Transcript of interview on 'Dialogue Works,' 15 October

Transcription below by a reader

Nima R. Alkhorshid: 0:05
Today is Tuesday, October 15th. We're having Gilbert Doctorow with us to talk about what's going on in the Middle East and in Ukraine. Welcome back, Gilbert.

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
Thank you.

Alkhorshid:
Let's get started with the new escalation between Hezbollah and Israel. What do we know from the latest attack of Hezbollah on Israel?

Doctorow:
We know a lot more than people are talking about. Even the most competent military experts among my peers who have appeared on talk shows in the last couple of days, they've only scratched the surface of what is there. The material is very rich. I would like to present the argument that what Hezbollah achieved in striking this military base south of Haifa is as significant as a deterrent, precisely as a deterrent, as the Iranian ballistic missile strike, 180 ballistic missiles, on Israeli airfields[1 October] and on destroying a very, very expensive radar installation that gave the [Israelis] supremacy.

1:17
It was destroyed in that strike, but nobody talked about it. Well, here it is, Hezbollah, after having been decapitated, and this is a reasonable description of what happened. Their top leadership, two or three levels of it, was successfully murdered by the Israelis in a matter of days. This same Hezbollah, which should have been left confused, so to say, without communications, or very compromised communications after the dramatic incident where walkie talkies and pagers that were being used by Hezbollah and not only by Hezbollah in the region were blown up by a very clever bit of IT work, of programming, and by sabotaged production of those devices, courtesy of Israeli intelligence. Well, Hezbollah in this supposedly weakened state had carried out something that has not been adequately described.

2:29
The numbers that were divulged necessarily by Israeli military-- because it was in Haifa after all, it was in plain view, and so they had to say something-- the numbers they said were four killed and some dozens wounded. It's later the figure has come close to 100 wounded and how many of these people are seriously maimed and will never be the same again, that remains to be revealed in the future. Nonetheless, these numbers, as some observers have said, are tiny, insignificant compared to the numbers of people of innocent civilians who are being killed daily now in Lebanon, and of course in the continuing destruction and genocide in Gaza by Israeli IDF.

3:24
Now, to look at it from that perspective, I think how many the numbers were. I think it's to miss the point. To look at the Iranian attack on October 1st from the standpoint of how many people died is also to miss the point. One person died accidentally, hit by falling debris in the Iranian attack. But that was intentionally done to avoid killing people and to show the power of Iran to penetrate all of Israel's defenses and to strike at will at what it wanted to destroy, which it did destroy.

4:03
That was the message sent on October 1st. And yesterday's message by Hezbollah was similarly meant, not just for the sake of how many it would kill and maim, but primarily to send a deterrent message to prevent further escalation of the ongoing low-grade war between Israel's IDF and Hezbollah and the Lebanese people.

4:34
But why do I say that? What was special about this? Well, we know something. Everyone knows that the Israeli defense did not detect the incoming drones. They didn't detect it. And that's quite stunning. They have one of the best, if not the best, air defense systems in the world. Now, why did that happen?

5:04
In the normal situation, the alarm should have gone off, and the soldiers who were being targeted should have dived. They should have gone to protected shelter, which normally they had the time to do, and which is what they practice in Israel today. It didn't happen, because nobody saw the incoming drones. That question has been asked of some military experts who are far greater experts than I am, but who do not use one resource that I use, which I'll mention in a minute. They said that Israel was blindsided because it never expected Hezbollah, which is just to the north of them, to send in attack weapons via the sea and not over land directly from the north.

6:00
So the Israeli radars, as one expert has proposed, weren't pointed in the right direction. Well, I have a doubt that's true. I imagine Israelis have 360-degree surveillance, radar surveillance. The point is the following. It came out on Russian television, on the most authoritative talk show on Russian state television, which is "The Great Game", which is hosted by several people.

The primary host is Vyacheslav Nikonov, the grandson of the communist boss, Molotov. And they have guest panelists, almost the same panelists, every day, who are allowed to talk at liberty. They're not interrupted by the host in the situation of the traditional bloodsport of talk shows that the competing program in Russia "Evening with Vladimir Solovyov", perpetuates to my chagrin, I think to the detriment of understanding what's going on. Anyway, Nikonov had good panelists, and one of them said the following. This was not detected by Israel because it is not detectable on radar.

