Transcript of 'Dialogue Works' edition of 23 January

Transcript submitted by a reader

Nima R. Alkhorshid: 0:05
Hi everybody, today is Thursday, January 23rd, 2025. Our friend Dr. Gilbert Doctorow is back with us. Welcome back, Gilbert.

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
Thanks for having me.

Alkhorshid:
Let's get started with what Donald Trump said about the conflict in Ukraine. And it seems that he's trying to picture Russia as being weak politically, economically, militarily. What is the main reason behind this sort of mindset or this sort of rhetoric on his part in your opinion?

Doctorow: 0:43
Well, when he's saying this, he's playing up to the predominant view of the American public. The American public, thanks to the misdirection, the propaganda that's been disseminated incessantly by a succession of administrations, believes that Russia is today what it was in 1995, that it's still flat on its back and unable to look after its interests and has a weak economy which is based on oil and gas exports, which if interrupted, will bring the country to its knees.

All of this is the common property of the American political establishment. So Mr. Trump is not saying anything that would not go down well with his audience. But America-- and most of his audience is intended to be United States. So he can say all kinds of inanities, which he has done in the last few days, without fear of being called out as a fool.

1:52
Americans believe those stupidities and ignorant statements that he's made, and so he goes risk-free. There are a few of us, of course, who know better, and we appear on shows like yours. And we try to spread some light in the darkness, but darkness it is around us. And Mr. Trump is part of the darkness in many of the statements he makes and has made since his, let's call it a coronation, inauguration, because when you look at the pomp and circumstance of the events in the rotunda with all of the official greeters taking one after another of these eminences to their seats.

When you look at the oligarchs who were set up in front of senators and foreign dignitaries, and you look at the costumes of the military escorts, you wonder, are you in Moscow or are you in Washington? Because the things that Europeans and Russians in particular love pomp and circumstance, It turns out that Washingtonians love the same thing. So we saw a lot. We saw invocations of God by various reverends and one rabbi, which disturbed, put noses out of joint of some people in the West in general because God is out of fashion, but is still very much in fashion in the circle around Trump and the presence of the eminent, most famous and most successful pastor in American history, Billy Graham, his son delivering one of those invocations at the start of the ceremony.

3:47
This was a very special event. And this is the atmosphere in which Trump lives. And he believes he can say most anything he wants and get away with it. And for the most part, he's successful. And when he says that Spain is in BRICS, so what? And Spain, Schmain -- for Americans, Spain is a nice resort on a vacation trip to Europe from one of those things in their list, their boxes to be ticked.

And so he thinks it's in BRICS, so what? These little mistakes, which are not so little, which regrettably put him in a category of utter uneducation and ignorance that I thought we only saw in the German cabinet and personified by the Minister of Foreign Affairs Baerbock, unfortunately we're seeing them now reproduced in the Oval Office. But you and I and your guests have an obligation to the audience to clarify what is real and what is nonsense. And there's a lot of nonsense in what he's been saying. As you remarked, speaking about Russia as having a weak economy or dependent on oil and gas to pay the bills for the war, this is to misunderstand the country entirely.

4:59
It's to be blind to what they have achieved, particularly in the last three years, when they have gone all-in on national sovereignty, all-in on reindustrialization, and on developing their military strength to the level where it is out-producing, out-fighting all of NATO with the United States combined. So they have achieved a great deal, and if he's blind to that, he'll be awakened when the Russians proceed to trample Ukraine into the dirt. They're well on their way. The latest news from Russian reporting and the images they show of the destruction they are wreaking across the Ukraine and specific parts of the line of confrontation, they indicate that they really have the upper hand, that Ukrainian soldiers really are surrendering or being slaughtered, and that they are surrounding urban areas which they must take possession of, but they're doing it by cutting off all lines of supply to these areas to ensure that the defenders, Ukrainian defenders, will flee by night and not stand and fight. The city of Pokrovsk is in that situation.

6:34
I can say that they're now doing it. It's very quiet. And our newspapers are not giving the full picture, but they're doing the same thing around Kharkov in the northeast of Ukraine. They are cutting it off from the west, they're surrounding from the west, cutting it off from supplies, so the city will not be able to resist. They will not have to go in and fight building by building.

