More WION: What does Kiev’s need for $3 billion per month of foreign assistance tell us?

This morning WION, India’s premier English language global broadcaster invited me to a far-reaching discussion that began with the latest news from Ukraine, where the Finance Minister had just announced the country’s need for $3 billion per month of assistance from its foreign backers.

As I explain in this interview, the money is not in any country’s pipeline at present given the blockage in the U.S. House of Representatives of legislation authorizing assistance to Kiev sufficient to cover Ukraine’s budgetary needs and the vast shortfall in the funds voted a week ago by the European Union. In this situation, the Zelensky regime is the ‘walking dead’ awaiting a proper death certificate.

Our chat went on to explore the background to President Macron’s proposal of European ‘boots on the ground’ in Ukraine, a proposal that positioned France as a ‘sore thumb’ in the NATO alliance, to quote my interviewer. Why the Germans, Brits, Poles have suddenly become ‘gun shy’ of Russia and are finally paying due attention to Moscow’s ‘red lines’ is the culminating point in the interview.

Transcript below by a reader

Shivan Chanana, interviewer: 0:00
Ukraine needs three billion dollars in financial aid per month to survive the war with Russia in 2024. Now this was shared by the Ukrainian finance minister. What are Ukraine's options? Till now, Ukraine has received more than 73 billion dollars in financial aid from its Western partners, but now the inflow of funds and weapons has slowed down. I'm Shivan Chanana for WION, World Is One. To talk more on this, we have with us Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, international affairs analyst, author and historian, joining us live from Brussels. Doctor, I want to get to it directly. Welcome to WION. What are Ukraine's options going forward, the way things stand as of now?

Doctorow: 0:38
Mr Zelensky has been the salesman of Ukraine for much of the last two years in his dealings first with the United States, also with Germany and other European powers. And he has done his very best to turn the taps on and to receive both financial and military aid from the Western countries. However, it looks like the game is up. The United States-- in the United States, the appropriations bill that Mr Biden has been pushing very hard, which would provide for 60 billion dollars in new assistance to Ukraine, is blocked in the House of Representatives and is very unlikely to come to a vote any time soon. In this situation, it is the Europeans who have been invited by the States to fill in the void, and that is an impossible void to fill. Even the recent 50 billion dollars that was approved after great internal negotiations in the EU is for five years. So it's-- figure it out-- that's 10 billion dollars a year. It falls way, way short of what Mr Zelensky says he needs to maintain his budget.

Chanana: 1:51
Dr Doctorow, when you say the game is up, do you feel this is where Ukraine just needs to surrender now? They are left with no other options?

Doctorow:
Well, what we're talking about is a peculiar country: by all objective standards, Ukraine is the walking dead. The three billion dollars a month or euros a month that Mr Zelensky and his colleagues say they need, is to pay the pensions, is to pay the salaries of government employees.

2:24
That's to say, for the government to function. Where is that money? Why is Ukraine so dependent on this life support for its basic government functions? Because basically it is dead. The only thing that's missing is a death certificate. And I believe that will be issued in the next few months, when there is not sufficient funds to keep the government going.

You can imagine that the tranquility within Ukraine is maintained precisely because people receive their pensions and receive their salaries. When this stops happening, there will be the necessary political reaction against a failed government and a failed state.

Chanana: 3:08
Dr, now Zelensky was recently also in Saudi Arabia to push for peace talks with Russia. Now, the kingdom is keen on resolving the conflict, but can MBS, Mohammed bin Salman, can he convince Putin to exit Ukraine? And what role can Saudi Arabia play here, given the fact that they gave Putin a hero's welcome just a few months ago?

Doctorow:
Well, I think you're asking MBS to square the circle. It just doesn't work. And that is to say that it is impossible for him to move Mr Putin to a capitulation. Because when you look at what the peace plan is of Mr Zelensky and his immediate associates, it amounts to a Russian capitulation. Why would you capitulate if you're just about winning the war, and if that winning hand is being recognized by your enemies today? The United States, Western European military analysts are not doing Russia any favor in recognizing that it has now broken the deadlock and is advancing daily against the long-held positions of the Ukrainian armies.

Chanana: 4:19
Doctor, now as far as the things that were revealed in the media, Zelensky went there to push for peace talks. He met MBS to try to convince Putin to back off. Now my question is, do you feel there was something more in that meeting which of course has not seen the light of day yet? Because it's very likely for Zelensky to go and ask for funds. Do you feel Ukraine, or do you feel Zelensky made that kind of a request from Saudi Arabia as well, and do you think Saudi Arabia would help monetarily, because it very well can?

Doctorow:
Well, Saudi Arabia has a very balanced policy. It does not want to appear to be in anybody's pocket, meaning that it has a long tradition of being a close ally of the United States in the Middle East. And more recently, it has been an economic ally of Russia in managing the global oil markets. So it's a balanced position. And I think that for the Saudis, it was as much a public relations exercise receiving Zelensky as it was a PR exercise for Zelensky in approaching Saudi Arabia and to make the appearance of seeking peace, which he is not seeking.

Chanana: 5:31
So you don't see it as anything more than a PR exercise for both nations. Okay, doctor, I want to move on to the next aspect of this. I want to focus on France next. I want to get your thoughts on it, the French president Macron's recent remarks that suggested the possibility of sending troops to Ukraine. He said he's not going to rule it out, and that made headlines across the world. Soon there was a response from the Russians; and one by one, we saw all the major NATO heavyweights distancing themselves from Macron's comment. What does this highlight about the West's stance on Ukraine and their basic principle of one for all and all for one, which pretty much fell apart like a house of cards?