7:21
It has almost no metal parts. It's made entirely of composites. The same sort of approach that the United States used in creating its stealth bombers, composites. The result is, there was nothing for radar to see, and it didn't see it. That is the really striking development which should send shudders up the spine of Israel's military leaders, the same way as the October 1st Iranian strike should have them all in great panic.

8:01
There is no defense against Iranian hypersonic missiles. America's most advanced air defense system is worthless.  I'm going to put this in a broader perspective. Going back a couple of years or more when Vladimir Putin, I think it was 2018, introduced to the broad public the latest strategic weapon systems that Russia had developed and was then beginning to implement to put in the field, he remarked that Russia's hypersonic missiles were in the present day an answer to America's hundreds of billions invested in a modern day Maginot Line [anti ballistic missile systems]. The Maginot Line, to those who are not aware of it, was the defense line, a very, very, very expensive line of protection, that is concrete bunkers and all kinds of infrastructure to keep, to prevent a repetition of World War I when Germany invaded France simply by going through Netherlands. The idea was to prevent a quick conquest of France.

9:33
Well, the Germans ran around it; it proved to be worthless. And so it is today. Mr. Putin was saying everything that America's invested in its current state of air defense is worthless against our much cheaper-to-develop system of hypersonic missiles. And we saw that. We saw the Iranians prove that. We have just seen a new breaching of the Maginot Line, that is the current parlance, that is Israel's Iron Dome and its several other systems of air defense. It was breached by a radar-invisible drone. And where did that come from? It came from the Russian-Ukraine war.

10:25
Yes, wars are where the latest munitions are developed. The war between Russia and Ukraine has been described as an artillery war, which in large measure it is. And therefore the 10 to 1 advantage that Russia had over Ukraine from beginning the war, both in artillery pieces and in the munitions to go into them, the 155 millimeter artillery shells. That is a big, been a big factor, but by no means the only factor in the way the war has developed. The Russians have proven against all of the expectations of Russia- bashers in the West, among the loudest of whom are former Soviet immigrants to the United States who systematically underestimate the capabilities, the intelligence, and the managerial skills of the Russian government and Russian people.

11:30
In this situation, the Russians, who had almost no drone experience or drone production at the start of the war with Ukraine, and who faced superior drones coming in from Ukraine, having been supplied by Turkey and other friendly countries at the moment, the Russians have developed their own drones of every variety to suit every day. And they are-- that and electronic warfare-- they are now the world's leaders in electronic warfare. And I might say in drone warfare. And drone warfare is really more descriptive of the present state of war between Russia and Ukraine than artillery war.

12:19
Therefore, we have to ask how exactly did Hezbollah get this latest development of Russian drone warfare? Were they given it by Russians? Did they learn somehow the secrets of this production? Who knows? The point is Hezbollah has it now. And that really is a game changer in the war and their coming war with Israel. They can attack anywhere in Israel, unseen.

Alkhorshid: 12:50
Yeah. And in your opinion right now, the way that Israelis are talking about the conflict in the southern part of Lebanon, are they trying to learn how Hezbollah would react to attack, to make some sort of strategy against them? Or, they know that they don't have any chance-- as we talk with many military analysts on this podcast-- they don't have any sort of chance in the southern part of Lebanon on the ground, if they go on the ground.

13:25
Again, I'll share the perspective that the Russian experts were giving in their appearances on "Great Game" last night. They-- and I don't think it's too different from the more knowledgeable and more frank assessments that we see in Western media today. And that is that the Israeli incursion into southern Lebanon is a disaster for Israel. Yes, they went into some tunnels of Hezbollah. They came out with documents which they said prove this or that about how Hezbollah operates.

14:08
They also were ambushed. They entered some tunnels where they were blown up. And they didn't go more than a couple of kilometers. Not even that. Sorry. The actual numbers that were given by Russian experts last night [are] that they didn't go farther than 500 or 600 meters into Lebanon. That is the invasion by Israel. They are facing very tough opposition there, which I don't know if they expected it or not, but they're getting it. Therefore, Israel's only answer to this can be to go up the escalatory ladder. Because at the present level of confrontation, they're getting a bloody nose, having gone 500 meters into Lebanon, not further.