The Russians are advancing with great speed and also with brilliant generalship. The case of Pokrovsk is most notable and it's pointed out by none other than the Russia-hating "Financial Times". I have some readers of my blogs who say, oh, why would you follow the "Financial Times"? Well, why wouldn't you, knowing their disposition to praise Ukraine and to curse Russia at every turn, when they put on front page their description of how the Russian generals have unexpectedly moved north, northwest, past Pokrovsk towards Dnepropetrovsk, cutting off all lines of supply to that city and avoiding urban warfare.

7:53
That's the "Financial Times" saying that. So that's it. game, set, match. It is quite remarkable what Mr. Putin is doing, and for Trump to say, to repeat this foolishness of his advisors who've been saying this in the last couple of weeks, but now we're hearing it from the horse's mouth, from Trump himself, that the war is at a stalemate. It is not at all a stalemate.

Alkhorshid: 8:28
The other thing that he said that was so amazing to me, It was Russia wanted to capture or subsume all of Ukraine in one week, which wasn't the case during the xxxx. Never, we've never heard about that from Russians. And many people are arguing, there are some people arguing that he wants to force Russians into negotiations. But it's if that's the case -- Russia was talking about negotiations all along this conflict.

Since before this conflict started, when they went into Ukraine with a hundred thousand forces, they started negotiating in Istanbul. And right now, with the Biden administration, they were trying, they're open to negotiate with the United States any time. But here comes this attitude on the part of Donald Trump, and it seems that these people are trying to convince us that they're trying to force Russia into negotiation. What is that all about, in your opinion?

Doctorow: 9:46
Self-delusion. They don't get it. They simply don't get it. They cannot imagine that Russia has the strength that it has, the political strength, the unity that it is showing in the face of an enormous challenge, existential challenge. They cannot take it in.

They are bamboozled by their own ideological points. And this takes in not just the Bidenites, but also the Trumpets. They don't get it that Russia's political system is not the same as theirs, but in its own way is democratic. In its own way, it has massive popular support. It plays the same political games that they do, by feeding the public to ensure that they are sated, satisfied, and not restive.

10:47
Even last night, Putin went on television to update the information about the inflation that the country experienced in 2024. It had been estimated to be eight and a half percent, and when the Russian legislature and the federal officials put up their cost of living adjustments for pensions and salaries, which took effect on January 1st, they used that one. Now the final number has come in from the Bank of Russia, and Mr. Putin went on air to say that indeed it was 10 percent, and accordingly he has promised that in the next payment of pensions and salaries that are covered by these cost-of-living adjustments, they will make good for the difference in real inflation suffered last year in the payments that will be adjusted as from the 1st of January. So this attention to the things that concern the public and that make you either popular or a villain among your citizens, they are very attentive to them.

12:06
So Mr. Putin is doing very well on the popularity ratings, far, vastly better than anybody in the so-called democratic countries of the West. I'm speaking to you from Belgium. You know that from June of 2024, when they had the federal elections, the legislative elections in Belgium-- as all across Europe, most countries of Europe had their legislative elections together with the elections for the European Parliament in June-- since June, up to a week ago, there was no government here.

Well, it was a government, a caretaker government. They were negotiating all that time how to put together an alliance, a coalition that could maintain majority in the parliament. These types of negotiations go on in most all of European states, with exceptions. France is one outstanding exception to this rule. But in general, Europe is ruled by coalitions, which is not a formula for democracy.

13:14
Well, that's a separate discussion. But they believe that-- that is in the States particularly and in Western Europe also-- that they are democratic and Russia is not democratic, that democratic states are strong and that non-democratic states, or autocracies, are fragile and therefore are aggressive. This is a whole ideology which has no basis in fact whatsoever. But this is the way they approach Mr. Putin and believe that his regime, not government, but regime is fragile.

Well, it isn't, it's quite strong, more resilient than any of the Western European countries is today. They're all very fragile. As we saw in the collapse of the German government and its elections coming up on February 23rd. And as we know from the French, these are two leading states in the EU, and they both are very fragile. So the misunderstanding of Mr. Putin's situation comes from these deep-seated misunderstandings about Russia in general, about democracy in general, where it is and where it isn't.

Alkhorshid: 14:26
What do we know about the arms supply to the regime in Kiev? Is that increasing, reducing?

Doctorow:
Well, when I said I'd like to emphasize that none of us has perfect vision, none of us has perfect information. And I am very happy to be in good company with some very outstanding military and political analysts who appear on your show and on one or two other leading talk shows and interview programs. And they are at odds. And nobody points that out. I may be a difficult personality because I do point out differences. I don't believe that we in the alternative news media should be repeating exactly what we find so objectionable in mainstream, that is they're all saying the same thing.

