Gilbert Doctorow

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 1:10
Well, the tea leaves are giving us various readings. I was surprised when the premier talk show that I follow quite closely, “Vladimir Solovyov” came back on air on Sunday.

And he and his panelists were jubilant, celebrating what Trump had said at Mar-a-Lago in his big press conference regarding Greenland, regarding Panama, and his other statements, because they– they rejoiced, because they saw that he had completely scrapped the democratic ideology, Democratic Party ideology, of foreign policy based on values and was speaking the language that they understand best, they and the Chinese, called realpolitik, that he had no embarrassment about saying what America wants in its own neighborhood.

They took this to mean, as well, that there will be a meeting with Trump, whether it comes in a few weeks or it comes in April or it comes in August. They expect there to be a summit, and they anticipate that Ukraine will not be on the agenda, because the Ukraine problem will be allowed to be solved by the Russians themselves. Instead, the subject for the summit will be a new security architecture for Europe and maybe more broadly for the world, based on the kind of Yalta II principle, which is real politik in practice, the good old days of spheres of influence, which Mr. Biden and the cold warriors had denied entirely when they proceeded up to Russia’s borders.

Napolitano: 2:54
How much longer do you think _they_ think this war will go on? I mean, at some point Russia will say, we’ve achieved our goals. That’s one less negotiating lever that General Kellogg will have. And as you say, this will be off the table by the time presidents Putin and Trump meet. But when do you think this will happen?

We are getting reports in the West, sorry for the triple question, this morning that the Ukrainian military is now utterly incapable of resisting the Russian military. Do you get the same reports?

Doctorow: 3:38
There’s a little bit more to it than that. It’s not just the Ukrainian weakness, it’s Russian strategic brilliance. The “Financial Times”, none other than the Russia-hating “Financial Times”, has had a number of articles on front page in the last few days explaining what the Russians are up to.

And to be precise about it, the idea that Russia would lose time and lose a lot of men in urban warfare, taking over the strategically valuable hub of Pokrovsk. This is what everybody’s been talking about. And this was in our mind when we were saying that the war could go on, well, it could go on for a while longer. It won’t. The Russians have now made a move around Pokrovsk in direction of Dnepropetrovsk, which is I think the third-largest city in Ukraine, and they are cutting off Pokrovsk from its supplies, so that the whole Ukrainian defense force sitting in Pokrovsk will probably be lucky to withdraw at night and get out of there. So the Russians may well take the city without storming it.

4:52
That gives you a sense. Once they move past Pokrovsk, they have a straight line to Dnieper. Therefore, what I’m saying is that the Russians may solve the capitulation question for the Ukrainians in a much shorter time than we had envisaged, by this strategic brilliance that they’re now demonstrating.

Now let’s consider something else. Today’s news, or yesterday’s news, was the remarks of Nikolai Patrushev, who was the secretary, as they call it, of the Russian National Security Council. He was removed from that position. He’s three years older than Putin, and he’s moved into a more, quieter place. But he remains a close advisor to Vladimir Putin. And he was interviewed by Moskovsky Komsomolets, This is a Soviet-era title for daily newspaper that still has a very large following and very good quality journalists. They interviewed him.

5:55
The key remark he made is that Ukraine may cease to exist during 2025. That is the answer to your question. I mentioned before the kind of jubilation over the fact that Trump shows himself to be a realist and recognize the rules that Russians like, but now we have the other side of the story. It’s a very clear message to Washington that the problem can be solved much more quickly in our favor than you imagine.

Napolitano:
Is that him on the frame, Chris, if you’ll put that back up, is that the gentleman of whom you speak?

Doctorow:
Yes, that is Mr. Patrushev. And he was saying that– he didn’t explain exactly what he meant by “cease to exist”. But he gave us a hint. He said, well, you know, these cities, several cities that really have, they’re Russian-oriented. And they, we could take them over.