Alkhorshid: 14:59
What's so amazing about Hezbollah, as I talked with Colonel Jacques Baud, he has mentioned that Hezbollah has four branches at least. One of them is military branch. All those three are within the society. They're rooted in the society. They are connected with the society. And when you look at Macron and these Western leaders trying to isolate Hezbollah in Lebanon, do you think is there any sort of logic behind this type of attitude?

Doctorow: 15:35
Well, the logic is very straightforward. The people you're mentioning-- by people, I mean Macron and similar-- are very shallow people. They have come to power by hook or by crook. They are not fully competent. They are not competent to speak about military affairs and to make judgments on strategy.

This is very sad, but the level of leadership in the United States and in most of Western Europe is of a very low caliber. And they speak without hesitation as if they know what they're talking about, and for the most part they don't. What you just said about Macron reflects this perfectly. And you will have no problem getting Macron to make a statement. The question is, does he know where he's talking about? Usually not.

Alkhorshid: 16:35
Yeah, and overall, when you look at right now, when you look at the Middle East, we had-- you've mentioned, what's going on in Gaza, we know that with these new conflicts between Hezbollah and Israel, right now between Iran and Israel, it doesn't seem that, it seems that they're trying to distract people from what's going on in Gaza. Yesterday we had Israelis attacking Al-Aqsa hospital, just burning people alive. And do you think that part of this type of a strategy on their part is just distracting people from what's going on in Gaza, because it doesn't seem that they can do much in the southern part of Lebanon and even against Iran.

Doctorow: 17:26
Well, look, we're speculating a little bit, so I'll now give you my speculation. I think that is more than a distraction. Netanyahu is looking for a regional war. Only by fomenting regional war can he bring in the USA  and other Western allies of the United States on his side.

Only by having those allies on his side does he have a chance of winning the big bet at the gambling table that he has put down. He has gone "va banque", as the French say, betting everything he's got, on a victory on all fronts. Given Israel's resources, given the new military competences and muscle of its neighbors, which they have been very reluctant to exercise, his chance of surviving battle on all fronts is close to nil without the American and other Western support. He's gambling on that.

18:32
So what he's doing in in Lebanon is an intentional provocation directed at Iran to bring in Iran, in the hope that Iran will do something irresponsible, will be seen to escalate the conflict out of all proportion to the immediate threat from Israel, and therefore will justify America entering the war on Israel's side. That's his game. Whether he will succeed is a matter that we all can discuss, because there are many variables here, including one variable that to my knowledge, none of my peers has raised. That is the Chinese factor.

I've mentioned in my writing in the last couple of days that China, by its ongoing military exercises around Taiwan, which it has encircled with so-called Coast Guard boats, to impose as an exercise what is de facto blockade of Taiwan, that they are sending a message not just to the president of Taiwan for having said aloud his private thoughts about his country being independent of China, but perhaps of greater importance, are sending a deterrent message to the United States.

19:55
China does not have a footprint in the ongoing conflict in the Middle East in a manner like Russia's. Russia, as we all know, is in advanced negotiations with Iran for a conclusion signing off a long already written and initialed agreement that makes them essentially allies, certainly a co-defense pact. China has no co-defense pact in discussion or in planning with Iran. China is deeply interested in how this conflict evolves, because Iran is a major supplier. And Iran, if it is attacked, if it suffers great damage to its own hydrocarbons production, refining, has threatened to ensure that all of its neighbors in the Persian Gulf will also stop exporting. It can close the straits of Hormuz.

21:03
Now that all is a very serious threat to vital interests, economic interests of China. China is not, as I said, putting its fist down anywhere, but you can be sure that China is consulting very closely with Russia and is insisting on a course of moderation by Russia towards Iran, not to give them a blank check, not to allow Iran to think that whatever comes, Russia will back them up automatically. And so for Iran to be very prudent and not to endanger China's existential interests in oil flowing freely to itself. So the China factor hasn't been mentioned, but must be mentioned. That's what I'm doing right now.

