or prosperity. They only care about keeping their seats in power.
And by maintaining the war in Ukraine, they have the argument that we need, that Europe needs strong leadership, meaning we, and that we will stay in power to look after your security. That’s what they’re saying. In fact, they are destroying that security by preparing for a war with Russia in 2029. They believe that they can dictate when the war will start, when they’re ready. That’s dead wrong. The Russians will not let that happen.
Husain: 8:27
If I follow on with that, President Trump has spoken about a peace initiative. He’s been on this track of normalizing relations with Russia. Do you believe such an initiative can bring real chances for peace, considering your answer to the previous questions, that the Europeans are not prepared to make peace with Russia and they want to continue the war against Russia?
Doctorow:
Well, I think we’ve seen in the last two days during the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit that Europe geopolitically counts for nothing, nothing whatsoever. It’s just the leaders refuse to face that bare fact.
As for Mr. Trump and making peace, generally whatever Mr. Trump says, I treat with great caution. I follow what Mr. Trump does, not what Mr. Trump says. And that’s not because he is badly organized or confused or doesn’t know what he wants. No, it’s because he lives in a political environment which is populated by enemies to the policies that he wants. I don’t mean personal enemies, although there are plenty of them among the other aspirants for power, as always is the case in any country, but political enemies, people who oppose what he is trying to do.
9:58
And what he’s trying to do is in fact make peace, but not at the level of solving the dispute and little war between India and Pakistan or doing something nice in Africa. No. Or being a mediator in the Ukraine-Russia war, which is nonsense, of course, because in fact, the United States is a co-belligerent. Co-belligerents, normally, are not mediators.
What he is trying to do is to destroy the bloc system. He is doing his best without being conspicuous about it, because if he were conspicuous and if he spoke openly and truly about it, he would be impeached. The American political establishment does not agree with what his foreign policy intentions are. His foreign policy intentions are to break the United States out of the blocs.
We saw this in his attack, his tariff attack on India. People say, “Oh, it won’t work. Oh, we were losing our good friends in India.”
Nonsense. He had one intention, and it looks like he got what he wanted, namely for India to withdraw from the quadrilateral arrangement in the Indo-Pacific, which the United States has been building for the last 25 years, for the purposes of containing and possibly fighting China. One of the first things that Mr. Modi did was to withdraw active participation in the quadrilaterals.
11:29
In fact, even Mr. Trump is saying, well the rumor is, that he will not go to the next quadrilateral summit. So in that case, in the Indo-Pacific, where there is no big structure approved by the Senate that he has to overturn, Mr. Trump is undoing America’s involvement in a bloc that’s aimed at fighting China.
He is intent on reducing American participation in NATO, which will effectively destroy NATO. It removes the reason for its existence. But he cannot be open about this, as I said, or he would develop enormous resistance. And so he’s speaking double-talk, as we say in colloquial English, out of both sides of his mouth. But I don’t listen– that’s why I don’t listen to what he says, I watch what he does.
Husain: 12:24
Thank you very much, Dr. Doctorow, for sharing your valuable insights with us today. Before we close, we would like to remind our audience of your latest book, “War Diaries, The Russian-Ukraine War, Volume 1, 2022-2023”. We highly recommend it to all those who want a deeper understanding of this important subject. And finally, dear viewers, if you enjoyed this interview, please support our channel by subscribing, liking and sharing our contact content. Your support helps us continue bringing you valuable discussions like this one. Thank you very much, sir.
Doctorow: 13:07
My pleasure.
Transcript of RT interview: insanity of NATO Secretary General Rutte
Transcript submitted by a reader
https://rumble.com/embed/v6wb53y/#?secret=LTCubIeAhz
RT: 0:00
Right now, let’s get more on this now and speak to author and independent international affairs analyst, Professor Gilbert Doctorow. Professor, I’m glad to have you join me now. So judging from the speeches by the NATO chief and President Macron, Western politicians are excluding Russia’s opinion on their plans to send troops to Ukraine, despite the fact that NATO expansion was one of the key reasons why the war erupted in the first place. Why do you think they are seemingly intent on ignoring Moscow?
Doctorow: 0:34
Because they’re insane. Lt’s say the definition of insanity is detachment from reality. And everything that Mr. Rutte said and that you have put on air would indicate that he needs a padded cell. The man is not spreading propaganda; he’s spreading insanity. What he said, that Russia is, that Mr. Putin has the strength of the governor of Texas, is utterly ridiculous. Now, Mr. Obama, in his worst days, said that Russia was a regional power. He didn’t say that Russia was Texas.
1:09
I understand that Mr. Rutte could be deranged. After all, he spent 15 years or more as the prime minister of the Netherlands. In the 1990s, when Russia’s economy collapsed, it was widely observed with some humor that the whole of the Russian economy was the size of the Netherlands economy.
I think Mr. Rute is caught in a time warp. He thinks it is still the 1990s. He is ignoring the fact that Russia is now the fourth largest economy in the world, as measured by price parity, and it is the largest economy by far in Europe. In this circumstance, to speak about Russia, Mr. Putin’s country, as having the weight of Texas, shows that the man is deranged.
RT: 2:06
Now it’s been three years already. What needs to happen still for the West to take into account Russia’s position in national interest when it comes to ending the war?
Doctorow:
The utter collapse of Ukraine; that is the only thing that can bring these people to reason and reality. So this is not something that Russia has decided upon solely. No, This was a solution that was imposed on Russia by the European Union, by the past high representative or commissioner for foreign policy. I’m speaking about Yosef Borrell, who famously said that this conflict between Russia and Ukraine would be solved on the battlefield.
2:55
Well, Mr. Borrell, it is being solved on the battlefield. The Ukrainians have lost 1.7 million men. And that is incredible loss, which Mr. Rutte doesn’t want to acknowledge. In that case, he is personally taking responsibility by his light-minded approach to this for those deaths. He wants that to continue. He wants to annihilate the able-bodied men in the country of Ukraine. This cannot go on. Mr. Ruta has outlived his usefulness, even as a propagandist.
RT: 3:34
Now, today, the Hungarian foreign minister has publicly brought up the issue of forced mobilization in Ukraine. Let’s take a listen to this.
Minister:
It is a well-known fact that there is an open hunt for people in Ukraine, that there are violent conscription events in Ukraine. Everyone knows that during these violent arrests, people are often beaten, in some cases to death. And they can do this because, according to pro-European politicians, Ukraine is allowed to do anything in this situation. I think that one of the greatest European disgraces of the 21st century is that in the heart of Europe there is a hunt for people, that in the heart of Europe there is a violent conscription and that in the heart of Europe, under the pretext of conscription, people are beaten to death. And I think that here, along with the specific criminals, responsibility also lies with all the Brussels politicians who do not pay attention or ignore these crimes.
RT: 4:31
All right, he’s talking about open hunt for people and violent conscriptions there. Now, he is the first European high-level politician to speak on this matter. Will that open the floodgates to others following his lead or will the silence continue? What do you make?