And the first one he mentioned was precisely Dnepropetrovsk, which is where the Russian army is headed right now. And then he added to that Kharkov, which they’re also closing in on. That’s in the northeast, right on the Russian border, from which these assaults on Belgorod region and Kursk region have been staged. And then he said, “Oh, and by the way, Nikolaev and Odessa”, these are Russian cities where there’s resistance to the regime in Kiev that was installed by an illegal coup d’etat.

7:26
Well, if you look at the map, what he’s saying is, it’s not his own personal opinion alone. What he was describing, the cities he named, are very widely discussed among Russian patriots as what they want the war to end with, which is the whole Black Sea littoral of Ukraine. That would give them a direct line of supply to the Russian-populated eastern part of Moldova, and that’s called Transnistria. This has been in the news recently because of the cutoff of gas through Ukraine to that area.

8:06
In any case, the Russians have peacekeepers there. They would like to have a secure line to it. And if they take over Nikolai and Odessa, then it’s part of their territory. And the last thing I’ll say about Mr. Patrushev, and he said another country may disappear this year, a country called Moldova. It may just disappear, pure and simple, which means the Russians gobble it up, or it may disappear into another state, which is what the Russians really would prefer, the other state being Romania, which– it always was part of Romania, except until Mr. Stalin had different ideas. So it’s quite conceivable that Moldova will in fact depart to Romania, and the Russians will get what they want.

Napolitano: 8:49
Right, a couple of follow-up questions. Is it more likely than not that what this gentleman says reveals the thinking of Vladimir Putin?

Doctorow:
Mr. Putin can juggle a number of balls in the air at the same time. This is one of them. It’s not the only one. I think he’s also quite happy to believe that they can find a common language with Trump and work something out. But if failing that, this is where the Russians will go.

Napolitano:
All right. But when he says Ukraine– Chris, can you put the headline up again? I want to quote it to precisely– when he says Ukraine may cease to exist in 2025, does he mean all of Ukraine or just the Eastern, Russian part, which has been the subject of the special military operation?

Doctorow; 9:39
Well, I think we’re in a name game, because certainly something of the present- or the 1992-defined Ukraine will continue to exist. That’s clear. Russia has no intention of gobbling up Ukraine, for its own security reasons. But what would you call what’s left over after the Russians take what they want and other neighboring countries like Hungary and Romania take the bits and pieces that they want, will it still be called Ukraine? That’s an interesting question.

Napolitano:
I want to play a clip for you, both Secretary Blinken and National Security Advisor Sullivan have been giving these farewell, boost-up-our-own-legacy interviews in the past couple of weeks.

Secretary Blinken gave one that went on for about 90 minutes to the “New York Times”. And though it’s a print publication, it was a video interview. We’re not going to play all 90 minutes, but we do have a one-minute clip of Secretary Blinken in which, in my view, he says utterly outrageous things, almost as if he’s been on a cloud for the past three years. But I’d like your comments on it. Secretary Blinken from about six or seven days ago.

Blinken: 10:58
Where the line is drawn on the map, at this point, I don’t think is fundamentally going to change very much. The real question is, can we make sure that Ukraine is in a position to move forward strongly?

Interviewer:
You mean that the areas that Russia controls, you feel will have to be ceded?

Blinken: 11:12
Ceded is not the question. The question is, the line as a practical matter in the foreseeable future is unlikely to move very much. Ukraine’s claim on that territory will always be there. And the question is, will they find ways, with the support of others, to regain territory that’s been lost? I think the critical thing now going forward is this: if there is going to be a resolution or at least a near-term resolution, because it’s unlikely that Putin will give up on his ambitions, If there’s a ceasefire, then in Putin’s mind, the ceasefire is likely to give him time to rest, to refit, to re-attack at some point in the future. So what’s going to be critical to make sure that any ceasefire that comes about is actually enduring is to make sure that Ukraine has the capacity going forward to deter further aggression. And that can come in many forms.

12:07
It could come through NATO, and we put Ukraine on a path to NATO membership. It could come through security assurances, commitments, guarantees by different countries to make sure that Russia knows that if it reattacks, it’s going to have a big problem. That, I think, is going to be critical to making sure that any deal that’s negotiated actually endures and then allows Ukraine the space, the time to grow strong as a country.