Doctorow: 6:06
Well, the one for all and all for one took a big hit several weeks ago, when Donald Trump said that he would not stand by NATO allies who did not fund properly NATO's military budgets. Now that was a hit several weeks ago. Within the European Union, I think the storming of Avdeevka by the Russians-- a stronghold that was built up over nine years by the Ukrainians with Western assistance-- that change in the situation on the ground in the battlefield had an impact on the world at large, and in Europe in particular.

It made it clear that there is nothing untakeable for the Russian armies, that they are very, very skilled. It's not just a question of a 10-to-1 ratio in favor of Russians in artillery shells. It is a fact of superior strategy and also strategic and tactical military leadership. The storming of Avdeevka was by the technique that goes back several thousand years but was updated by the Russians. I mean, it is the technique of the Trojan horse.

7:23
They entered the city by 1-and-a-half or 1.2 meter wide pipe, sending a brigade through three kilometers. That kind of military expertise and inventiveness, I think, had a big impact on the thinking of European military leaders that Russia is a formidable, formidable military force, something which they have been denying for the last decade. As we all know, until recently, it was China, China, China. And the Russians were considered to be just minor players in the military arena. One thought back of how they were lying on their back in the 1990s, how their military collapsed.

Well those days are long gone. And finally, it's penetrated the minds of European leaders that they have a formidable foe who it's better not to antagonize and not to call his bluff by crossing red lines and sending troops on the ground officially into Ukraine.

Chanana: 8:36
Doctor, now continuing with France, it's a major NATO heavyweight. I just want you to, you know, allow me a minute plus just to put my point across here, because there are a number of things that have come to light in recent months, I would say. And then I want to come to my question. I essentially want to get your thoughts on the fact that is France out of line with other Western leaders? And I'll put my point across here.

I want to highlight a few points. Macron was vocal about not getting sucked into US conflicts. Again that's something we don't hear a lot of NATO nations saying. France has been circumventing Western sanctions on Russia, as it continues to deal with Russian gas and energy. And this is since the first year of the war.

9:04
France is turning abortion into a constitutional right recently. We just got that news today, after the US Supreme Court in 2022 overturned the right to abortion. And they have mentioned the two aspects together. Now, France has a thriving defense industry of its own, with which it is taking away potential US orders as well. The French Rafale Marine jets edged out the American F/A-18 Super Hornets for India's naval fleet of jets; that's one case in point.

France was also the first G7 leader calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, while US continues to avoid calls for a permanent ceasefire-till date. And as I mentioned earlier, seeing the way major NATO nations disagreed with Macron's statements suggesting the West may send troops to Ukraine. Now it begs the question: is France sticking out like a sore thumb in the NATO block?

Doctorow: 9:48
Well, "sore thumb", that is a subjective remark. France sticking out? Of course it has. Mr. Macron-- from the first days of his presidency, when he spoke before the joint [houses] of Congress in the early months of his first presidency-- he compared himself to de Gaulle. He looked upon himself, or he wanted the world to see him, as a rightful heir to de Gaulle's heritage. Now, what was de Gaulle's heritage? Precisely sticking out like a "sore thumb" or sticking out.

It is necessary to say that France is a NATO member with a unique situation. Ever since de Gaulle, France has not had NATO or American troops stationed on its soil. That is already a very big distinction from Germany and the other major NATO countries. That Mr Macron would want to cultivate this tradition of being more, having more of an analytical and independent view of the current world situation is understandable.

10:59
Unfortunately, the man is extremely shallow, and he misjudged completely the thinking of his colleagues on this issue. The Germans were especially upset by his remarks because Mr Scholz, despite his aggressive position with respect to the Ukraine war, does not want in any way to risk Germany being sucked into that war and facing missile strikes by Russia's hypersonic missiles, that they have threatened to do. So France was caught unawares. Even domestically in France, Mr Macron was criticized heavily for this very big change in-- a proposed change in national policy, which did not undergo anything resembling a national debate.

Chanana: 11:45
Doctor, I just want to take it a little further from there, and that will be my final question to you, for now at least. You know, you mentioned how Germany does not want to get sucked into the war. I want to understand from you, do you feel other European nations are in danger of Russia's-- are in danger of getting sucked into the war, given the fact Russia is making gain after gain in Ukraine at the moment?

Doctorow:
That is asking what you believe Russia's overall interests are.

Chanana:
That's my question.

Doctorow:
And whether or not Russia intends to take more territory in other countries, for example, in the Baltics. That is being put out by the advocates of a stronger NATO, and it is a theory that has virtually no basis in fact. It is used as a propaganda point to strengthen the alliance and to give consolidation to the NATO policy positions. But it has no basis in fact.

12:45
So Russia's intentions have been stated very clearly by Mr. Putin. It's the biggest country in the world. It does not need an additional centimeter of territory in Europe, and it doesn't want it. It's only the NATO leadership that wants to make this point in the hope of rallying the boys around a common policy of fighting Russia.

Chanana:
All right. That was international affairs analyst Dr Gilbert Doctorow, joining us from Brussels. Always a pleasure speaking with you and getting your thoughts on trending matters, sir.

Doctorow: 13:23
Thanks so much for having me.

See