Transcription
And Trump got into this uh mode too with seizing this and threatening that. That's a wrong approach. This approach leads America to isolation and to uh well, I wouldn't say destruction, but I would say weakening of its worldwide position. And that's just of their own doing. You know, nobody's doing it to them, but they're doing it to themselves.
The Iranians would accept is complete uh destruction of American military presence in the Middle East. But secretly, deep down the Russians would love it, too. I mean, they would absolutely welcome if American military bases were removed from the Middle East. Now, which makes it even more complicated matter is that the Russians have a pretty good relations with Israel, too. But it's it's not a strategic one.
Russia and China will not allow uh Iran to be defeated and fragmented simply because they know perfectly well that if that happens then Mr. Trump is going to come one day and say I'm going to be the Zar of Russia uh and I'm going to be the emperor of China. I mean, you could expect him. He already wants to be a pope and the ayatollah and and what?
Welcome to world affairs and context everybody. Today I'm thrilled to welcome back our good friend Dr. Vladimir Brovkin. Vlad is a former professor at Harvard and an author of many books on politics and history. I will link those books in the description below. Vlad also runs a really great YouTube channel, Contemporary Issues in Politics with Dr. Brovkin. I have to say that I watch his videos regularly. Every time I see a new one, I always always click on it. Um, so please give him a follow and check out his channel as well. Vlad, welcome back to the program. It's so great to see you again.
It's a pleasure to be with you. Thank you.
It's great to have you. Um, since the United States and Israel attacked Iran almost a month ago now, Russia has remained very restrained in terms of its official commentary on Trump's war of choice. It does make sense, of course, given that the proxy war on Russia via Ukraine is ongoing. The peace talks haven't really been fruitful in terms of ending the conflict. Um, but one thing we can be sure of and that is Moscow is certainly observing Trump's aggressive and quite unpredictable actions toward allies and adversaries and not only observing but also using it to set its own expectations and to learn from. What may be the main message that Trump sent to Moscow by attacking Iran and not once but twice during official high-level negotiations?
Yes. Um my impression is that he didn't intend to send any message. In fact um he didn't even think of Putin when they started this adventure. uh he and Netanyahu this was Putin was not Russia and Ukraine was not on his agenda. That's what is to be uh understood. This action had nothing to do it it was it was supposed to be quick and it was supposed to be uh a lesson to Putin that Trump is the emperor of the world. you know the the overall scheme of things if there is any message from Trump to Putin in everything that he does is that this is mine this is mine this is mine and uh you're next I mean one could imagine that um Venezuela you it was your oil or Chinese now it's going to be mine uh Greenland is going to be mine uh Gulf of Mexico is going to be mine Gulf of America and in that scheme of things it was really uh Iran was next in terms of oil. I mean the whole thing has to be understood as uh America's attempt to establish itself as the master of energy uh worldwide in anticipation of course as a step in its co in its competition with China because what Americans really don't understand a lot of times is that China is a giant is a real giant and they don't like it when when you remind them when you look at the economic data of actual production and actual debts and actual profits like China made a billion I'm sorry a trillion dollars in profits and the United States made a a trillion dollars in debt just for 2025. So from that point of view Iran was supposed to be a quick pick for the US in terms of controlling the energy both from the Gulf States and from Iran itself. uh but it didn't work out and then you know we should think what does it do to uh where does Russia in all of this and I think the most important consequence I think I spoke about it is a psychological shock in Russia itself and I think for Putin too uh Putin kind of still is a kind of old school diplomat with you know he likes to make uh friends with everybody and and to negotiate and come to some kind of agreement. And he keeps his word and he's really an old school um you know very clever and definitely one of the brightest politicians in the world. But at least he did not expect that kind of a cruelty and this kind of unexpected gangster-like actions. And this is not my words. This is something that was in the British Parliament uh that Trump acts as a gangster uh in the British Parliament. Amazing. So the shock for the Russian public and for the Russian, you know, elite class or the opinion makers, absolute shock. And then some of them were saying, "Hey, why don't we do the same thing?" And that's not Putin's style. Just let's kill Zilinski. Let's bomb the hell out of Kiev. No, that's not the way Putin uh does. But uh on a more serious level, I think that I think I don't know. This is my impression and interpretation that Putin cannot trust anymore uh to no no trust to Trump because how can you trust a person who just bombs somebody in the middle of negotiations? What is there any guarantee that anything signed you know 2 days from there he would say Trump would say I didn't sign anything you know that's a joke we didn't do anything so it kind of cheapens any process of negotiations and agreements this is why the Iranians are resisting now because they know that they've been tricked twice uh and not just tricked but you know there was murder during negotiations and not just murder of anybody but of the leader and not just the leader but the the leader of the faithful. Uh which Americans still don't understand the significance of what it what it's like when the leader of the faithful is um is assassinated. So, you know, for Russia, it seems this is a hard pill to swallow. uh you know Putin put so much effort into making a deal with Trump, negotiating with Trump, improving American relations. And now what I watch in Russian public opinion, Putin is almost alone who wants to talk about improving Russian-American relations. Nobody's taking that seriously anymore. It's been as something, you know, Putin thinks that he controls Russia. He doesn't. That's another incredible byproduct of this crisis. He does not control the public opinion in Russia. He's the only one, maybe the only one who still wants to make a deal with Trump. The army doesn't want it. The advisers don't want it. Medve doesn't want it. Anybody that I listen to, you know, has only negative words to say about Trump. So that puts Putin in a very strange situation. he still is holding on uh to Trump and that's that's you know short answer to your question.