Doctorow:
I don’t know about floodgates. The mainstream newspapers in the United States and in England, I am thinking now of the Herald Tribune, even they, in the last month or two, have come back down to earth and recognized that Ukraine is losing the war very badly and that the procedures for recruiting, so to speak, new forces for their depleted army are the ones you described. That is already in print in the West in major newspapers. So the problems are extensive. I can tell you from my experience here in Belgium that elites in Belgium are also living in a different world or universe.
5:38
I have sat at the table in the most prestigious monarchist royal club in Brussels, French speaking, and heard my colleagues at the table and their wives say how wonderful it will be for their sons — and daughters — to receive military training and to prepare for … to execute their citizens’ obligations for defense. They are living in a dream world. Russia will win this war in a dramatic way in the coming weeks to months, not years. And only then, when the Ukrainian people acknowledge that they have been beaten, and they will, then Europe will also have to look at the facts, which they are ignoring. At the popular level, at the elite level, it is not yet understood what a disaster this war is for the Ukrainian nation.
RT: 6:40
Completely spot on. We have to leave you here now. Professor Gilbert Doctorow, independent international affairs analyst and author, thank you so much for your opinion.
Transcript of News X World panel discussion on European troops to Ukraine
Transcript submitted by a reader
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hiTAfLZs0Q
NewsX World: 0:01
I’d like to continue this discussion. I request the guests to stay on with us
0:06
Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin had earlier at the leaders’ meeting stated that there are certain understandings that were reached during his summit in Alaska with Donald Trump.
He stated that this could open the path to resolve the war with Ukraine. Putin also expressed appreciation for efforts and proposals from both China and India, as well as other strategic partners to facilitate peace. Let’s listen in to his comments.
—————-
Putin [from video subtitles]: 0:36
We value the efforts and propositions to solve the Urainin crisis / of China, India and other strategic partners of ours. The mutual / understanding that was reached at a recent Russia-US summit in / Alaska heads the same direction, I hope. It paves the way to peace / in Ukraine, I hope. I will inform my colleagues in more detail on the / results of talks in Alaska during our bilateral meetings today and / tomorrow.
1:17
I’d like to use this opportunity to say that Russia uses the same / approaches regarding the crisis in Ukraine. I will remind you that / this crisis was created not as a result of Russia attacking Ukraine. / It emerged as a result of a coup d’etat in Ukraine that was provoked / and supported by the West. What followed were armed attempts / to suppress the resistance of the regions of Ukraine and people / of Ukraine who did not accept that coup d’etat.
—————-
NewsX World: 2:02
I’d like to bring Mr. Doctorow back into the conversation. Even though Putin has made these statements, Kremlin has not until now really given any indication of coming to the negotiating table in order to end the war. On the other hand, we see Donald Trump is eyeing the Nobel Peace Prize, and he’s not being very subtle about it. He does have his personal considerations as well, even while rooting for a trilateral. We’ve recently seen a defense minister’s meeting of European nations take place in Denmark.
They gathered to discuss security guarantees for Ukraine. So in this context, how urgent is it for Europe to outline these guarantees?
Doctorow: 2:49
Europe’s decision to possibly send troops into Ukraine is understandable because Ukraine’s military is collapsing. However, if they proceed on that path, _their_ troops will be decimated. The Russians have made no secret of the fact that they will destroy any incoming European so-called peacemakers.
I’d like to take issue with the comments of a fellow panelist in England who is saying that he would be ready to mediate, that all you need is common sense. I disagree. You have to have some area knowledge. You have to know the situation on the ground. You have to know what’s going on in Russia itself, which he admits to be ignorant about.
3:29
I assure you that Russia is doing quite well, and the inflation that’s reported in Russia is nothing like what we experience in Western Europe and here in Belgium with food prices and energy and so forth. Russia is winning this war, he is ignorant of that, and you cannot bring the parties together when you don’t know the real situation on the ground, which he doesn’t. I’d excuse him, because Western media would not allow you to know what is really going on, with rare exceptions.
So the situation is, I say, Russia is winning this war. Mr. Putin’s remarks at the conference in Tianjin were diplomatic, which means they were meant to sound kindly and sound reasonable, but the reality is that Russia does not need and does not want any intervention from any parties, including India, to try to end the war. Russia is doing what Mr. Burrell said it should do, it is fighting this war on the ground and the outcome of the war is being decided on the ground, not by the talking shops.
NewsX World: 4:39
Indeed, I’d request our guests to stay on with us because we’re tracking some breaking developments now. We’re learning that days after a federal appeals court in the United States ruled that most of the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration are–
Transcript of a conversation with Professor Glenn Diesen
1 September 2025
Transcript submitted by a reader
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgEZmp-sBk8
Diesen: 0:00
Hi everyone, and welcome back. We are joined again by Gilbert Doktorow, an historian, international affairs analyst, and author of “War Diaries, the Russia-Ukraine War”. So welcome back to the program.
Doctorow;
Well, it’s my pleasure.
Diesen:
So we now see that– we’re watching the SCO meeting in China. That is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. And of all the members attending, I think the most important aspect of this meeting is now India, China and Russia coming together, these three Eurasian giants. Indeed, we have now all these pictures and videos of Modi, Xi and Putin looking extremely friendly. And I know optics isn’t everything, but Modi of course is traveling to China for the first time in seven years. And we have pictures of Modi hugging Putin, reassuring each other that this is an enduring partnership between India and Russia. They’re not going to walk it back. If anything is underutilized, they have to build on it further.
1:09
We also see Modi shaking hands with Xi after all these tensions over the past years, both calling for improving China in their relations as these two Eurasian giants. So recognizing that they should perhaps sort out their relationship. Now this, well, to me seems very historic. I was wondering, what do you make of this huge meeting?
Doctorow: 1:37
The meeting was historic, I agree completely. And I find that perhaps some observers in India, and not only in the West, are missing that point. I have been under siege, in fact, as you probably picked up the recording of this telephone call that was coming in, because I have received multiple phone calls starting at 6 A.M. This morning from different Indian broadcasters. And I have participated in their programs.
It was one thing to talk, it’s another thing to listen. And I was listening to what _they_ are saying, because these were not just one-on-one interviews, but they were panel discussions with various prominent Indians in the country and outside and Western experts invited to speak. And what I heard was a bit surprising, a bit disappointing, because I don’t think that they, India, of all places, that their experts are fully appreciating what’s happened in the past two days. I believe that Mr. Modi has, and if he has, then he will be regretting that he is not going to be at the Beijing military parade on Wednesday.
2:41
But what is, to answer your question directly, what I think we are witnessing is the rise of India. The Indians themselves are exulting over what they see as the humiliation of Pakistan in one of the points in the joint declaration adopted by the SCO at its closing, that point being the condemnation of cross-border terrorism and the attack on India. Well, we know where the cross-border came from. It came from Pakistan. And so the Indians are celebrating that as the, can you imagine the SCO has just put Pakistan in its place.
That is exaggerated. Let us remember that Pakistan is a protege of China and this slap on the wrist for Pakistan could not have been proved without Xi approving it. Furthermore, the situation overall is much more complicated than these several Indian journalists would have us believe. After all, Pakistan is a close supporter of Iran. Iran is an important transit country for the North-South Corridor, which India wants very much, because it would give India access to the whole of Central Asia, which under the present conditions where everybody is scrambling to find new markets, is all the more important to India’s economic future.