Napolitano: 12:30
So here are my takeaways. And of course, I invite yours, Professor Doctorow, which is fine. We played this for you. Regain territory that has already been lost — he’s crazy. Ceasefire — he’s totally misread President Putin. Ukraine on a path to NATO — if he honestly believes that, he really has been in another world the past three years. Your take, sir.

Doctorow: 12:58
Well, I subscribe to the views that two other members of the “Judging Freedom” team have been saying in past weeks. I’m thinking now of Larry Johnson and Ray Macgovern. They’ve been saying that the head of the CIA, Burns, has been lying to the White House, telling them what they want to hear. And essentially, been passing along to the White House and to Congress, to federal entities that consult with the CIA. They’ve been passing along Kiev’s propaganda, all of it. Everything that you cited, they could have taken, they certainly did take, verbatim from Mr. Zelensky’s office.

13:42
Therefore, it’s not something absurd that Blinken has thought up or retained. No, no, it’s something he’s receiving in his daily briefings, clearly. And there’s the problem. It’s easy to say, yes, the deep state is behind this, this kind of delusional thinking. But I’d like to say one thing on behalf of the deep state.

The deep state is not a permanent condition. The deep state is in principle a staying power or a factor in consistency from one party in power to another over a long period of time. As a principle, the deep state is a moderator so that excessive swings in policy don’t take place. However, the deep state itself can be subject to purges. And Dick Cheney purged the American deep state.

14:36
Any balance of real Russian expertise was chased out of the CIA and out of other intelligence agencies, because their expertise was no longer needed, according to Dick Cheney. Instead, they need only experts in Islamic extremism and Arabic speakers. And so the Russian experts were sent home on retirement and they were not replaced.

Napolitano: 15:03
All right, I get that, but why do you think Blinken would say, other than pure propaganda purposes, “we put Ukraine on a path to NATO”? Ukraine is as far away from NATO as it is from the moon right now.

As I was saying, he’s preparing his lectures for Columbia. These are all self-justification. They’re false, they have no relation to reality, but they are his narrative, that is his identification, and he can’t walk away from it because people will pin it on him if he tries to. Therefore, he’s taking pride in these absurdities and he will be continuing to say that for a long time. That is not unusual among the political losers.

Napolitano: 15:47
All right. Here’s another absurdity. President Zelensky just a few moments ago, while we were on air, Professor Doctorow, to the Polish press agency, quote, “The sooner Ukraine becomes a member of the EU and NATO, the sooner we will all achieve geopolitical stability.” Now that must be propaganda. He surely, if he has any rational ability between his ears, cannot expect that that will happen.

Doctorow:
Well, the British have an expression to cover eventualities like this. They say in a kind of snide way, “You would say that, wouldn’t you”. Of course you said that.

Napolitano:
Do you know, my father, God rest his soul, used to say that to me as a kid at the dinner table when I said things that sort of upset the prevailing conversation. Go ahead, please.

Doctorow: 16:50
Of course, he has been a salesman within Ukraine. And I wouldn’t say this, that these remarks by Zelensky had Washington or Berlin or London as the addressee. They were addressed to his own people. He’s trying to prove to them to continue the faith, because he is going to bring them into the Holy Land, meaning the EU and NATO.

Napolitano: 17:17
All right. Here’s a follow-up. This interview is going on as we speak, Professor Doctorow. This is President Zelensky:

“Donald Trump’s inauguration in five days. We count on active cooperation in the spirit of peace through strength. We count on maintaining sanctions imposed on Russia.”

Where is he getting that from?

Doctorow: 17:45
As I said, it’s self-justification to his own people, to explain why they should lower the mobilization age and steal from the cradle, as we could say. This is deeply opposed within the country. There are a lot of people who would like to lynch him for that. And so he’s trying to justify himself to this vast silent opposition to what he’s about to implement, this broad mobilization.