What do you think makes Putin want to hold on to this idea of a I would say very vague possibility given that you know this is 2026 Trump has been in the office since 2025. So what what what makes Putin want to hold on to this very I would say vanishing uh idea of of possibly making a reliable deal with Trump because when I think about you know um the United States strategy of decapitation right they they're always striking to um to to effectively get rid of the leadership which will of course then make it very easy for them to do whatever it is they want to do to sort of um spread chaos and and um install individuals who would serve their interests and and so what is it that makes Russia believe that the United States won't follow the same exact tactic in Russia's case? because that would seem to be a logical conclusion to make given that the sort of regime decapitation strategy has been um has been a um go-to tactic in in several different instances. Uh you know, we have Libya, we have Iran, of course, uh Venezuela. So, what is it that Putin is really holding on to here?
Yes. Uh yeah, I think it's a great question and I think I I do have an answer. Um, I think that since the attempted assassination on Putin when some unidentified drones flew in his uh house uh and then he presented evidence to Trump uh and Trump said I didn't know anything about it that showed very important things to Putin. Uh and I think his conclusion of that incident was that Trump does not control his own administration. Uh this strike was probably done with Ukrainians, definitely by Ukrainians, with the British and maybe with the CIA. The reason I think it's maybe with the CIA is that CIA refused to acknowledge the evidence presented by the Russians which had the targeting data and they just brushed it away and say that's not us. We don't know anything about it. it flew actually in the other direction and they knew perfectly well that it it flew in a direction that it flew into. In other words, to me, this is evidence that they knew what was going on and didn't know what to say and pretended like they didn't know. Uh, and that means that Trump maybe didn't know either. And that means that Putin may have thought that he doesn't control his own uh his own um administration. So then in that case why is Putin pushing it exactly for that reason? I think uh he's holding on to this fiction uh to of negotiating with Trump and creating this kind of a spirit of anchorage and there is no spirit. There was nothing really that was achieved then but it's the only rationale is to split the NATO alliance. This is it. You know, it's like Vladimir Lenin used to say the contradictions between imperialist powers should be used by a Russian state, Soviet state. And that's what he's doing. As long as Trump is contributing to the discord among Western NATO countries, the globalists and anti-globalists, that's good for us. as long as uh he threatens NATO that it's irrelevant, that's great for us because what's the alternative? The alternative is a united front of the entire West against Russia. Well, that's not good. Uh one should hold on to whatever fiction there is. Uh as long as it weakens the united front of of all these RE and Fonder and Kalas and others. So from that point of view, it makes perfect sense. Moreover, uh one of the greatest achievements of that policy of Mr. Putin is that there was no American aid coming to Ukraine. None. Well, there was some coming through uh by the Europeans, but as I keep repeating in almost all of my shows, Europeans have no money, have no weapons, have no unity, have no will, and have no organization to achieve anything. is is Europe is in total mess and uh they can't even come up with 90 billion which is really not a big amount of money compared to American military budget of a trillion. So Europe is not a big deal at this moment. Uh but American America is at least militarily. And so from that point of view, what Putin does makes perfect sense. But I think he himself does not believe it's going to lead to any anything, no compromise on Ukraine, no agreement. And in that sense, Zilinski is is really playing into Putin's hands because Zilinski refuses to to to agree to anything, which is just great. I mean, it would be much worse if he agreed and then you would have to finish the war and then you would have to leave to Ukraine, which means to Zilinski, twothirds of Ukraine under the Banderevite rule, which is not good for Russia. Moreover, it's not good for Putin because my understanding is that uh Russian army would not be thrilled uh to with this kind of ending. They want to continue. So in that sense, Zilinski is helping Putin to go through the motions as if they're still negotiating while the offensive is continuing and it's moving slowly but moving. And that's perfect for uh for Putin to go through the motions of negotiations, go through the motions of improving relations with the United States, blah blah blah. But uh everybody knows this is a this is no longer relevant. This is P.