4:17
So there are complications here of many [coms]. I hope we can get into some of them because, astonishingly, they haven’t been brought to light. And one of them, which I’ll just mention here, to seed our discussion, is the presence of the Prime Minister of – my goodness, I’m speaking now about Pashinyan, Armenia, and his warm discussion, tete-a-tete, unforeseen in the program, with Vladimir Putin, which was featured on yesterday’s wrap-up of the week’s news hosted by Mr. Kiselyov. I hope we get to that because it shows how all of these countries, that are members or observers or guests of the SCO, have interests that are intertwined, and some of them are conflicting.
5:16
When you have 25, 26 countries, it’s not surprising that there will also be conflicting interests. And there you have a summit like the one of the last two days, which provides a platform, a venue for these various parties to get together in quick sequence so that discussions between two could then be extended to their circle. And that is what’s happened in the last two days. I believe that, for example, that Armenia was roped into this, probably by the Indians or by Xi. As you may be aware, Mr. Macron in France has done his best to ruin relations between Russia and Armenia.
6:03
And what you had and was shown on Russian television yesterday was the two of them, Putin and Pashinyan, sitting next to one another, Pashinyan said, “Oh yes, Vladimir Vldimirovich, you are my good friend.” And well, this of course was lapped up by the Russian news commentators. But there are all these little details. And they tell you the part that is visible. I have to tell you that a lot is going on that is invisible.
But coming back to the question of India, and coming back to what the SCO stands for, because there’s a lot of confusion in the broad public. How is this different from BRICS? And well, BRICS is a global organization, and it has in its membership key founding members, countries like Brazil or South Africa, which are not terribly interested in issues that move Russia and China, for example. And they hold up progress in the integration of BRICS because they have their own concerns about relations with the United States and whether or not they’re tipping too far against the United States and so forth.
7:13
The ISHOR, as the Russians call it, or SCO, it was founded about 30 years ago and had at its job description, as its mission, to bring security to that East Asian region. It was founded by Russia and China, primarily, first of all, to moderate their competition for the Central Asian countries and also for the two of them to coordinate actions to keep the United States and other interlopers out of the region. Officially its task was to combat terrorism and to combat narcotrafficking.
Now what we saw in the last two days is a vast expansion of its remit, of its self-definition. It is taking on features of BRICS that is an economic dimension. Mr. Xi rolled out the plans, or the announced plans, to create a CSO, sorry, SCO bank, a bank for development. This is remarkable. We have, we see, oh my goodness, the friends are back.
8:39
We see the attempt to integrate this vast region financially and economically, recalling that its global contribution of GDP is 24 trillion dollars. Now, it does not do away with the importance of the United States as a global trade influencer, But it is very significant. The concentration is on Eurasia. There are the margins Belarus, Mr. Lukashenko was there and was warmly greeted. There is the entrance of the Middle Eastern countries, and that is Perseio, the United Arab Emirates. I think they fit into the financial dimension as possible supporters, backers, of this new bank that is planned for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
9:56
The… Now, what about the languages? Well, the working languages of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization are Russian and Mandarin. That tells you who runs the show. This is a point that somehow commentators in the West just don’t talk about. They talk about 25 countries are there, la, la, la, but who was running the show? It is Russia and China.
I think for India, judging by the body language between Xi, Putin, and Modi in the final hours when they’re all together, and they were conferring together, we see the prospect or the invitation for India to rise as one of the governing countries of the SCO. And that is, if that is fulfilled, it’s dramatic change.
10:52
At the same time, coming into this, I think Mr. Modi missed opportunities. I think his stopping in Japan was a mistake. Obviously, it was a message. He was giving a message to the Chinese that “Don’t think that we’re going to fall into bed with you tomorrow, but we have our own options.” And his decision not to participate in the or not to witness the military parade in Beijing, I think that was a bad decision. After all, the parade is celebrating the end of the war in the Pacific. India was not a country in 1945, but there were a lot of Indian soldiers who fought the Japanese in the Pacific as soldiers in the British Empire.
11:43
The Indians in both fronts, both in Europe and in Asia, lost one and a half million soldiers in World War II. And I think it was a mistake for Modi not to honor the memory of those compatriots who died putting an end to World War II in the Pacific. By the same token, I think it is very sad that Donald Trump will not be there, because of course the Americans had a decisive role also in liberation of island after island of occupied territory from the Japanese, and he’s not going to be there. The United States will not be represented at the proper level at this landmark event. The Chinese, since nobody talks about it much, they have very few military parades. They are not like the Russians, every year. And this is a big deal. And so for Modi not to be there, for Trump not to be there, I think is a big mistake.
Diesen: 12:48
You mentioned the SCO developing and yeah, because originally it was intended as focusing on security, that is terrorism and such, but [was] managing Russia and China so they wouldn’t have the security competition and the power competition in Central Asia. But once they began to take on economic competencies, they also, that would mean to hand over some of the leading role from Russia to China.
So when they brought in all these other large powers, be it India or let’s extend Pakistan, but Iran, then I think the Russians became more comfortable, because the Chinese would still be the leading one, but they wouldn’t be in a dominating position with all these other giants.
13:32
But that being said, it seems often that when, when I read the Western commentary on the SCO, it’s often focused on, “Well, look at all this competing interests they have. They’re not aligned.” But again, this is a very different form of organizing security though. It’s not the alliance system where you have a group of countries working together for security against an external non-member of the bloc. Instead you’re having security arrangements where you seek security with other members of the grouping. I mean, China, India, Pakistan, there are tensions behind this country.
But the whole point is that if they’re able to solve the political differences, then they can have some mutual economic benefits. It just seems that often in the West, we tend to assess everything based on how, if the interests are completely aligned. But often this means, you know, the way we often achieve it in the West is by framing everything in the language of ideology, which often results in countries not being able to pursue their national interests, as we see in Europe. But if you have all these countries with competing national interests, all pursuing their national interests, which at times is in competition, the goal surely isn’t some utopia where everyone agrees on everything, is it?
Doctorow:
No, it isn’t and can’t be. These countries have their diverse interests and some of them, visitors of course, understand this as solitude and are unwilling to compromise on it. As India is shown by its refusal to follow the dictat of Donald Trump respecting their trade in Russian petroleum. And this subject has been much in discussion among the commentators on the Indian broadcasters. And these are NewsX, NewsX World– they are two different companies– CNN 18; and they are talking about what Trump has done only in the terms of what is obvious and evident, that they are being treated in a discriminatory manner, that China buys more oil than Russia does and is not being penalized, that this is double standards and so on.
16:02
They are not looking at what was in the last paragraph of the “Financial Times”‘s discussion of the impact of the tariffs on US-Indian relations a couple of days ago. They were talking about the impact on the Indian economy. In point of fact, the impact is on manufactured goods and precisely textiles. And textiles for export mostly to the States has two percent of the Indian workforce, as I understand.