15:20
You don't arrive at truth by looking over your shoulder and aligning yourself with what other people are saying. These two experts who I highly admire, I'm speaking about Scott Ritter and Larry Johnson, they were yesterday at odds in interpreting just the question you're asking. Larry Johnson had produced information that so many people who were responsible, including the Deputy Secretary of Defense, who was responsible [for] oversight of all the military assistance to Ukraine, and has reportedly resigned, that she is joined by many dozens of officials who were fired by Trump's orders. This, all of this suggesting that there's going to be some tipping point in American aid to Ukraine. That is, Larry Johnson didn't take that on fully as his own, but he was pointing in that direction.

15:20
At the same time, also yesterday, Scott Ritter was saying he doesn't believe these numbers, but it's improbable that dozens of people, 50 people or more, would be fired because very few of them actually had decision-making powers. They were simply executing orders and you don't fire people for that. So he was undercutting those expectations and also undercut expectation coming from another widely listened to and read source, "Simplicius", who was saying yesterday that contracts with logistics suppliers in Varnau, in Romania, who have been involved-- in Poland, of course, Yeshov-- who have been involved in transferring arms from the States and from Europe to Ukraine, that they have received no new requests for quotations or applications from the United States for continued services. The implication being that the United States is cutting off its arms deliveries to Ukraine.

17:24
Well, these were very welcome things to hear. When I first read it, I was quite impressed. But then Scott Ritter argued, and I think he was right, that this is disinformation, or it is misinterpreted, that this does not mean that the United States is cutting off arms. And indeed, if that were the case, what would we have heard from Zelensky yesterday in Davos? He wouldn't have been talking about the need for 200,000 European soldiers to come and save the situation in Ukraine. He would have been screaming to the skies that he's just been stabbed in the back by the United States.

And he's not a fellow to mince words. He didn't say anything about it. So we can assume fairly safely it did not happen. Or if it happened, It does not have the meaning that some people attribute to it, that this is the end of supplies to Ukraine. What is really going on? We don't know. The only thing that we do know for sure is what we were talking about a few minutes ago, the foolish things that Mr. Trump was saying yesterday.

Alkhorshid: 18:36
And since you mentioned Zelensky in Davos, he went from Ukraine defending the West and to drawing a line between Europeans and the United States. It seems that right now he thinks that the United States is deciding about its policies separately from Europe. Why is he changing his rhetoric? Do you understand what he's talking about?

Doctorow:
He's a schemer. He will do anything to bully his talking partners in the West into doing his bidding in supplying arms and now requesting, supplying boots on the ground in Ukraine. And there are people like Macron who will say anything in front of a microphone to be sure that they're on the day's headline news, who will support this notion that we have to put boots on the ground, whether you call it peacekeepers or whatever.

19:46
The real fact is, and I think there may be a few people in Europe who still have their brains connected, their minds and their heads connected to their backbone and who understand that that is World War III. I don't think Mr. Putin has to explicitly restate this to them. It's pretty clear. If they put boots on the ground, then they will be attacked with Oreshniki and whatever else the Russians want to throw at them, because then they are co-belligerents in the full sense of the word, and they will deserve what they get.

20:19
Now, I don't think anybody in Europe wants to deserve that. Certainly that is an invitation for them to be thrown out of office at the soonest opportunity, and then that becomes clear to the broad public. There is nobody around me here in Belgium who wants to put one toe on the ground in Ukraine and to enter into a war against Russia. That is nonsense. And therefore, I don't think that will last very long.

When it becomes clear that Mr. Trump also doesn't want to put boots on the ground, also is inclined to stop the supply of arms to Ukraine, then I think the European defense of Ukraine will disintegrate in a matter of days. The only thing that holds it together is the mistaken belief that Trump is on their side.

Alkhorshid: 21:14
Sersky pointed out that there is no air defense system in Ukraine to intercept or actually missiles. And two other points in his talk was that the mobilization is not going to solve the situation of the army, that the Ukrainian army is in right now. And they're not going to go on offensive, because they don't have the capabilities, the manpower and all of that. Do you think this sort of information on the part of Serski's getting, are they finding their way to Washington and to Donald Trump?

