Transcription
So no territory of Ukraine at all could be uh free from Russian control. It has to be. Now the question is what kind of control and there are various different scenarios uh what what Putin said was you know Russian program minimum was we all know four provinces plus Crimea plus neutrality and this was possible for quite some time but not anymore. This year 2026 will be remembered as the year when that possibility disappeared. It's no longer there.
Welcome to World Affairs and Context everybody. Today I'm thrilled to welcome back a good friend of our program, Dr. Vladimir Brovkin. Vladimir is a former professor at Harvard, a prolific author and a political commentator. You can find his videos and his commentary on his own channel on YouTube, History and Politics with Dr. Brovkin, as well as on his new Substack. I will link both in the description below. Lead, welcome back to the program. It is so great to see you again.
>> Thank you, Lena. It's always a pleasure to be in your program.
>> It's always a pleasure to have an opportunity to connect and also to discuss the current events with you. Um, the latest NATO summit took place against the backdrop of the ongoing war in Ukraine, renewed instability in the Middle East, growing economic pressures across Europe, and clearly uncertainty surrounding US foreign policy under Donald Trump. Nobody really knows what's going on anymore. And I would like to explore how these developments fit together and what they could mean for the future of the international order and more specifically for the future of the war in Ukraine. What do you believe was the most consequential outcome of the latest NATO summit? Did it fundamentally change NATO's strategy toward Ukraine or was it largely sort of a reaffirmation of existing policies just on steroids?
Yes, the letter is more true, but I have a somewhat different take on this and u as you know I'm a historian of the Soviet Union. So I was a Soviet history professor. Soviet history, 20th century Russia and one of the key aspects of Soviet history was a kind of a fake reality that everybody was supposed to believe that everything is wonderful that the party is leading the masses towards bright future everything is always good and getting better all the time. This is kind of a Soviet idealized picture. As I was watching this uh so-called NATO summit, I couldn't escape the idea that it's soviet. Everything is wonderful. Everybody is friendly. Oh, his is such a good chap and he pats at the back, you know, Trump with Zilinski or Trump with Ardoran. The reality of relationship is much more complex and it's certainly not just on the level of good chap. In other words, in one word, I think this is a fake summit or at least a fake in a sense of outward unity. There is no unity. There are serious profound contradictions between all of them uh between you. I could just outline between the West European hawks and Trump with all of the Europeans about Israel and about the Israeli connection for Trump about the war in in Iran which they don't want to have anything to do with and Trump hates them for that. There are many many other things that all this so-called unity is just a show behind which one could try to uh to try to uh analyze who is with whom, who wants what and then we will see there is no unity.
>> Um the dynamic between Trump and European leaders was very very telling and quite shocking. It seems that they are willing to absorb any amount of humiliation from him and still smile and pretend that they're just, you know, almost best friends on camera. Um, Trump repeatedly says that he wants to end the war in Ukraine and that was sort of his campaign that he ran on when he was running for president. But now he's supplying weapons to Zalinski's regime and he is effectively facilitating long range strikes into Russian territory by providing intelligence and and weapons via European states. So is Trump now on board with the EU elites to fight quote unquote till the last Ukrainian? And what have you observed regarding the dynamic between Trump and European leaders?
Okay. Now, on paper or so to speak, the facade or something that they want to project, it's what you said. It's all united and he's supplying weapons and he's supplying intelligence and blah blah blah. In reality, nobody's supplying anything. There aren't no weapons. Uh I mean, where are the patriots? They don't exist. that especially if the war with Iran resumes, there's a long long waiting list of uh and the priority would be not for the Europeans, not for the Ukrainians, but for US army that is just running out of those Patriot missiles or any other missiles. So this is, you know, one kind of idea I had was to make a video saying something like the Russians should open up champagne bottles >> because if Trump is getting stuck in the war in Iran from the point of view of geopolitics, this is great for Russia. absolutely the best thing that they could be because Trump is going to spend all his time and effort and weapons on trying to achieve unachievable victory over Iran. Wonderful. So there won't be any energy or any missiles or any anything for the Europeans or for the Ukrainians.