That’s not a great number, but considering the size of India, still it has to be said. Now, the… what… This is quite distracting. I regret it.
[ringing telephone not heard on recording]
But you see the insistence of the Indian broadcasters. I am now losing my train of thought. So let’s go back to your question, if we may.
Diesen: 17:23
Well, it’s to what extent the SCO arrangements and the cooperation between India and China and Russia should be assessed based on the extent to which competing interests are eliminated or simply how the differences are addressed.
Because it has a very different system than this assumption we have in the West that everything has to fit in this alliance system. But as we know from political realists, I guess permanent peacetime alliances is not very attractive always, because it locks in countries and prevents them from pursuing national interest. John Hertz even wrote in 1950 that these peacetime alliances, it removes the right to make war and replaces it [with] a responsibility to make war. So this is why the Chinese don’t want alliance systems essentially. They want to be in a more loose organization where they don’t have to push national interests aside in order to align policies.
18:39
Well, now I understand why I was jumping to the following issue, of where Mr. Trump stands on this. And this was something which I expressed with several of the broadcasters to their enormous surprise. I hope it gives them reason to reflect. They were all focusing on the superficial side of what Trump has done, just as the “Financial Times” in its article on the Indian relations with United States focused on the economic side of the tariffs, what this means to their trade after all, it is only on manufacturers, particularly textiles, doesn’t affect the very big and important $80 billion trade in IT, where India is a major supplier of programming and business intelligence to American corporations or the pharmaceutical industry.
19:31
So it affects a lot of people. It has a political impact because these are textile workers, after all, and they are going to lose their jobs. But if the very last paragraph, the “Financial Times” said, [“And by the way, this is going to really damage the quadrilateral arrangements that the United States has constructed carefully over the last 25 years to bring India into containment policy and directed against what’s said to be China’s aggressive ambitions and expansion, destroyed in several weeks.”]
And my point is this was not an accidental consequence. It was the _reason_ for the tariffs to be imposed, because the tariffs are illogical. Everyone knows that. And they are discriminative. And why India is being hit and China isn’t, it was precisely, I believe, because Mr. Trump in his, insofar as he has a foreign policy and concept, this is exactly what you’re describing.
20:39
And he didn’t think it up. He got it from Henry Kissinger, who was closely advising him during his presidential campaign in 2016, and whose ideas were reflected in Trump’s first national security strategy papers in December of 2017. And this is relationships between competitors and not adversaries. It rejects completely the fundamental principles of neoconservatism. And people who think that Trump doesn’t have an idea in his head had better reread Kissinger, 1994, “Diplomacy” and reread the 2017 American National Security strategy papers.
21:34
It’s one and the same idea. The idea that Kissinger was promoting in ’94 and had to move away from when he did his “World Order” in 2014, was a world of pre-World War I nature, of several major powers who were competitors, but no bloc. But, well, I say you go earlier, still earlier, because by the 1890s, there were blocs, of course.
But earlier than that, and certainly going back to the period that Kissinger loved most, 1815, the concert of powers, the balance of powers notions that predominated at least until 1870. That is the vision that Kissinger had in 1994 when people like him were making roadmaps for the post-Cold War period, and that was his vision. And I believe it’s a vision that he passed along to Donald Trump, who is trying his best within the limited possibilities he has, to break up the blocs.
Diesen: 22:42
Well, this, yeah, ’94 book on world order, though, it’s, he always made the point that world order, if it’s going to be stable and sustainable, it needs to balance just both the power and legitimacy. And I guess this was always the problem of unipolarity. It’s not durable in terms of the distribution of power and it’s not going to have the legitimacy of one center ruling. And also in order to have this he also recognized you need the balance of having this what Chinese call civilizational diversity and also agreeing on some key principles. But you know so how do you, yeah some ways we will always be different, the nationalist idea, and then some principles we need to have the same.
23:25
I think under the liberal hegemony, we tilted too much to the idea that everything has to be shared principles and we forgot about the cultural distinctiveness, which kind of lays the foundation for sovereignty. And from my perspective, it also builds in a bit to Trump’s perhaps domestic ideas, because he sees that this liberal hegemony is eating up some of the values in terms of America’s own civilizational distinctiveness and turning into this, what he would consider liberal blob, I guess. But do you think he’s still working according to the Kissinger’s manual? I know they did speak ahead of his, you know, after he won the election. But how much do you think he’s influenced by these ideas?
Doctorow: 24:14
Well, you can ask the Kissinger to follow his own recommendations of ’94. Of course not. There is a big change in Kissinger between what he wrote in “Diplomacy” and what he wrote in “World Order”. And that was that he got beaten up over his vision of ’94 by the neocons, for being an unforgiving realist who was discarding values. And of course, Americans make a great deal out of values to drive foreign policy.
So in the end, in 2014, after saying that the foreign policy would be interest-based, he threw a bouquet to his opponents and said, yes, and of course there also should be democracy values uniting some parts of the world community. But that is not such a big concession, when you consider going back to his dissertation work on 1815, it all ended. Yes, there was a realist approach, but it was all framed by monarchical principles, and so these– which were the values of the time. These ideas, which are in competition, did not completely rule out the other side of the story. The question is where is the basic thrust?
25:50
And the basic thrust of Kissinger’s thinking was realism and eschewing all ideology; and I believe that Donald Trump remains in that camp. And people who say “Oh, he surrounded himself with Rubios.” Well, if you’re going to look for people who share that view, you wouldn’t have anybody around him. There are very few realists in high position, or with recent government experience, whom he could have as counselors and implementers. So he engages, as I’ve said, in double talk, and he does within the limits that one man can do when he is in a power situation surrounded by many other forces. After all, there are limitations on the president’s power, however much “New York Times” would like to say he’s overriding it all.
26:44
And he pursues a destruction of blocs. NATO is hard to get rid of. To really get rid of it, he needs two-thirds of the Senate backing him, which is not available. The quadrilateral arrangement never received that kind of formation, formal formation, where it cannot be undone. He’s undoing it. So I firmly believe that Trump has an idea or two in his head, And I believe that the ideas that he holds closest to his heart, as he has a heart also, are coming from Kissinger. I remember that Kissinger was very, very pleased to have the ear of Donald Trump, because for the first time in 30 years, he was not admitted by Obama to the Oval Office, who didn’t, who simply despised Kissinger and didn’t want to hear his advice.
27:45
Whereas Trump was very glad to take his advice. Of course, the role of Kissinger lasted almost a year. I wouldn’t say long. That’s understandable. There were many other competitors for Donald Trump’s ear. But I don’t believe that he has forgotten those lessons from Kissinger and that he is, I believe that he’s trying to implement them within his powers.
Diesen: 28:13
But on the topic of Kissinger though, one of the great achievements in the geopolitics was in the 1970s, splitting the Soviets from the Chinese. The general Machinder idea that you shouldn’t allow two Eurasian giants to get too close. Same with Germany and Russia. But the key criticism of Trump was always of Biden that the hostility towards Russia meant that the Russians were pushed into the arms of the Chinese.