Doctorow: 21:55
I'm sure they are, because I would guess that he is positioning himself as the next president. The question is whether or not Trump can or should permit a transition without elections in Ukraine. I think it would be very stupid to do that, because he has an opportunity now of an off-ramp by saying, "Go to elections, or we'll stop supporting you, because we're supporting a democratic country which you no longer can claim to be." If he loses that opportunity, if he wastes that opportunity, then he will be making a vast mistake.

22:38
It's one thing to say transfer power to Sierski, and I can do that. I think that what Siersky is saying, and other generals are saying, is preparing the stage for a coup d'etat and liquidation of Zelensky, either his physical liquidation or the liquidation of his power and his imprisonment. I think this has been prepared by statements like the ones you just gave.

But it would be a terrible mistake if the United States let things stand there just by replacing one villain by a hero who will be a hero for a couple of days and no further. Nobody in Ukraine can implement the mobilization down to 18. It is unworkable, and it will lead to some kind of disaster, civic disorder. It is so vastly unpopular.

Alkhorshid: 23:39
Finally, we had the comprehensive deal between Iran and Russia signed on January 17th. What are they talking about in the Russian media, and what is the importance of this deal in your opinion?

Doctorow:
Well, I have to say that my own comments about this are my own comments. I am not taking this from Russian media. Russian media have intentionally overlooked the aspects of this that I have written about and for obvious reasons. So I am being ... I'm saying more than they dare say. But I say it anyway because nobody around me is saying it, which is very surprising. This plays very well into what Scott Ritter was saying yesterday when he was presented with the latest video of Lindsey Graham ranting, as usual, for trying to foment a war with Iran in the favor of Israel, with American support, which is essential, otherwise the Israelis can't do the job. Well, what Scott Ritter was saying is that Trump is heading in absolutely the opposite direction and that he does not want to start a war with Iran.

25:01
That is precisely contradictory with what he said both before, during, and after his inauguration: that he is not looking to get into new wars. And I believe there have been some signals from the administration, from the incoming administration, certainly not from Biden, but from the incoming administration, from people around Trump to Tehran, that "Let's talk." This is not public, but it had to be private, and it certainly influenced the document which the Russians and the Iranians signed off last Friday. That is a very strange document, and it amazes me that no commentators here in the West have said anything about the strangeness that the Russians wouldn't say. It is obvious because it is almost embarrassing what has happened.

26:07
It is contrary to the expectations of many people that these two countries, under pressure from the United States, would form a mutual defense pact similar to what Russia concluded with North Korea. This was supposed to be signed back in October at the BRICS summit in Kazan. It was not. It was delayed because of technical reasons, it was said at the time.

26:34
Well, the technical reasons certainly were there, and they still are there, by the way. That is to say, not everything has been resolved at the technical level, and I'll explain in a minute why. But the technical issues were not what held up the agreement. It was the whole nature of the agreement, what they could agree upon. The Russians were obviously uncertain about the loyalty to the spirit of any cooperation agreement that they could expect from Iran, because of the flirtation with the West that was evident in the new president's-- the President of Iran-- his opening statements when he took office were that he was looking for an accommodation with the West.

And that was destroyed. His policy was wrecked when Israel proceeded with killing of, it was Hamas I believe, an officer attending his, the President's inauguration in Tehran. That made it impossible to proceed right then with any negotiations with the States, as the backers of Israel. However, I don't think that in Moscow, they were satisfied that that was the end of the story.

28:08
They've had Mr. Putin's team has had its own struggle with similarly-minded liberals with a capital "L" within the Russian elites who never were trustworthy and who were always looking for some kind of accommodation with the West for their own benefit, at the expense of the nation. Therefore there were Russian doubts. That's the background. Now what immediately preceded this, I think that Tehran came clean and they said, "Yes, indeed, we are likely going to seek an accommodation with the United States, which puts an end to the sanctions which are so destructive in our economy."

And the Russians cannot be unsympathetic to that reasoning, which is entirely logical. Mr. Putin and his team are realists. They don't sit sore-minded, licking their wounds or dropping tears into their beer mug. They proceed with the facts as they are and try to make the best of it.

29:17
And that was what happened in the document that the two presidents signed in Moscow last Friday. It is the most peculiar strategic cooperation agreement I've ever seen. And even the Russian Sunday news wrap-up that is on Russian state television and it is directed by the chief manager of all Russian news -- his program was opened with his reading Article 3 of this document, which he didn't comment on, but it all speaks for itself. It states, I'm speaking by Dmitry Kusulaev, this article states that the two parties will not join forces with anyone who attacks the other one.