Alkhorshid: 21:59
And yesterday the foreign minister of Iran was talking about that they have [stopped] all talks with the United States because they don't see any sort of benefit coming out of these talks. If you remember, we had the same type of attitude before the conflict in Ukraine started. The Russians were just saying that it doesn't work, the communication with the United States. How dangerous is that right now in the Middle East if something big happens?

22:36
Well, I would ask first of all whom that foreign minister was addressing in saying what he did. He certainly wasn't addressing the United States because they know it. They know very well whether he's in negotiation or not in contact with them. I believe he was addressing Russia. He was giving Russia an assurance, hey guys, we're really not trying to do something behind your back with the United States. We have broken off talks.

23:02
And this leads us to the second reason why the Russians have not signed off on the defense pact with Iran and may not do so next week when they're all gathered at BRICS. The first reason I just discussed, probably overpowering reason, is China. China's backing is essential to Russia in its war in Ukraine. And China's backing will be wilting if because of reckless encouragement by Russia, by Moscow to Tehran, Tehran does something foolish that ignites a region-wide war with American participation.

23:49
Therefore, I believe that the second factor has to be mentioned in Russia's backpedaling on a deal with Iran. That second factor is Mr. Putin does not trust the leadership in Iran, and for good reason. First of all, the leadership does not have the power under the, let's call it the Constitution of Iran, to engage in foreign policy, which it has done. The Supreme Leader, the Aayatollah, is the only one who has that privilege. Therefore, the government, the present government, which was only elected a month or two ago following the death of Ebrahim Raisi as the prime minister. He has come to power representing…

Alkhorshid: 24:53
As president.

Doctorow:
Sorry, as president. He's come to power representing a different faction of politics in Iran, one which is inimical to Russia. I've said a long time ago that Iran has always had divergent views on where it wants to position itself with one big faction wanting to be in good graces with the United States and the West and the other big faction wanting to be in good graces with Russia.

25:24
Mr. Raisi represented the latter. He had very close and trust and loyal relations with President Putin. He was murdered, as some people say. It was a very peculiar accident with the crash of his helicopter. And there are those who say, within Iran, that he was murdered by the faction, at the bidding of the faction that has put in power his successor. The successor [Masoud Pezeshkian] is known to be a liberal reformer.

25:58
His successor was known to look for…He said just two, three weeks ago that he wanted to have a new start to relations with the United States and with the signatory powers of the comprehensive agreement was governing the nuclear program in Iran. He was expecting that with his coming to power, relations could be reset, and the punitive sanctions that had been imposed by the United States and others on the Iranian economy would be rescinded.

26:42
He was deeply disappointed a week ago. He said publicly that he had been lied to by the Americans and others, who had persuaded him not to respond to the various Israeli provocations, the most recent one being the murder of a guest to the presidential inauguration in Tehran, likely by Israeli intelligence. And he didn't respond, because he was told "If you hold back, if you show restraint, then we will make these concessions too and we will ensure that a ceasefire comes into place in Gaza."

27:31
Well, none of this happened. He understood that he was had. He also understood that he had overstepped his constitutional powers by reaching such a discussion with the adversary in secrecy from the Ayatollah. According to the rule book, he should have been fired right then and there. He wasn't, but he was chastened.

He reviewed his options and became much more enthusiastic about the Russian card. Well, Mr. Putin is no fool, and he's certainly not going to risk the existential interests of Russia, and risk again, treasure and blood, which would be required if he supported Iran in conflict with Israel and the United States. So these various factors explain the situation of restraint by Iran and by Russia's trying to act as a good broker rather than as a firebrand in the Middle Eastern conflict.

Alkhorshid: 28:49
You know, what's so amazing about-- it's not just Iran, Russia and Iran, both of these countries, they have been trying to talk with the West for such a long time. And it doesn't seem that it's going to work in the future and right now. But at the end of the day, they're trying to do their best in order to talk with the West. Do you think that Russia has already desisted on what they can do with the West?