The relationship between Russia and Iran is a very interesting one. It's very pragmatic. It's certainly not ideological. And it is clear that Russia regards Iran as a very important partner whose security does contribute greatly to the security of Russia itself via the caucuses region. So both states are members of the bricks. So they're very much aligned in terms of the support for and uh the support for the vision of a multipolar international framework. But Iran and Russia don't have a military defense agreement. So it wouldn't be fair to expect Russia to come to Iran's defense militarily. Plus, Russia is not interested in a direct confrontation with the United States or NATO for that matter. So, um, when I see certain some commentators say, well, Russia is is helping directly in this war, I think that that is probably an overstatement or wishful thinking because clearly Iran has the right to defend itself. And the majority of of those who are observing this war understand that the aggressor it this was an unprovoked aggression u by the United States and Israel. And so in the context of the US-Israel war on Iran, how does Russia define its core interests?
Yes. Um I would go further than you. I I would say outright that defense of Iran is Russia's core interest. However, in terms of defense, meaning that Russia cannot afford defeat of Iran, it even to a point of maybe joining officially in that war if Iran were to be losing. But it's not losing and there's no indication that it will lose. But let me explain why it is absolutely the most important area geographically in terms of geopolitics more important than Ukraine for example because uh Iran has an access to uh Indian Ocean and there's a railroad that is I think almost completed that goes from the Azerbani border to the Indian Ocean. uh and uh Azerban can't do anything about it. If it moves any if it makes any rough mood move against Isra, excuse me, against Iran or Russia, Ali would fall and that's just it. And he understands it very well. But even if you know Azerbajan cease to exist, there is a a ferry that goes from Astrahan to Iranian ports on the Caspian and from there on any commodities uh any military or civilian or anything can go to the ports and from there to Africa, to Indonesia, to Thailand, to China, anywhere you want and it's under anybody nobody's control. uh in the high seas except Russia and Iran. Now that's crucial for Russia because uh Baltic Sea can be blocked by NATO countries and uh Russia can you know try to escort its ships militarily but it economically it's not viable. It's it's just too expensive. Now Turkey can now it didn't and probably wouldn't but it can block Russian access to the Mediterranean uh and then Mediterranean itself is a lake uh from where you have to go either through Gibralta or from Suez. So access to the Indian Ocean is fantastic because it gives Russia access to the trade routes. Now of course Russia has access from Vladivosto uh which is fine uh and from Murman but there are no trade routes in Murmansk. You have to go halfway around the world to to but but these ports have direct access to all the markets in Africa in Asia uh where the major trade is now in Asia. So this is why I I think it's crucial that's just purely economic side of it. But aside from that uh Iran uh is important in terms of membership of uh uh bricks. Uh this is also a country subjected to western sanctions. Uh this is a country with enormous potential in terms of the domestic market which is very interesting to Chinese and to Russian companies. uh ostracized by the west and they they blew their chance which they had in in 2015 uh in the treaty on nuclear control. So in all these respects it's very very important uh and um the Russians now there's Russian policy officially they say they don't provide military intelligence. What Lavrov said the other day that everybody knows where the American uh um installations are. They don't need our intelligence in order to hit those. In terms of military aid, Lavrov said we do provide them military aid because we have military cooperation. They provided us with the drones. They were the first to develop them and we provide them with their drones and other material as well. And there's nothing wrong with this because the United States provides missiles to Ukraine and to NATO and to all the participants in the current um in the current struggle to both to Israel and patriots to the Gulf States. So what what's the problem? You supply them, we supply whoever we want to. So that's the official position that Russia does help uh but not you know just uh giving it away. it is selling uh its military hardware. Now about S400, I saw different reports. Some people say that it hasn't been provided. Other people were saying that they did provide those uh and they are very very important especially if there's a massive onslaught uh which may be in the works uh because that they they're useless against uh drones because drones are mosquitoes but if there are long range missiles that will be flying in the direction of Iran S400 is essential and it's much cheaper than the Patriot missile. and it's very very effective. So, we don't know, nobody knows. Um, it depends who you listen to. Financial Times says that they did. The Russian official position is that we we don't deny and we don't confirm. No comment. So, that's where we are on the military aid issue.