30:25
That is a very strange kind of mutual defense. "We will not join your enemy." Okay. Then it goes on in similar vein than the next part of that same article, that they are not going to support subversive elements seeking to overthrow their fellow contracting party. Again, you never see such statements. This is in a cooperation agreement.

Then you go further down in this document, and you find articles which could have been written by Freedom House. They're establishing both contracting parties as real upholders of the world order. They will both work to oppose international terrorism, international criminality, narcotics trafficking, human trafficking, all these worthy causes that America all pronounces, they both adopted it. Oh yes, and they both stand against the spread of nuclear weapons.

31:39
Now, "against the spread of...", that's as much as saying that both Russia and Iran stand against Iran's obtaining nuclear weapons. These conditions were there only with one intent, from my view, and that is to assure Washington that Iran is ready for final peace negotiations, to end, to bury the hatchet.

And then there's another clause, which is very important to the Russians. And I think this is the main reason why they signed this agreement. Assuming that it is likely, well possible, even likely that Iran and Washington will come to terms, that Washington will say that it is satisfied that Iran is not building nuclear weapons, and that it will duly raise the sanctions that have been crippling the Iranian economy for decades.

32:49
Under those conditions, Iran has a clause in its 20-year agreement with Russia, which is that neither side will sign up to sanctions of a third party against the other contracting party. That is saying, that's telling Washington that if you think that you're going to get Iran to sign up against Russia, the way that Russia was once induced to sign to sanctions against Iran, you're mistaken. It won't happen. So we will go into a friendship with the United States that is not directed against Russia.

So these are the terms, and they all, as I see it, this enforces the notion that there has been some background conversation between Tehran and Washington, which encourages Tehran-- and the Russians with them-- to believe that there will finally be a settlement, a peaceful settlement, to the differences between Iran and Washington and the United States that have existed since the Ayatollahs took over the country from the from the Shah in 1979.

Alkhorshid: 34:09
And I talked with Paul Craig Roberts the other day. He mentioned a very important point: that he believes that Iran is much more important than Ukraine for Russia, because of the extremism of these Wahhabis and these Islamists in the region. And it's so important for the security of Russia. If there is a threat to Russia, that would be extremism coming from these sort of movements within the Islamic movements, extremism. Which is, by the way, it makes sense to me, because we know that Iran has the same sort of concern when it comes to these people.

If something happens-- for Iran, the other important point is having some sort of balance between the East and the West. And Russia is the most important country in that view. Russia sees the same. Do you think that there are still the nature of the changes that are happening or is bringing these two countries together? Since the conflict in Ukraine started and the conflict in the Middle East.

But do you think the leadership in these two countries are not still getting to the point that they find, as you've mentioned, they have to be together, they have to work together in, I would say, a hundred percent, because the future would be brighter for them.

Doctorow: 35:52
Well, I don't agree with Paul Craig Roberts on many things in geopolitics. He is an economist by his education and his professional life. I am a historian by my education. I come at these things with different analytical tools, and I arrive at different conclusions.

And most importantly, we are listening to different sources. I'm listening to first-hand sources, and he's listening to second-hand sources. And that is, I think, his weakest point. He doesn't have his own determination of things. He's repeating what he gets from others.

So with all due respect, and he's certainly has had an outstanding career, and I take nothing against that, he's operating in an area that's outside his competence. Let's put that aside.

36:43
The issue that he raised is a real issue. I agree with that. But we are comparing apples and oranges. These are two threats to Russia that are very different. There is no question that the Russian Orientalists and political generalists will say that Russia has a great vulnerability in its southern borders, meaning the trans caucuses. In this respect, Paul Craig Roberts is right. But is it greater than the threat of the United States and NATO? No, I don't believe so.

It is a hypothetical threat. It is not a real and present threat. What's going on in the Ukraine war is a real and present threat. Moreover, the end result of this war, which we didn't get to in our discussion, if it plays out as the Russians would like, is vastly more important to them than anything that can happen in relations with Iran. What am I talking about? Yes, the Russians have, the last two days, been having a good belly laugh at the follies of Donald Trump. They have been saying that reaching an agreement with this man on Ukraine is out of discussion.