Doctorow: 29:22
There is a commonality here that bears mention, a commonality in the situation of Iran and Russia. In the Russian case, there was a very large faction, which was kept in power by President Putin because he was true to his word when he was installed in power by Boris Yeltsin that he would not act against the existing power structure, which included at the time, of course, a lot of high flying oligarchs, whom he was forced to act against just a few years into power. He simply was compelled then. He had no choice.

30:06
But for the others, for those who did not raise arms against him, so to speak, he let them be. And there were many people who occupied positions of great power and influence from which they could steal vast amounts of money from the Russian budget, people like Chubais, who were not touched by Putin. However, as this new century wore on, and particularly after 2014, and particularly after the start of the special military operation, the possibility of a peaceful coexistence with these Liberals, so-called with a capital L, who are widely denounced, were denounced as traitors to their country or in local language as a  ‘fifth column’ to the country. They voluntarily left Russia.

31:02
They saw the writing on the wall, that things would not remain favorable for them. They took what money they could and they ran. Iran hasn't reached that moment. In both countries, and not just in these countries, but in many countries around the world, there are either comprador elements, people who are sold out to Western puppeteers, or there are simply people who are intermarried with Americans or other West Europeans, or who have material interests in the West, which have made them vehicles for Western and American influence within their countries.

31:51
Such a stratum of fifth-column people exists in Iran. And as I say, the backers of the president are in that category. Therefore, Russia has been very cautious now in getting into bed with the Iranian leadership just before what could be a wide regional war with American participation.

Alkhorshid: 32:19
In terms of, we've talked about this before, about the chance of Donald Trump winning the 2024 presidential election. But it seems that if he wins, let's put it that way, he's not willing to continue the conflict in Ukraine, but we know that he definitely would escalate the situation in the Middle East and against China. I mean, China for sure that he's going to escalate the situation.

Do you think that-- what would be the reaction of Russia in that scenario? Because we know if he wins, it would push Iran toward Russia, the Iranian government. And they would try to drag Russia out of this alliance, some sort of alliance between Iran, China and Russia. How successful [would that] be, and how [can they] put pressure on China?

Doctorow: 33:20
Well, first of all, about the Russian views of a Trump victory. It sounded like a joke to people or kind of provocation when Vladimir Putin said publicly that his preference for the winner November fifth is Kamala Harris. It sounded like a provocation, or he was making fun of all the Russia, Russia, Russia levers used by Hillary Clinton in the election, 2016 election, to destroy Trump. With that in mind, there is the notion that Trump and Putin are the best of friends. Putin was using the moments before the microphone to have a good joke at the expense of all those people who were making those statements.

34:27
This time around, it was unequivocal that Putin stands against Trump. However, that's not a joke. When you listen again to Russian television, it is clear that the ruling elite in Moscow wants Harris to win. Firstly, because they believe she's an idiot. They believe that the very weak federal government that has been the Biden administration the last four years will be even weaker and even less able to defend American interests at home, not to mention abroad, meaning that there will be a continuing degradation of America's position in the world, which suits the Russians fine.

35:20
As for Mr. Trump, there's no sympathy to Trump in Moscow. He may boast that he had good relations with Mr. Putin, but that is just another one of Mr. Trump's very boastful and essentially empty statements, which are made for political reasons domestically in the States, not because they correspond to any objective reality.

So the Russians view Trump as they did in 2016, as a loose cannon on the deck, as a volatile personality with whom it's difficult to negotiate anything serious. So that is the starting point in my remarks, where the Russians stand on these two candidates. As for Mr. Trump and China, I don't put any particular stock in his ability or willingness to pursue what he has said on the campaign trail once he is president. He seeks a trade war. Of course, a trade war is possible, though the trade war has already evolved so far by his [predecessor], by Biden, that no one would take particular notice when he raises tariffs from 35 to 50 percent, 50 to 100 percent.

36:54
This is pointless. It is not going to put China out of business. It will only cause very serious inflationary impact on the American consumers. The military side: I think we're getting a demonstration today by what China is doing around Taiwan, that all the preparations the United States is doing about selling tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions of dollars of arms to Taiwan to fend off an invasion are misplaced. There will be no invasion of Taiwan.