But these recent pressures from Trump against India or his administration in terms of the tariffs and also the threats of a– pressuring of India not to trade with Russia, it appears to now be pushing India also towards the arms of China. Again, despite, I accept the premise, this idea that Trump is very hostile to all these alliance systems as a way of locking in America, preventing the reforms it needs. However, from every aspect, this seems to have been a colossal mistake, because America needs India if they want to have some balance against the Chinese or just some good relations in the East. This just seems like a disaster though, isn’t it?
29:44
I think it’s a temporary situation. I think this was a body blow intended to end India’s involvement in the containment policy against China and the formation of a new military bloc in Asia. The situation between Russia and China and India and China cannot be compared. India and China do not have the common economic interests that Russia and China have.
As the Indians say openly, what do we have to sell to the Chinese? Nothing. All we can do is buy from the Chinese. So that is not a prospect to be compared with the Russian situation. This was mentioned yesterday on Russian state television as they were discussing these various relationships. Russia is probably the only major country that has a proficit, not a deficit, in its trade relations with China.
30:51
And it is not just that they are supplying hydrocarbons and also more recently, a lot of agricultural commodities. They also are about to supply the jet engines for China’s newest middle-range passenger airliner, which is left engineless because of sanctions by the United States. Yes, as they said yesterday, you can count the world’s producers of advanced jet engines for passenger airliners on one hand, and Russia is one of them. And this is now being finalized. So the Russians are not just selling commodities, they’re also selling some high-tech and some pharmaceuticals. The Russians’ pharmaceuticals are now entering the Chinese market.
31:52
Nothing like this, not of this scale, can be anticipated for India with respect to China. What is in prospect is not a full unlimited friendship or partnership, but an end to enmity, an end to these border skirmishes, and cooperation on a common development of economic and securityinterests in Eurasia.
Diesen:
Well, that in itself seems quite important, because whenever you have two great powers, of course, if you choose to put India in that category or at least an aspiring great power, once they have some tensions between them, these tensions or conflicts can be exploited by external parties who want to get some concessions from one or balance, contain the other.
32:51
But I guess, yes, the last question going back to the beginning. How much do you think this is, if not a change in the world order or development or shift away from the unipolar system, how significant should we interpret the direction we’re going now? Because I see the lack of trade compatibility between India and China. I don’t expect any alliance systems from come out of this, but the ability to deal with the competing or political conflicts, it’s quite significant in order to, I guess, organize an alternative international economic architecture, given that there’s less trust in both the ability of the United States to hold this role. I mean, even the US now seems to be recognizing that the dollar, it can’t be the only reserve currency. It will surely have a very leading role, but alternatives have to come in place to actually reflect the distribution of power as it is.
Doctorow: 34:02
There is an acceleration in the movement towards a multipolar world. And what we saw in these last two days are a significant landmark in that trail. So it is, we should not exaggerate, as you’re saying, we should not exaggerate the prospects for rapprochement or warming between China and India. But what comes out of this, as I was just hinting a moment ago, is the, raising the flag of sovereignty. India did that by its refusal to take phone calls from Donald Trump and demonstration in every which way that is not going to submit to the American efforts to break its reliance on Russian hydrocarbons, in fact, intending to increase by at least 10 percent its import of Russian hydrocarbons in the coming month.
35:00
This is a declaration of sovereignty. The Russians were talking sovereignty a year ago. And I was saying that this is the word of the year. But I think now we’re witnessing it spreading to other major powers. Sovereignty dictates against participation in a military alliance or bloc.
The Chinese were the first to realize that and to practice it. Going back, and just to take one comment on your remark with respect to Kissinger and the cleavage that America drove between Russia and China for its own benefit, I think you’re being unkind to Richard Nixon.
Diesen:
I’m unkind to…?
Doctorow:
Being unkind to Richard Nixon.
Diesen:
Oh yeah.
Doctorow:
I believe that was _his_ idea and that Kissinger was the implementer. Of course, Kissinger would not bring that fact out in his memoirs. Who can blame him. But Nixon was no fool. And from the perspective of today, the Nixon that was the nasty man who was unpleasant with the press, well, he looks like a gentleman, a dignified man. By accident, on YouTube I saw a year ago, the Kennedy-Nixon debates. Remarkable. These people were civilized. It’s been a descent from civilization ever since.
36:41
So Nixon looks a lot better in that optic, and he was smart enough to see that opportunity and to have a very good implementer in the person of Henry Kissinger.
Diesen:
Yeah, the decline in decency. It’s quite remarkable if you go back a few decades and look at those presidential debates. Hopefully we reach the bottom of the barrel and there will be some improvements coming. But no, it is interesting, because when I saw Peter Navarro making these comments, that is the adviser to Trump, that, you know, “India is the largest democracy, how can you cozy up with the Chinese? You should be loyal to us.”
In other words, “bend to our pressure.” I think it exposes how much of the world actually sees it whenever someone refers to liberal democracy. It’s often translated almost always into sovereign inequality, which means in the name of liberal democracy, you should not pursue your national interest. But India keeps saying, well, our national interest has to come first.
37:54
And that means they’re taking into consideration the neighborhood they live in also, of course, and not cutting themselves off from very vital partnerships. So no, this could be a huge shift. I’m just curious if it’s going to change American policies, because so far the US appears to be doubling down on this, that “How dare China go continue along this path? They should fall in line. Maybe the problem is we haven’t put enough tariffs on them.”
38:27
This is kind of the logic, what else can be done, as opposed to reflecting a bit on what the actual Indian position is, that they see this being an issue of sovereignty. And it pains me to say this as a European, but if you look towards the ones who are bending too much to fall in line and compromising on their national interests, it’s the Europeans. Whenever the Europeans bow to daddy and do as they’re told, every time you ignore your national interest, you’re going to come out in a weaker position. So it doesn’t seem like a model that Indians would like to emulate.
39:11
Sorry, that was just my last question. Do you see any changes coming from the US position now, given the pictures coming out of China of Modi, Xi and Putin essentially being defiant and not responding in terms of allowing divisions, but instead further decoupling and diversifying their ties?
Doctorow:
I think we have to give this a bit of time. As I’ve said, I don’t think that Donald Trump has any intention of severing commercial ties with India or maintaining his present punitive tariffs for long. I believe that he is fully expectant that Putin will destroy Ukraine in the coming weeks to months, and therefore these punitive tariffs will not go on all that long. This is a message to break up the quadrilateral NATO information in the Indo-Pacific.
40:17
And Russia– as for China, of course, they read the Riot Act to the Americans. They explained how they will destroy American industry by cutting off rare earth metals and other vital supplies to American industry. And that is what caused the drawback from imposition of punitive tariffs on China and delaying it and it’s moving along with horizon on when they will be imposed. So let’s give this a bit of time. Let’s look beyond the two weeks or three weeks.
I believe that relations will foot back. The Indians are very keen to maintain relations with the United States, because as we just said, China is not a replacement for the American market, and there is no replacement for India in the immediate-, even in the medium-term future, for the American market. So of course they’ll find the competition. But that will be after the Americans drop their belligerency over whom India trades with.
