Transcript of RT interview, 2 June

Transcript submitted by a reader

RT: 0:00
All right, we can speak now to Gilbert Doctorow, former visiting scholar, Harriman Institute at Columbia University. Professor, good to have you on the program with us. This second round of talks between Moscow and Kiev, as we all know, has just wrapped up. What do you make of the memorandums that each side presented? How far apart do you see the two sides being at this point?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 0:25
I think they are oceans apart. What we're looking at, to the best of my understanding, because you reported the xxxxxxxx details on the Ukrainian memorandum, but what I had read earlier indicates that each of the warring parties is demanding that the other side accept capitulation. The Ukrainians, the last I heard is they were demanding that Russia pay reparations as well as provide for the security of Ukraine. The Russians, well, we've heard that the Russians want essentially everything that Mr Lavrov has outlined in public previously. That amounts to a Ukrainian capitulation. It is inconceivable that Ukraine would accept those terms if it were not persuaded that it has lost the war.

So what is coming out of these negotiations is something positive, but not in the sense of bringing the war to an end any sooner. It is remarkable that they have, in this atmosphere of considerable hostility, which is greatly aggravated by the events of the past weekend, both the terrorist attacks in the Bryansk and Kursk oblasts, and of course the military attacks, drone attacks on air force planes, on Russian strategic bombers located across the Russian Federation. This certainly could not have helped to bring the parties closer to the terms of ending the war. But in spite of all that, they did reach agreement to proceed with prisoner exchange and exchange of the deceased, the bodies of those fallen that are held in enemy territory, essentially.

2:22
This is a remarkable achievement for which they should be congratulated. On behalf of the families of the fallen soldiers or the still live soldiers who will be exchanged, will bring joy and all will bring closure to the lives of the mothers, the fathers, the brothers, the wives, the children of these soldiers. So that, if it's 6, 000 on each side, whatever the number is actually arrived at, this will be an immense step, humanitarian step, that comes out of these discussions, which justifies their taking place. But as to ending the war, I think we're no closer to ending the war, and I would be very surprised if Mr. Trump does not walk away from the peace process, judging by the distance that separates the Ukrainian and the Russian negotiators.

RT: 3:29
Yeah, he had said that he was possibly going to step away if both sides weren't able to reach an agreement soon. Professor, ahead of the negotiations, Ukraine's memorandum was leaked to the news media, and we know the document showed Kiev will not support, will not recognize Russia's new territories and will demand reparations from Moscow, which of course are obvious red lines for the Kremlin. Do you think the leak of this document is suspicious at all?

Doctorow:
No, it is in line with the overall behavior of the Zelensky government from the get-go. This has been a PR government. Unfortunately for the soldiers in the Ukrainian armed forces, it has been a PR government running a war which cost them their lives. And so it is today, the only thing that this government in Ukraine is capable of doing is looking for public relations points with the press, with the media, with diplomacy. And so what happened most recently is simply a continuation of that obvious xxxxx illusion.

RT: 4:39
You mentioned the wide-scale drone attacks across Russia that took place on Sunday, on the eve of these talks. What do you make of the timing of those attacks? What does it say to you about Kiev's perceived position going into these negotiations?

Doctorow:
Well, I think its intention was again its public relations. The intention was clear, to show that Ukraine is not beaten, that Ukraine has various tricks up its sleeve, which can be very costly for the Russians, and should not be considered vanquished. However, of course, this attack was very serious, and we can discuss that as much as you have time for. But the point, the positive that comes out of this is that this attack took 18 months to prepare, and we can take it as a safe assumption that Ukraine is not capable of delivering any follow-on attacks to Russian military assets such as this one.

So that is a good thing, but that's behind us. And it was not devastating, though it was deeply humiliating for the Russian government to have, who have seen security failures all around, at the borders, that is the customs, who did not properly detect what was in those trailers. The security around the bases, which are of high, very high strategic importance to Russia, and yet these drones were kept in sheds, or they were kept in the trucks, which finally delivered them for use over the weekend. They were stored, one assumes, in open view around the bases. Why weren't these detected? Why weren't citizens in the area denouncing this or calling upon investigations?

6:45
So there are security breaches here, weaknesses on the Russian side, which are so far inexplicable, that must be of great concern to the Kremlin.

RT:
Yeah, Volodymyr Zelensky has been boasting about the drone strikes. We've heard it referred to as "Russia's Pearl Harbor". Of course, we know how America responded to the attacks on Pearl Harbor. But given the scale of the Ukraine conflict, is this really the major achievement that Zelensky is presenting it to be?

Doctorow: 7:15
It depends on what the actual extent of damage was. Zelensky has claimed that 40 heavy bombers were destroyed, which amounted in his estimation to 30% of the total Russian aircraft fleet in that category. If so, this can be lined up with the destruction or damage, a little over a year ago, of early warning radars in the south of Russia. What these have in common is they are both, to the extent that they have been successful, they are both doing harm to Russia's essential strategic defense.

In that sense, this meets the criterion that the new Russian nuclear doctrine sets for Russia using tactical nuclear weapons in retaliation. So it will be, of course, very closely watched what Russian retaliation will be, to what extent will it be commensurate with the possible damage. We don't know the extent of it, because the Russian Ministry of Defense is so far silent about figures, about how many planes were destroyed, how many planes were damaged and are recoverable. This we don't know. But potentially, it was a serious blow to Russia's nuclear triad.

8:42
And in that sense, one can suspect that the real authors of this attack were not in Kiev, but in London and Washington. So these dimensions of the attack of the weekend have yet to be clarified.

RT:
Zelensky, meanwhile, has also accused Moscow of doing everything it can to prevent these negotiations from producing real results. Putin, of course, is the one who initiated restarting these talks. Do you see any evidence to support those accusations?

Doctorow: 9:16
Well, the accusation stands by itself. It misses the point. The real point is, what are the positions of the sides? Whether you have negotiations, don't have negotiations, is almost an irrelevancy if the positions of the sides are totally irreconcilable. And to my judgment, that's where we are today.

So they are accomplishing something very praiseworthy, as I mentioned a moment ago. On the humanitarian level, the exchange of prisoners, exchange of bodies of those who were killed for that action, is all by itself a very good outcome from these face-to-face Russian-Ukrainian meetings. But progress on a peace, I don't see any.

RT: 10:01
What is the end game here then? Do you think Zelensky and his Western supporters are even interested in a long-lasting peace?

Doctorow:
I don't think Zelensky will be around long enough for what he's interested in to make any difference. Assuming that there is no resolution in Istanbul of meetings, round three comes up, of the fundamental differences, when two sides are each asking the other side to capitulate, I think that we'll move back to the United States, because the real action is going to be there when the US Senate presents Mr. Trump with a nonstopable, a non-vetoable bill setting new harsh sanctions, financial and economic sanctions, on Russia. Then we will enter a new stage.

11:00
And I predict the outcome of that will be that Mr. Trump walks away from Ukraine and he accepts responsibility for the new sanctions, which he will say are put in place to moderate the Russian position and bring the size of the Russian peace. And he will then also stop all US military aid and financial aid and intelligence aid to Ukraine for the same justification: to make Ukraine more willing to find a peaceful settlement.

11:31
And the United States will walk away. "We're leaving this to the Europeans", who also will walk away after a two- to three-month grace period in which they pretend to support Ukraine, but do not actually support Ukraine, and spend all their time speechwriting, trying to agree a narrative that they can present to Western media for why they're throwing Ukraine into the bus.

RT: 11:55
All right, we're going to leave it there. Gilbert Doctorow, former visiting scholar, Harriman Institute at Columbia University. Thank you.