I'm curious. I think everybody's sort of watching to see what happens this weekend with respect to or maybe the following week with respect to uh the US Marines being deployed and the possible ground invasion of the Hark Island or or sort of other um uh areas in that in that geographical location. But what do you think would be the red lines that would force Russia to escalate or to increase its support and perhaps move into this new area of direct military support for Iran?
Well, this question uh has a lot to do with another issue which I think you brought up uh sometime and that is Russian policy to the Gulf States. Uh and uh and of course they are involved and and this is so complicated. It's really like oriental u you know diplomacy where everything is so delicate and so intertwined. So let's try to work it out. Russia has very good relations with the Gulf States, especially with Emirates. Uh, and the Amir of Bahrain visited Russia recently and um and of course with Saudi Arabia, all of them. Now what does it mean good relations? Good relations means that they they are members of OPEC plus they have joint economic interests and the joint economic interest is the price of oil and the smooth trade with oil which they all want to keep at a certain level so that's not too cheap not too high so that uh they can benefit from it the same kind of thing it was Qatar and Russia that founded an organization of gas exporting countries and they are the two most important ones uh other than the United States, these are the three biggest producers in the world uh and therefore Qatar uh and Russia and you know and and Iran they are all in this game. So what the Russians ideally would like is that uh the feud between the Gulf states and Iran is overcome. And on that sense when let's just imaginary conversations if Iranians are saying if the Russians are saying to Iranians don't hit them too hard because you know we're in this business together and the Iranians probably are answering to the Russians and saying we would love to but it's not against them. We have nothing against them. It's the Americans. So, let them throw out the Americans and then we can do business as usual. To which Russians probably are saying they would love to, but they can't because they just don't. They're not they have no military. They have no um they have dependencies in terms of banking and investment and all that. It's a long process to which uh you know and and that means that I think Russian policy is to reconcile them uh and find some kind of a mutually acceptable uh solution which is hard to find because there's a war going on and the only one that Iranians would accept is complete uh destruction of American military presence in the Middle East. But secretly, deep down, the Russians would love it, too. I mean, they would absolutely welcome if American military bases were removed from the Middle East. Now, which makes it even more complicated matter is that the Russians have a pretty good relations with Israel, too. But it's it's not a strategic one. It's not a strategic one. It's they know that Israel is in the pocket of the United States and uh Russian influence is zero. It's only on the humanitarian one because uh you know just about half or maybe more than half of Israeli population is of uh East European origin. So these are like our people as Putin himself 2 million Soviet Jews. So on a humanitarian peop uh level the Russians would not like Israel to be wiped out. I mean, the worst thing would be a nuclear exchange for example. They don't want that. They don't want Israel to because of the people, because of the families, because of the, you know, common uh heritage. The Russians don't want Israel to suffer. But on the other hand, they understand that it is Israel who started it. It is Israel who is just acting like a wild, you know, gangster in the neighborhood. And they are, you know, in all of their public pronouncements, the Russians are saying Israel is an aggressor. Palestine should have its rights and should be a two-state solution. So they are firmly in the camp of critics of Israel. So so far they're just kind of watching uh and and they are absolutely astonished to see you know military strength of uh Iran uh and the kind of effort they put into the planning uh and into the development of these missiles and you know very excellent preparation for this war. But in ideal scenario, what they would like to do is uh an outcome of the war which would diminish American presence uh eliminate military presence, diminish the economic presence uh and restore a a kind of a joint cooperation of OPEC plus uh and of the bricks plus uh which is very very active in this area. Uh, and um, and one last thing I want to say, Lena, because I'm sure you're aware of it because you follow economics. Uh, before the war began, I I did this um, inquiry. The, if you look at the trade of the Gulf States with the United States and the trade with China and Asia, uh, the, uh, the trade with a Asia was larger. it already displaced the trade with the United States. Uh in other words, uh Asia is becoming a kind of a economic giant and magnet and the Gulf States even now even today most of the oil from the straight of Hormuz goes to Asia not to Europe not to the United States. So it's only natural that this sort of local quarrel uh is reconciled so that they could all get back to n to Asia and so that they trade in EU and so that bricks uh develops its own uh system of payments uh and the American influence is reduced. So that's what I think Russian long-term goals are is movement towards peace and bricks dominated Middle East rather than US dominated Middle East.