Diesen:
Yeah, and I think that’s the main point, that the Indians don’t want to join a Eastern bloc against America. They literally just want to be non-aligned and diversify their trade. And no, which is why I think if United States walked us back and not– doesn’t tell India what to do, I think India’s greatest interest would be to also trade, have close relations with the US. Indeed, I would put Russia in the same category. They always saw this as a balance of dependence. That is yes, China might be the most important, but you have to balance out and diversify, so trading with the Europeans and Americans will always be important. Which is why I think they’re putting so much efforts to restoring bilateral ties with the United States. It’s just they’re not going to be lured into an anti-Chinese camp. And I think that dream has to be dropped with the Indians as well.
42:24
But yes, thank you so much. This is fascinating times. And indeed, the weakening, if not the sabotage of these alliance systems altogether is quite revolutionary in terms of changing the international system. So thanks again.
Doctorow: 42:46
Yeah, my pleasure.
Transcript of News X interview
Transcript submitted by a reader
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY5m7e5wPjw
NewsX: 0:00
China-India bilateral trade does not replace India-US bilateral trade. We lose a hundred billion dollars to the Chinese, OK? What products are the Chinese going to buy from us when they make everything? So the only imports they really have is iron ore, OK? So let’s be realistic, that doesn’t fix that problem.
But away from, as Mitali is saying, from the problems, there’s a fundamental agreement. That yes, we have our problems and we’ll have to settle our own problems and if we can’t do anything serious let’s take the temporary measures, because there’s an even bigger problem that the world is facing. Now, together these countries represent a global GDP, just the three of them represent a global GDP of just over 24 trillion dollars, OK? So even all three together don’t match up to the GDP of America. And nobody’s wishing away America.
0:51
So some balancing act has happened, but clear messaging has happened. So now let’s get Gilbert Doctorow into this conversation. Professor Doctorow was telling us yesterday that it’s a good thing that the eyes of India have been opened and they’ve been made to smell the roses. And if the quad ends with nothing special and the entire bloc system is dismantled, that’s a good thing. And you know, let’s take the positives out of it. With the posturing that’s happened and very obvious posturing that has happened, Gilbert Doctorow, what do you feel now?
Doctorow: 1:30
I think– I was listening to your remarks on the body language of Modi and Putin and Xi. And I was also listening to your remarks about the humiliation of Pakistan, which I think you are overdoing. Pakistan after all is a protege of China, and the remarks made about their terror attacks on India could not have– in the declaration of the of the SCO, could not be made without China’s agreement. So let’s not overdo it.
What I see is not the fall of Pakistan, but the rise of India. I think we have to remember that SCO was created by two countries, by Russia and by China. This goes back to the beginning of the millennium. It was created as a way that these two countries could manage their competition over Central Asia and also keep out intervention in Central Asia by the United States and other interlopers. So it was about security in the middle of Eurasia.
2:42
And let’s remember that this is reflected in the working languages of the SCO. They are two languages, Russian and Mandarin. Small point, but highly significant in who runs this organization. India has been marginal. I think that this new spat with the United States, which Mr. Trump has provoked by his unreasonable tariff policy on India, has given these countries, Russia and China, an opportunity to do something that perhaps should have been done long ago, to raise the visibility of India and the possibility of India being also a full partner in the SCO management, not just a member.
3:35
This is a prospect that I hope India will find attractive now that the SCO is moving beyond its original remit, its original self-description as a security organization to combat terrorism and to combat narco trade and is looking to take on an economic and financial dimension as we witnessed in the creation of a–
NewsX: 4:01
Okay, so I’ve of course been hearing the statements carefully and–
Transcript of CNN18 (India) interview of 1 September
Transcript submitted by a reader
CNN News18: 0:00
–the big summit that’s taken place in Tianjin on the sidelines of the SCO summit from Mr. Modi and even the Russian President Vladimir Putin held two significant bilateral meetings that have reaffirmed the enduring strength and depth of the India-Russia strategic relationship. Both leaders have emphasized the multi-dimensional nature of this partnership, a time-tested one at that, which spans critical sectors, which are mainly defense, energy, trade, and technology.
And President Putin has described the ties between the two nations as principled, even multifaceted, noting that over the years the relationship has evolved into a robust framework for cooperation. Echoing these sentiments, Prime Minister Modi has described his interactions with President Putin as always memorable, underscoring the continuous high-level engagement between the two nations.
0:51
While Prime Minister Modi has also reiterated India’s constructive role within the SCO framework, especially when it comes to combating terrorism, even disrupting terror financing in a notable diplomatic snub. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif has appeared isolated during this entire summit. Prime Minister Modi left for New Delhi after a successful China-Japan tour. So all in all, this past week has felt only diplomatic triumph for New Delhi. But let’s also listen in to what Prime Minister Modi had to say in his plenary session at the SCO.
Modi: 1:32 [UNCONFIRMED TRANSLATION]
I would like to say that security, peace and security are the basis of any country. But in this path, terrorism, terrorism and terrorism are big challenges. Terrorism is not only a threat to the country, but also a simple challenge for full independence. It is not just a challenge for the country, but a challenge for the entire humanity. The role of the SCO Reds is important. At this time, India has led the Joint Information Operation, initiative.
We have supported the organization and have also supported the Indian government for four decades to create the terrorism. So many mothers lost their children and so many children were–
CNN News18: 3:27
Gilbert Doctorow, who is an author, also specializes in Russian relations, is joining me live on the broadcast. Many thanks to you, Gilbert, for joining in on CNN News 18. We just heard some very critical points being made by the Indian Prime Minister in his plenary session at the SCO, especially when it comes to condemning terrorism and double standards on terrorism. Before I deep-dive into the bilateral that’s taken place between Prime Minister Modi and President Putin, share your thoughts on how India has come down on the issue of terrorism.
Also not to forget that the SCO declaration has managed to condemn the Pehelgam terror attack as well this time around, which India is of course seeing as a diplomatic thing.
Doctorow: 4:07
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization unites Eurasia. Eurasia has many common interests. Eurasia also has differences, some of which led to armed conflict, as the recent clash between Pakistan and India illustrated. It would be unrealistic to expect that 20, 25 countries would all see the same views, would all have the same positions on most everything.
And so it is that there is conflict among the some of the member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Nonetheless, it was extremely important that the declaration today condemned the attack in Punjab and the terrorism which emanates, as everyone knows, from Pakistan. That was an important victory. I would say for India in the group. Sorry.
CNN News18:
You meant Kashmir, I believe, because–
Doctorow:
Ah, Kashmir, yes. Yes, you’re correct. The point is that this was a diplomatic victory for India and theres good reason for Mr. Modi to be proud of it.
CNN News18: 5:22
What is your understanding of the bilateral relationship between Moscow and New Delhi at a time when Donald Trump is accusing India and Prime Minister Modi of funding Putin’s war chest, calling Ukraine as Modi’s war.
Prime Minister, on the other hand, has in fact, of course, called upon the Russian president urging him to bring peace or to choose peace, rather. And that’s been his stance always when he said that this is not an era of war, something he reiterated this time around. But Russia has been equally respectable and mindful of the Indian Prime Minister’s views on the war.