Napolitano: 18:13
Here’s– I was talking to you about the farewell interviews. Jake Sullivan did a series of them– And here’s a brief clip from National Security Advisor for five more days, Jake Sullivan, on Russian sanctions. Chris, cut number two.

Sullivan: 18:33
If we had sanctioned Russia’s oil 18 months ago, at a time when oil prices were high, gas prices were high, it would have meant a spike at the pump in a way that would have put pain on working people in the United States.

Today, oil prices are much lower. The oil market globally is very well supplied. And so we have an opportunity to hit Putin in his pocketbook without hitting the American people in theirs. What we’re giving the incoming team, the incoming administration is real leverage in a negotiation.

Napolitano: 19:06
I think the incoming administration wants Russia to be as prosperous as it wants the United States to be, and for that prosperity to be manifested through the free market. What do you say?

Doctorow:
Well, the remarks from Sullivan, they show his utter incapacity to think strategically. What he was describing was tactics to cover up a strategic move, and one is not sufficient to the other. He is ignoring completely the state of the war. The whole thing is about a war, And the war is reaching its climax and its culmination.

19:48
When these penalties, sanctions, had they been introduced 18 months ago, as he said, they could have caused Russia a lot of harm. They were not, for strictly domestic political reasons in the States, which overruled military considerations that would have had a bearing on the status of the war in Ukraine. So he’s imposing them at a point where they make no sense. They’re imposing them in the belief that the war will go on to 2027. It will not.

20:21
Going back to the question you asked me, the war will end in 2025. Therefore, the notion that these sanctions could impact Russia’s ability to conduct the war is utter folly. He has no strategic thinking.

Napolitano:
In response to what President Zelensky has been saying, again, as we speak, Professor Doctorow, the Polish Prime Minister Tusk said, quote, “The Polish presidency of the EU Council will break the deadlock.” He’s referring to the decision over Ukraine entering the EU.

“We will work together with Ukraine and our European partners to accelerate the accession process.” This interview is going on in Poland even as we speak.

21:13
Question: is the Kremlin opposed to Ukraine in both the EU and NATO, or just NATO, since the latter purports to be so weak, a military organization and the former purports to be administrative and financial?

Doctorow:
Well, I don’t think this is the uppermost in the minds of the Kremlin at this moment. They have more important things to do to end the war.

As to what will be left of Ukraine, that will have a decisive influence on who wants it. It’s a basket case that the Russians proceeding as they are now will leave what whatever rump Ukraine is as a basket case. That’s one issue. The other issue is: Mr. Tusk is assuming a unanimity of opinion within the EU, which is collapsing as we talk.

The likelihood of other countries joining the group of Fico in Slovakia and Orban in Hungary is rising with the day. I don’t know if indeed the Alternative for Deutschland will succeed in breaking the cordon sanitaire and in having a role in the coalition, not to mention possibly its own majority government in Germany. That’s improbable. But nonetheless, this is significant change in the thinking of the most important country in Europe, which is facilitated, which is magnified by Trump and his emissary in this case, which is his Twitter, X colleague. The changes that are going on since this interview with Weidel was held last week– which was featuring, promoting her to the German public and to the American public– that change is only beginning to be felt.

23:18
She has a 20 percent that is the Alternative for Deutschland, which is against the sanctions, which is for restoration of the Nord Stream 1 pipeline. They have 20 percent; the long-established centrist party of the Christian Democrats has 31 percent. We’ll see how this difference narrows in the coming six weeks.

Napolitano:
Right.

Doctorow:
But with American support, I think we will see a significant change in the German political language. So Tusk is just whistling in the dark.

Napolitano: 23:55
Professor Doctorow, thank you very much, my dear friend. Always wonderful, wonderful incitement from your very fertile brain. Much appreciated. We look forward to seeing you next week.

Doctorow:
Well, thanks so much. Bye-bye.

Napolitano:
Of course. Thank you. And coming up later today at noon, Aaron Mate; at 1 o’clock, Kivork Almasian with the latest on whatever is going on in Syria and between Hamas and Israel; at two o’clock, Pepe Escobar; at three o’clock. Phil Giraldi.