Right. I think it's it's very interesting because um I just read an article this morning that said um and I will include a screenshot of it when I edit the interview, but it did say that uh I believe 13 US bases are now uninhabitable in the Middle East. So it does appear that the um Gulf states will have to make a choice whether they want to rebuild them and uh go on with having those bases that have proven to be more of a liability than an asset or if they want to re redesign their approach to their security architecture and maybe factor in um these recent events to really tell Americans you need to leave and we will work with our neighbors to to establish a security framework that works for us and doesn't present such a big liability. So it is really interesting to see what will transpire once this war is over. And uh of course when it comes to Israel, I think Israel will play an interesting role in the possible reconciliation process too because of course Russia has a very long and and interesting relationship with Israel. Following World War II, the USSR supported the creation of the state of Israel on Palestine's territory. And um of course Russian President Putin as you mentioned he did say that we have you know there are 2 million people in Israel who are um sort of immigrants or um children of immigrants from the former USSR and the Russian speaking. So uh you know there there is that sort of historic background that's very important in Russia relations. But do you feel that given the precedent of Israel sabotaging peace talks and attacking negotiators um and they've done it multiple times um already. Do you think there is a high chance that Israel would sabotage any reconciliation process between the Gulf States and Iran following the end of this war?
Uh yeah, this is a a great question, but I don't think it's a relevant question because uh what's happening in Israel uh is um is it's in crisis, domestic crisis, because the the Israeli society was convinced by its own propaganda that they are superpower and they would kill all their enemies and and Netanyahu kept on killing and and they were in that hysteria. of uh you know we will overcome everybody and kill everybody because America is with us. Now what has already been demonstrated is that America with us doesn't work anymore as a kind of a new reality. And and this is so interesting because really what the Israelis and Americans thought of the Iran is that it's a third world country that we will just walk over. We'll just knock them out and take their oil and that's it. you know kind of a habit of western powers to have condescending um kind of a condescending disrespectful attitude. It's the same thing to Russia by the way when Fonderland said the Russian uh you know use refrigerators to uh take the chips for the tanks or when Obama said that Russia is is a gas station masquerading as a country. It's the same kind of a arrogant western condescending attitude towards uh non-western countries. And so the Israelis thought that it would be very easy but instead what they got is missiles hitting Israel. And here's a very important point that everybody has to understand. Israel is vulnerable because Israelis are rich and they could pick and go. And if there is chaos that continues in Israel, millions can just pick up and go. They can go at a moment's notice to France, to to any European country. They have no visa requirements. They can go to the United States, to anywhere they want. And that's easy. Now, Iranians can't go anywhere because they don't have the passports. They don't have the money. And they they're not welcome anywhere. the Israelis could come in France and then be indistinguishable from anybody else uh the next day. Same thing in in the United States. So if this continues uh and their bombs, you know, blowing in the neighbor's house, you know, what is to stop them from leaving? So I think they're much much more vulnerable and and if they stay, what they would want obviously is peace. I mean that's natural for any human being. But it would be peace on the terms not of Israel dictating everybody uh what they should be doing but it could be it could be a settlement if they lose and lose badly. What I can envision would happen is uh internationally supervised uh control over nuclear that would be ideal for the world over the Israeli nuclear program and the Iranian nuclear program. And in that case, everybody could feel safe without threatening anybody, but just so that Israel would have to admit that it does have nuclear weapons and they should be controlled in an international treaty just as the Iranian ones. Now, that would be fair. Now whether they would come to that, this is the optimistic scenario, the pessimistic scenario, the awful thing that could happen if Israel is being destroyed. they might just hit them with nukes. you know, if there's nothing to lose, they could just say, "Well, we'll just kill all the Iranians." And that would be that would be the end of Israel. Definitely. They in that case, uh Iranians, even if you know, millions of them die in a nuclear holocaust, uh they would make sure that the Israelis die too. And so that would be the worst outcome for the region, for the world. uh and for both of these countries. So that these are the kind of a very very hard choices that um a lot depends on the skill um and maybe even Putin could play an important role here of not allowing to escalate to this um to this level.