Doctorow: 6:03
I think the basic common view of international relations among the member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is realism, the realistic school. In the realistic school, countries look after their own national interests.
And national interests do collide. The case of India with respect to the United States and Russia is a case in point. India has strong commercial attachment to the United States, has been partly dependent on the United States for various arms deliveries. It has also had both strong commercial and military geopolitical interests shared with Russia.
6:48
So these sides have traditionally been in a balance. India has walked a tightrope, I would say, for decades and decades. And that is nothing new. What is new, of course, is Mr. Trump’s destruction of 25 years of American diplomacy with respect to India to bring it into a grouping for containment of Chinese expansion and economic growth. And that is the important outcome of his tariffs, the tariffs on India, which have attracted a lot of attention, but I think have been misunderstood.
My reading of Mr. Trump is that he is actively destroying the supports for United States hegemony and global domination. That is his intent. We will only know if that is the case 10, 20 years from now when archives are open. In the meantime, this is a supposition which I urge you to consider.
CNN News18: 7:46
You’ve in fact made a very critical point over there because many are talking about how Trump has overnight almost dismantled this 25 years of a painstakingly created relationship between New Delhi and Washington, one that was managed through various bipartisan efforts.
And I’m going to quickly bring in my correspondent, Siddhant, who also is joining us from the newsroom. So Siddhant, when you look at the way the White House has been reacting, what is one to make of that, given that many have said that if it was Biden who pushed Russia towards China, it is Trump who is pushing India towards China?
Siddhant: 8:26
Well, yes, that’s right Akanksha. But also Akanksha would like to add what you just said, what I could read from the statements that are coming, that we are getting to hear from the senior Trump officials.
So as far as the policy level is concerned Akanksha, those individuals are really committed to continuing the relationship with India and perhaps giving efforts to improve ties. Why I am saying this, because just last week we had two plus two official level dialogue with the United States, and perhaps that the release, this is a State Department’s release which did mention, which has mentioned of Quad and deepening cooperation in nuclear energy, compact was also mentioned, etc. etc.
9:16
But when it comes to people around president Trump, when it comes to people like Peter Navarro, hardcore MAGA people, then their commentary, their remarks are below the belt. They are doing everything to spoil this relationship. So as I said you know I won’t say that everybody in the US administration right now is kind of giving efforts to spoil the relationship. There are people, there are strategic experts Akanksha, many are speaking to you and other of our colleagues here in the newsroom and in fact you know they really want to, you know, continue with the relationship, and they want this relationship to grow. So, you know, so that’s what I could understand from the Trump administration and the US administration at this point.
CNN News18: 10:08
I want to take that point forward with Gilbert as well. Gilbert, Siddhant has made a very significant point over there. Donald Trump’s view is perhaps not the wider view of the United States. And I want to quote what the US embassy has gone on to talk about. In fact, soon after Peter Navarro’s statement shook all of India as we woke up, when he in fact again attacked India’s Prime Minister, he’s also tried to create a wedge in terms of the cast.
In fact, I wouldn’t even want to go where he has been. It’s the lowest ebb of the kind of rhetoric we’ve seen come out of White House. But the US Embassy in India has sent out a very heartening statement which talks about India and the US relationship being at the forefront of the 21st century relationship. They’ve also in fact sent out a quotation of Marco Rubio that says that “the enduring friendship between our two people is the bedrock of our cooperation and propels us forward as we realize the tremendous potential of our economic relationship.” So Gilbert, I want to bring you in on this divided view of India within the Trump administration.
And it’s clearly to do with MAGA versus the ones who are at the helm of affairs in the White House. What is your view, and what could be the impact of this for the Republicans ahead in the years ahead?
Doctorow: 11:30
There’s only one view that counts in the US White House, and that is Mr. Trump’s. I would not listen to anything that Mr. Rubio says regarding relations with India, because he is not making the policy. His boss is. The point is that Mr. Trump is not aimless, is not changing views from day to day. He is a student of Henry Kissinger, {however] much that may surprise your audience.
He has followed– and this was clear in his first term in office in the first year when he did, when his national securities strategy was issued. This was a Kissinger policy. Henry Kissinger’s fingerprints were all over Mr. Trump’s thinking then, and [I think] that persists today. India will have good relations with the United States after this spat is ended, but it will not continue in the creation of a quadrilateral grouping in the Indo-Pacific.
It will not be part of a block that is directed against China. And that is precisely what Mr. Trump’s tariff attack on India is all about.
CNN News18: 12:42
But, and that’s why I want to bring you in. Has the tariff attack exposed the US hypocrisy? Because they want to accuse us of war profiteering. What about the war profiteering that the US is doing through companies like Lockheed Martin in Ukraine?
Doctorow:
Don’t listen to words. Look at actions. Mr. Trump’s words are intended to deceive everyone, particularly his opponents, domestically and abroad. They are not the pointers to his actions. He will come back to India, but he is not coming back to the quadrilateral. You will note the latest reports are that he will not attend the quadrilateral summit.
13:21
That is his point. He wants to end blocs, and he wants to recreate– as Mr. Kissinger indicated in his 1994 book, “Diplomacy”– he wants to recreate the pre-World War I situation in global governance, where there was multi-plurality, where there were individual states, including powerful states, that looked after their national interests, but not in blocs.
CNN News18: 13:49
Stay with me, Gilbert. I’m going to also request Siddhant to continue staying with us. Let’s also take our viewers through the key highlights from Prime Minister’s statement at the SCO summit.
In fact he’s delivered some very crucial messages especially using SCO as an acronym to begin with SECURITY. There can be no double standards on terrorism, is what Prime Minister maintained. Terrorism is a shared challenge for humanity. He said that India has seen the heinous face of terrorism in Pahelgam on 22nd of April. He also went on to say that we have to spell it out clearly, that there’s going to be no compromise on terrorism. And that any open support to terrorism by any of the countries, whether they are sponsoring it or not, is unacceptable.
14:35
As far as CONNECTIVITY, the “C” of SCO is concerned, he went on to say that connectivity that bypasses sovereignty loses trust between all the member nations. India is working on Chabahar port for connectivity, which is why Iran’s role becomes extremely crucial. And that working on international north-south transport corridor is important as well, a reminder for SCO to push that forward. These projects will boost links with Afghanistan, Central Asia as well.
15:07
As far as OPPORTUNITY is concerned, India is following the mantra of “reform, perform, transform” as well. He also went on to invite all the member states, even the ones who are in the observer position or the guest nations, to become part of India’s growth story, to become part of India’s development journey as well.
Here’s what the India big wins are, but I’m going to quickly go across to Suzanne to bring in a word as far as the big wins are concerned, let’s take you through what the SCO declaration had to state. It strongly condemned the Pehelgam terror attack to begin with.
That’s been our diplomatic victory. SCO has called for combating cross-border movement of terrorists as well. It has echoed India’s line, which says that no double standards on terrorism should be tolerated. Of course, there was a direct reference to not just Pakistan, even China, which has been aiding Pakistan with direct intelligence information, something we observed during Operation Sindhur as well as you as a firm determination to continue the fight against terrorism. It also condemned the use of terror groups for mercenary purposes as well.