37:34
Taiwan will be strangled by the neck, and the Chinese are fully capable of doing it. And the Americans are very unlikely in the near future to engage China in a naval war in the Pacific for the sake of breaking the blockade. It's improbable. Therefore, the notion that Mr. Trump will leave Ukraine behind only for the sake of moving militarily on China. I don't believe that for a minute.

38:11
He will throw Ukraine under the bus, which would be warmly welcomed by a substantial proportion of the American electorate today and a substantial proportion of the European electorate today. That will be a humanitarian act to save what little is left of the Ukrainian nation. So this is how I see it. As for reaching an agreement with the Russians on how the war ends, that remains up in the air. The demands that Mr. Putin has made for a definitive peace treaty with Ukraine amount to a capitulation. And I find it hard to see the America will participate in that capitulation.

39:02
So I think the best thing that one could expect from an incoming Trump administration would be to facilitate the collapse of Ukraine as a military force by stopping military aid and financial assistance. But what settlement would be made with Ukraine will depend on Ukraine. If the military there reasserts its power over the neo-Nazi gang that has throttled Ukraine since 2014, then it is possible to have a normal, rational peace treaty signed. If, however, the neo-Nazi gang remains in control, then there'll be a ceasefire, a frozen conflict, and not much else to look forward to.

Alkhorshid: 40:06
In terms of the Middle East, do you think that-- we know that in the first term of Donald Trump as the president of the United States, one of the main reasons disagreements between-- one of the crucial disagreements that he had with Bolton was about Iran and going to war with Iran. And right now, do you think, with the current situation in the Middle East, would Netanyahu be able to drag Donald Trump into a big war with Iran in the Middle East?

Doctorow: 40:42
I don't think so. Look at who is the biggest backer of Trump today, Elon Musk. You go back to the [events that you're talking about], when Trump was considering, was planning to, to have, making an attack on Iran. Well, the rumor that I've heard is that he was dissuaded by people like Musk and by the very popular television and so-called internet interviewer who was made to--

Alkhorshid:
Tucker Carlson?

Doctorow:
Yes, yes, Tucker Carlson, who whispered in his ear, "Don't do it." These people are still about Trump. And I can't imagine that Elon would encourage Trump on his more expansive ideas, particularly as regards to China.

41:49
After all, Tesla's heavily invested in China and is a big believer in that market. So to destroy relations would be to write off a large part of the assets of Tesla and of the market expectations of Tesla. And it's improbable. The relations between him and Trump, I think, are of great importance for viewing what a future Trump presidency would be like. Elon Musk is the present-day Henry Ford and more.

42:28
He is the single biggest genius in American industry. He is the biggest asset in the business world to Donald Trump in terms of his backing. He has the backing of the single biggest genius in the country and for the business world. Henry Ford was a strange personality, just as Elon Musk is strange, with many odd and some very unattractive features to his personality. The same can be said of Musk, but their importance nationally cannot be overstated.

43:07
And it is remarkable that despite all of the rather peculiar things that about Donald Trump's personality, he has attracted to his side almost in an unqualified, unlimited way this single big genius.

Alkhorshid:
And talking about the conflict in Ukraine, with the current phase of the conflict and the outcome of the conflict was for the European Union, recently the head of intelligence in Germany, he was talking about that by the end of the decade, Russia is able to attack NATO. Do you think that as long as this war is going in Ukraine, these people are getting more delusional?

Doctorow: 44:00
Well, "delusional" is not a word that's qualified by more or less. Either you're delusional or you're not. They are delusional, I agree. And this is simply an extension. But when you speak about, we will prepare for a war in 2030, as if other things do not intervene in between. Speaking about a six-year time horizon in politics, that's more than a lifetime. These are almost irrelevant statements.

We are close to World War III right now. So it's pointless to say what you're going to have available to you six years from now. You may not exist six months from now. Therefore, I don't take these remarks seriously. They only have a public relations value or to bring to the attention of the broad public the personality of this or that person who makes these statements. They have no value.

Alkhorshid: 44:58
And when-- to understand their behavior, are they benefiting from this type of attitude in their countries? Or is there any sort of benefit coming out of this type of rhetoric on their part?