Yes. I agree. I think that that's that's a very important statement that I think Russia has the potential to be a mediator and sort of a peace broker in this process and hopefully hopefully we'll see more of we'll see more of it actually you know playing out as it chooses to engage in in mediations and and peace settlement. But that of course remains to be seen and and everything seems to be um very fluid and and and developing very very quickly. Um many critics now accuse Moscow of course of benefiting from the Iran war because of a surge in energy costs. Dr. Brovkin, to what extent do you feel Russia benefits from higher oil prices that are basically caused by the conflict? And how does this financial benefit and the leverage that it provides factors into Russia's position when it comes to supporting Iran?
Um yes, of course they are benefiting and it this benefit comes just in time because the 2025 was a hard year for Russia. It has to do pretty much with the banking policy where they decided to fight inflation and that slowed down the economic growth. It was only 1% and now they want to go back to four or 5%. and so the um war expenses are very high. So this is very very welcome uh that they earn uh more money but even more important for Russia long term as Putin explained uh is that once you establish yourself in new markets you could you could stay there uh and that what uh what is beneficial for Russia is that um uh no oil 20% less oil and gas coming from the Gulf means that 20% uh of the Asian market is available uh for it to be replenished by Russia. Russia had a capacity to increase quickly because they were barred from its markets in Europe uh and elsewhere and the harassment of its tankers in in Baltic and Atlantic. And so now they could say goodbye just exactly as Putin said uh quite openly. He said, "We don't care anymore if you put any more sanctions on us. We will go to the new markets. And it's much more advantageous for us to switch to Asian markets." So from that point of view, these are growing economies. They all need u more oil and gas and and that is the direction. Moreover, long term it seems like uh for the sort of uh for the for the development of economy or how do you say markets newly emerging markets in Thailand in Singapore. Um this is great because they have uh this they have a huge capital. Now this is what I wanted to say Lena very important. Pepe Escobar says that in the in the last few weeks, as he put it, there's a tsunami of capital that is moving from from Dubai and Abu Dhabi to Singapore, Bangkok, and Hong Kong, which means that that what Russia earns is peanuts compared to what China earns and the benefits that the young tigers or um Asian tigers is earn and this could be a historical shift of wealth and capital from the Middle East to far east that only strengthens their markets, their capital markets, their uh their banking banks that are safe uh and that again is contributing to a transition from the dollar to yuan. So I think these are excellent news for uh for uh China and for Asia and and if you I like looking at it historically. It could well be that 10 years from now, 20 years from now, people would look at 2026 and would say this was the year of the beginning of withdrawal of the United States from world markets. because even before the war there was more trade with Asia than with the US. A and and the historical mistake that America has made it seems to me like I I like to look at it historically is that they approached the Middle East in terms of military might and I don't know who it was but one of American presidents said America's business is business. Now if Americans had stayed to business which means investment and making money and development of industry then they would have been just fine and very competitive because they know how to do it uh with other in comparison to other countries. But then you know Bush and all these other crazy people in the early 2000s made a choice to do it militarily. Oh they're going to seize Iraq and they're going to seize Afghanistan. They're going to seize this and seize that. And Trump got into this uh mode too with seizing this and threatening that. That's a wrong approach. This approach leads America to isolation and to uh well, I wouldn't say destruction, but I would say weakening of its worldwide position. And that's just of their own doing. You know, nobody's doing it to them, but they're doing it to themselves. Um and in that sense this is maybe a historical shift. Now look uh in the 19th century this whole area was governed and ruled and everything in the British Empire and the British Empire controlled the entire Indian Ocean. Everything in Africa, everything in Asia, every single country was a part of the British Empire. Well then it just declined and the US replaced it. Well, maybe maybe now we're witnessing the decline of the US uh empire and of the west generally uh and the rise of Asia which is not controlled by any western entity whatsoever.