38:05
However, they're also saying, "Who needs him for Ukraine? We will solve Ukraine very nicely by ourselves, thank you. We still want to speak to Donald, but about something very different, about the other source of the present war, the NATO-Russia war, and that is security architecture of Europe."

And that is Yalta 2. What they're saying on Russian television, which your audience should appreciate, is that they see the limitations of American power, which they believe Donald Trump understands. He understands he wants to be a global hegemon, but he knows the United States does not have the wherewithal to keep its arms around the whole world. It doesn't have the money, it doesn't have the industrial base or whatever. It's not 1945, when America counted 50% of global production. Those days are long, long past.

39:09
So what does Donald want to do? He wants to reassert Monroe Doctrine and establish the United States' unrivaled, unquestioned hegemony over the Western hemisphere. That's what the moves against Canada, Greenland, and Panama are all about. That's what the Panama question, the angle of leveraging the Chinese out of the area is all about.

So what about the rest of the world? He is ready to do business with China and with Russia, who are the other-- and MAYBE throw a bone to India-- these are the other global powers, particularly China and Russia. India may be populous, but its military is not worth discussing, other than its nuclear bombs. China is, of course, the economic engine of the world and has a vast military of unknown capability.

40:17
Donald Trump is, in the view of these Russian analysts, ready for Yalta 2. That means we'd let Russia have buffers in Europe and elsewhere, and we'd let China have buffers, meaning South China Sea and all of this contested business about Taiwan would be set to one side. It's entirely possible. I wouldn't say probable or necessary, but these Russian analysts do have a point. It could come to that.

Alkhorshid: 40:55
Do you think that if Donald Trump decides to go and negotiate, go after some sort of negotiations with Russia, the European countries-- it's necessary to have European countries along with the United States doing that, or Donald Trump doesn't care what the European countries want and he's going to do whatever he wants, what is in his mind and for the benefit of the United States. Because as you know, the security architecture that Putin was talking about, it was between Russia and European countries. It's not talking about, the United States is part of that politically, But it's mainly about Russia and European countries.

Doctorow: 41:51
Well, in what I just was discussing, it's more or less assumed that the United States would withdraw from NATO. But let me get to the bigger issue, because I omitted saying what else positive the Russians, let's take Vladimir Solovyov, for example, have been saying about what is positive.

When you read the tea leaves or the coffee grounds, what is positive in an otherwise rather negative situation around Trump. What is positive is that he is looking not at the European Union. He always had a dim view of supranational organizations. Well, he's pulling out of them wherever possible. His latest withdrawal from the Paris Accords and from the World Health Organization.

42:43
They believe that he has no respect for the EU. Of course, he never invited Ursula von der Leyen. That's another proof of the esteem in which he holds the Brussels organization. He is interested in dealing with separate, sovereign European nations. And of course, the most sovereign of the nations are the leading economies in the EU.

And Germany may not be sovereign, really, as an occupied country, but he places a lot of emphasis on Germany. This suits the Russians fine. They're very happy to see Mr. Trump approach Europe with a sledgehammer, break the conformity in the anti-Russian position that's been dictated by these little Lilliputs, the Baltic states, pulling the big countries around by the nose to engage in anti-Russian-- and finally into a war with Russia. So, for the Russian analysts who are saying this, they are delighted to see what the opportunity is to break up the common front in Europe, thanks to the sledgehammer of Donald Trump. That's a positive thing.

44:05
Now as to these people like Solovyov, whose name I throw around and may not be so familiar to viewers of this program. I'd like to tell them to watch CNN. Watch CNN because they will see on the recent CNN, you know what they're doing? They're doing to Russia what Russia's been doing to CNN and to Sky News and to Fox News for the last several years.

They're putting up on the screen video spots from Solovyov's program, from "60 Minutes". Now, they're unrepresentative and they're very short. The Russians have very long excerpts from major news and they do it every day of the year, not just once or twice following the inauguration. But the CNN was, well, had a program which you can probably see today as well. What are the Russians saying about the inauguration? And they're showing these programs. So they accept my basic premise that these particular, several leading talk shows are very good surrogates for what the Kremlin is thinking.

Alkhorshid: 45:15
Thank you so much, Gilbert, for being with us today. Great pleasure, as always.

Doctorow:
My pleasure as well. Thanks so much.

Alkhorshid: 45:22
Thank you.