Doctorow:
Well, surely they're benefiting among their own sympathizers, just as preaching to the choir. Whether or not they win over people who are otherwise open to suggestion. I don't know. I can't say. But everything-- we're in a situation of great flux. We're approaching November 5th, it's less than three weeks away. November 5th will be of a decisive importance in Europe, as well as in the United States.

45:44
And all of those who are making these big statements will either be lionized at November 5th for having been so far-seeing, or they will be thrown to the wolves, which I hope will be the case, when it's proven that their policies were dead wrong, that they were placing all of the assets of their country and great funds and human resources on behalf of a hopeless cause, which should have been realized as hopeless months if not a year ago, and they will be out of power.

46:20
We'll see how long the European Union's institutions remain as they presently are configured, which is all-in for Ukraine, which is all confrontation against the few voices of conscience and common sense in their midst, like Viktor Orban or Mr. Fico in Slovakia. We'll see that the proof will be known to us all in these several weeks ahead and on election day.

Alkhorshid: 46:59
And how about the Ukrainian government right now? Do you find them more eager to talk with Russians, to go after some sort of negotiations? And how do Russians perceive this attitude?

Doctorow:
Well, the ... Russia's position was restated this last Sunday on the program, the television program that carries the most weight. That is the "News of the Week", which is hosted by Dmitry Kiselyov, who happens to be not just a presenter, but the Director General of all Russian news operations. Anything that appears on this program has to be consonant with the position of the Kremlin. Mr. Kiselyov used his program on Sunday to repost, to put back onto the screen, Mr. Putin's remarks just a few months ago, the latest position of Russia with respect to a settlement in Ukraine.

48:14
Mr. Putin said that "for us to enter into talks about a ceasefire and then to proceed to a definitive peace, the first thing we require is that the Ukrainians withdraw from all four provinces and oblasts that we now claim as parts of the Russian Federation, Zaporizhzhya, Kershon, Lugansk and Danetsk. They have to begin the withdrawal before we will sit at the table and talk about a ceasefire." He further stipulated that Ukraine must acknowledge that these oblasts are now, together with Crimea, an integral part of the Russian Federation and no longer considered to be Ukrainian.

49:10
They have to agree to forswear joining NATO, and they will not allow any foreign military personnel or installations on their soil. I don't think we can launch into other details, but the punchline is that the West will have to lift its sanctions against Russia. Now, these terms are very tough. They're also very realistic. They are the terms that the winning side of the war dictates to the losing side of the war.

49:41
And they were restated before the whole Russian nation this past Sunday. I say that makes it politically impossible for Mr. Putin, however he wishes, to sign the peace treaty or even just a truce that does not incorporate these provisions. And that's what we're facing now.

Alkhorshid: 50:08
And before wrapping up this session, do you think that in the final days of this administration, the Biden administration in the United States, is it going to, are we going to see something substantial in terms of what's going on in Ukraine or they're going to continue it up until the election in the United States is over?

Doctorow:
Well, that really is in Mr. Putin's hands. We hear repeatedly all of our colleagues speaking about a steamroller, about Ukraine's collapse on the front and so on. I beg to differ. Ukraine has reverses on the front.

Ukraine is withdrawing from cities, that is, towns and settlements one after another. But the Ukrainians are fighting to the best of their ability, and some of that ability is very respectable. That is to say, they are dying like soldiers and are not running from the field, which is what you would expect when people speak about the collapse of the Ukrainian army.

51:28
It hasn't collapsed. It is exacting from the Russians the greatest toll it can. And the Russians are being very prudent. Therefore, they are not throwing everything they have at the Ukrainian army. They don't have a determined date when they will end the war by inflicting the coup de grace on the Ukrainian army. They're going at their own pace and achieving their own goals, which are essentially to liberate all four of those provinces mentioned. So, I don't see an early date or fixed date when this war will end on Russia's terms, but that Russia will be victorious is almost beyond dispute.

Alkhorshid:
Thank you so much, Gilbert, for being with us today. A great pleasure as always.

Doctorow: 52:18
Thanks so much for having me.