Fascinating. And I think that probably deserves an entire video just on its own. But maybe the last question for today and I would like to circle back to the very beginning of our conversation when we focused on the security aspect of the Iran war in for Russia. So Russia is a very diverse country. Um it has of course Christian Orthodox and it also has Muslims. about 10 to 15% of Russia's population is Muslim and that's roughly 14 to 20 million people. Now when I think about that I always sort of think about the caucuses because that is a very important region and it's a very unique region. Um it is notorious for being quite an unstable region from a security perspective and that history goes back all the way to the times of the Russian Empire and of course more recently there were two wars in Chechnya, which is a fascinating topic in and of itself. So if let's assume which I don't think will be the outcome but if we think about in terms of the the worst case scenario here if Israel and the United States manage to achieve partially or fully their goal of destabilizing Iran and possibly fragmenting it or um you know disintegrating it which is their goal. We we do know what would happen to the broader region. It would result in a humanitarian catastrophe of course because Iran is a country of 90 million people and it would also result in a power vacuum that would likely fuel religious extremism and it could spill over into neighboring countries um especially into states such as Tajikistan and and uh sort of those area those countries in the area. So in terms of the risks associated with the destabilization of the caucuses and Iran and the spread of religious extremism which of course Russia may be affected by as well because it does have a um you know a big Muslim population. Do you feel that the more threats there are to Iran, the more Russia would consider becoming more and more engaged and involved uh militarily to prevent the fall of Iran?
Yes. Uh let me address first part of your question and that is the uh the issue of Islam and Islamic extremism and all that stuff. You know, I I think this is a projection. Uh this is a West European fear which has nothing to do with Russia whatsoever because in Russia the only uh the the only country Christian country where you have excellent relations between the Muslims and and the Christians and also of the Jews. Now that may seem to be strange by people but let me remind you that uh in Muslim countries the Christians and Jews lived for centuries together and there were no problems. This was you know great degree of tolerance which couldn't be said of the Christian uh countries such as Spain with its um you know um inquisition and all that stuff. So in Muslim countries it's normal that you have religious communities. The the Christians paid more taxes but um over the centuries they just lived side by side and there was no problem. Same thing in Russia you know the there's no friction whatsoever. I mean this is all kind of French invention uh and fear of the Muslims of of the the British and the French. So that's one thing now. So therefore there's absolutely no fear of any religious extremism. Chechnya was not a religious conflict. It was a conflict of a secessionist movement of a small republic uh which happens once in a while in any place such as Catalonia or Scotland or Ireland or any many many other places in in Europe. So that's one thing. Another thing I want to say on the religious issue is that it seems to me that this whole boogeyman of uh uh Islamic fundamentalism is really an invention of uh certain circles in Europe uh that fear immigration and fear the coming of Muslim uh peoples into these countries. I would say something unorthodox which probably many people wouldn't like but I would say that the Muslim comers to Europe actually play a positive role because these are the people who for a change are religious. They actually believe in God. And that's great because it's much better that they believe in God and they have strong families than those godless woke um you know perverts that now control mass media in Western countries. In fact, they're strengthening the the moral solidity uh of France and and other East European countries because they actually fear God because they respect God and because they have morality and because they respect their wives and children and want to have normal families. and from that point of view there's absolutely no harm whatsoever by uh Muslims coming to Russia or or France or anything else. So that's what I think um about this issue. Now in terms of Iran, let me put it uh in in very blunt terms. My understanding is that Russia and China will not allow uh Iran to be defeated and fragmented simply because they know perfectly well that if that happens then Mr. Trump is going to come one day and say I'm going to be the Zar of Russia uh and I'm going to be the emperor of China. I mean you could expect him he already wants to be a pope and the Ayatollah and and what. So I mean they realize that Iran has to stay uh and has to survive. Now they are taking the back seat now but if it comes to a real you know threat of disintegration of Iran I wouldn't exclude the possibility that they would send the troops uh they would do anything they can to actually stabilize the situation and forget it. I mean there are there are precedents. When Americans were winning in Korea, the Chinese just mobilized a million soldiers and saved North Korea from uh you know General M what's his name? MacArthur. Yeah. So that's that's what may happen. I don't think they would allow it to be disintegrated. It's just out of the question. This is too important for them.
Dr. Brovkin, it's always great to get your thoughts and expertise and it's always a pleasure to connect with you. Thank you so much for joining.
Thank you. It's always a pleasure. Thank you.