16:16
Let’s quickly go back to Siddhan to continue to stay with us. Siddhan, as far as connectivity is concerned, we’ve of course touched upon terrorism. Take us through what are the expectations for India and how significant is going to be Chabahar port, given the way we are seeing disturbances in that entire region, as far as the ones surrounding Iran are concerned, not to forget even Afghanistan and the way China and the United States also now want to make inroads.
CNNNews18 – Siddhan: 16:44
Definitely, you know, connectivity is very, very important. In fact, the kind of projection India is doing for itself, the role that in fact the world wants India to play in the coming years, perhaps for that India needs to be well connected, Akanksha, whether it’s Vladivostok-Chennai corridor, whether it’s North-South transit corridor, which will give Indian goods access to markets in Afghanistan and Central Asia, whether it’s IMAC, Akanksha, there’s a lot of work that has been put in by the Indian side as far as the IMAC corridor is concerned.
17:23
So you know, connectivity is a major focus of the Indian side, has always been the major focus of the Indian side. Also, you know, when, … after the withdrawal of US troops, Akanksha, from Afghanistan, India has been sending consignment to Afghanistan time and again, its wheat, medicines, etc. And those consignments are reaching Afghanistan via Chabahar port. So, you know, Chabahar port gets activated and via Chabahar it reaches Afghanistan. So India is using Chabahar port. In fact, there were two two agreements also which were signed last year between India and Iran. India pledged more money for the project. So connectivity is definitely a focus area of the Indian government.
CNN News18:
Gilbert, I want to quickly bring you in on the aspect of connectivity in this Trumpian climate, which has made it extremely adverse for India and Iran to operate together. Many say that had India not bowed down to Trump’s demands of reducing its oil purchases from Iran under the previous Trump administration, we could have perhaps set the benchmark much earlier. But what is your view, especially when it comes to forward movement or ensuring forward movement on the Chabahar port, given that Iran is also directly in the line of fire with Donald Trump?
Doctorrow: 18:49
Of course, this is important. Iran is very dependent on the support, both diplomatic support and economic support of fellow members of the Shanghai security organization. India has a prospect, a possibility of stepping up imports of Iranian petroleum, which would be an important assistance.
But I’d like to mention one country that you’ve omitted: Armenia. It was quite surprising that Armenia had a bilateral discussion with Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the SCO summit. And that is directly related to your interests as India in the North-South corridor, because Armenia as a big player in the in the Southern Caucasus has a decisive role in whether this succeeds.
19:44
In that respect you have to consider the Europeans, because Armenia is being directed against Russia, like France. So the situation is quite complex.
CNN News18:
It’s also of advantage to India, given that Armenia is a direct counter to Azerbaijan, a country that has directly pledged support to Pakistan also during Operation Sindhu.
Doctorow:
Yes, these are very complex relations. Fortunately, a forum like SCO provides the opportunity for these various leaders to meet and to meet in rapid succession with one another. So that what is discussed between Putin and Pashinyan then becomes a subject for discussion between the Armenians and the Indians [or both persons].
CNN News18: 20:37
Absolutely. I’m going to request you to continue staying with me, Gilbert, a host of talking points, some in fact highlighted by you as well, which we perhaps couldn’t touch upon, Armenia being that very significant factor. Let’s also listen in to the reactions of the Russian president and the Indian prime minister during that much talked about bilateral that took place. Let’s listen.
Modi: [TRANSLATED] 21:02
We have been in constant contact with each other. We have been in constant contact with each other. This December, for our 23rd summit, 140 crore Indian participants are waiting for you. Excellency, this is the depth and breadth of our special and privileged strategic partnership. India and Russia have always walked shoulder to shoulder.
21:26 approx:
Our close cooperation is not only important for the people of both the countries, but also for the peace, stability and prosperity of the world. Your Excellency, we have been discussing the ongoing struggle in Ukraine. We hope that all parties will move forward constructively. We will have to find a way to end the conflict as soon as possible and establish a peaceful state. This is a call of humanity.
21:53 approx:
Excellency, once again I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Of bilateral cooperation in various areas. Dear Prime Minister, dear friend, Russia and India have been supporting special relations for decades. They are friendly and trustworthy. This is the foundation for the development of our relations in the future.
And these relations have absolutely non-party nature and are supported by the overwhelming majority of the peoples of our countries.
Putin [from subtitles]: 22:25
Today’s meeting is another good opportunity to further strengthen our relations. We can say thtat our relationship is based on principles. There is multifaceted cooperation between us. There is a very trustworthy relationship between Russia and India, one that is not based on politics.
CNN18 (India) panel discussion of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit
This has been a very hectic day of interviews and panel discussions with three Indian broadcasters – News X, News X World and CNN18. The visit of their Prime Minister Modi to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit has been followed in India with at least as much attention, probably more than in Russia, where it was the number one news item on the weekly summary program last night.
Regrettably, the Indian broadcasters are so overloaded with work that they have not forwarded to me links to these programs in which I participated, with one exception so far, the link below from CNN18.
I offer this not so much for the sake of what I had to say but to share with the Community the angle of interpretation that the Indian broadcasters are using for their audiences.
This particular video was recorded before 11 am European time. A video interview/panel discussion with News X in the mid-afternoon was remarkable for the gloating of the Indian journalist and panelists over the humiliation of Pakistan at the summit. What they have in mind is one point in the closing declaration of the summit issuing a rebuke over ‘cross-border terrorism’ that made possible a deadly attack on Indian Kashmir. The unnamed sponsor of terrorism was, of course, Pakistan, and the incident prompted the brief Indian-Pakistani air war that Donald Trump has taken credit for resolving.
Regrettably, Indian broadcasters seem to be missing the truly historic nature of the SCO summit for their country, which lay not in the fall of Pakistan but in the prospects for a rise of their own country to a managing position in the SCO. Let us remember that from its founding at the beginning of the new millennium, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization was primarily an instrument for Russia and China to moderate their competing interests in Central Asia and to keep out the Americans, the Europeans and other interlopers. It was focused on combatting terrorism and narcotics trading. The working languages of the SCO were and remain Russian and Mandarin, which tells you who is running the show.
Now, with India in the midst of a painful spat with the United States, with the work of 25 years by successive American administrations to inveigle India in its scheme for building an alliance to counter Chinese growth and influence in the Indo-Pacific region shredded and in tatters, the moment has come for India to realize its nonalignment and sovereignty by assuming a leading role in the SCO.
The Summit was also historic in the expansion of the mission of the SCO from Eurasia-wide security to Eurasia-wide economic and financial management. In his speech to the assembled guests, President Xi mentioned plans to create an SCO Development Bank and trade issues predominated in the one-on-one side meetings of participants. That is all new. One may compare this with BRICS, but whereas BRICS is global in scope and has some foot draggers at the top, like Brazil and South Africa, the SCO is focused on Eurasia and appears to be able to act more quickly on agreed objectives.
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025
Gilbert Doctorow 