Now getting back to the relationship behind the scenes, what I can assert is that the European the hawks the the fond and macrons and the mers they detest Trump for many reasons. First of all, because they they're Europeans. They feel they have to be treated with respect and they have to be consulted. They're great powers supposedly. He's treating them like a mafia boss treats his subordinates. totally ignoring them. You know, this is a meeting of NATO. Uh Iran is not a part of NATO's sphere of activity and yet he expects them to support him because he decides to go to war. Now, this is not the way you treat allies like real allies. Allies have to have a meeting. They have to, you know, discuss it as equals. Not that today I decide to go to war and I expect you guys to support me and if you don't well yeah I don't like it. This is not a serious sort of equal manner. Especially Europeans they like the decor. They like you know polite polyest. They they want to have you know some kind of a spirit of aristocratic international relations and diplomacy as it used to be in the belly pock. And that's not what Trump is like. You know, the best he can do is just slap you on the back or or you know, touch on the shoulder macaron and make some joke about his wife. I mean, he's he's playing like a simple American guy. He should understand this may work well for the for his base in the United States, but it does not work well with the European high society. That's not the way you're supposed to behave. This is on this level.
Now in another level, if we look at southern Europe, if we look at Spain, if we look at Italy, if we look at Greece, in addition to to all of the above that I said that they detest Trump, they have their own reasons to detest Trump. Uh and these are political. And the political is that these are the countries, especially Spain, uh and partly Italy and all of southern Europe. They they feel that they're being dragged into an alliance with war criminals. Just as simple as that. For Spain, Israel is a criminal regime that is engaged in mass murder. And they are the ones who initiated in the European Union a ban on on weapons supplies to Israel. So this is a so-called alliance. It's a joke. What kind of an alliance is that? One part of the alliance wants the others to say yes sir and support the war and another part of the alliance says that this war is a war crime or at least not the one in the in Iran but the one in Palestine. Uh so on top of that I just recently listened to a speech of uh Jeanluke Melansson who is a leader of a major political party. It's he's a major major contender for next year's presidential elections in France and he said that if we win that is to say his party we will join Spain in imposing sanctions on Israel. So that's their program. You could see this is where it's going. And then the Spanish feel totally uh ridiculed by Trump and very hurt and very upset because they say we've been a good ally. We've been fulfilling everything and now Trump says insulting things about Spain should be expelled. I don't like the Spanish. We should stop all trade with Spain. In other words, the the point is you're not you're not allowed to have an opinion different from the boss. This is not an alliance. This is not the way you treat an equal ally. And it's Spain is a big country. It's a major country. It's not Montenegro that you could ignore. It's not a Latia with 1 million people. It's a big European country with huge influence in the world in Latin America. And to treat it like this is childish, is stupid. It's disrespectful. I mean I can go on with epithets but this is one of the rifts that nobody discusses in western media but you could seal it you could feel it and if you if you go and ask Google you know the the review of Spanish press about the NATO summit they'll tell you what the Spanish felt and this is only one I can continue the Turkey you know the whole relationship with Turkey the French hate the Turkey perks and their role in NATO. And then when Trump comes and says, "Oh, Erd is such a big friend of mine." It just doesn't make much sense. What do you mean that friend? This friend is just about to go to war with Israel. Why are you not talking about that openly? Seriously, what is the problem between Israel and Turkey? They don't want to talk about it because at stake is Palestinians and the murder that is going on and and Erdoran took the side of Palestinians. But this is again this is something that remains behind the scenes. Uh and everybody focuses oh he says he's such a good fella and that's ridiculous. This is a a fake show. That's what this summit is all about. Nothing new. No no no substantive statements whatsoever. just fake unity for the photo opportunity
>> to I I I just want to add quickly to your commentary on the fake unity of NATO. I recently read that former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe from 2009 2013 James Thorites said that NATO should suspend its leader summits for the next two years until a new US administration takes office in the White House. And so he argues that this approach would actually allow European allies to avoid unnecessary confrontations with Trump while at the same time preserving the alliance and and so we often hear that NATO is united but there is plenty of evidence as you just pointed out that suggests otherwise.
>> Yes, absolutely. Just about on every level. Then, you know, it seems like the purpose of NATO is to oppose Russia because Russia is supposedly a threat. And the way the United States or Trump sees it is that the Europeans should buy American weapons and get ready for a war with Russia. I mean, that is also kind of absurd. Why should they? They have their own tanks that are much better than the American ones. And then if you really are an alliance, then let's choose the best. But no, that's not the way Americans want to talk to the Europeans. The best tank is is Leopard tank other than the Russian T90. But no, they don't want to buy that for the whole of NATO. They want this piece of junk Abrams tank that that doesn't go on Russian terrain to begin with as shown in Ukraine. Now, the airplanes, no, it's not going to be Swedish airplanes. It's not going to be French airplanes. No, it's going to be F35, which one of your guests called a piece of junk. Now, I'm not an engineer, so I don't know whether it's a piece of junk or not, but I do know that it's uh much much more expensive than equivalently good Russian airplane, Sue 57 and the SU Sue 35, etc. So this kind of a presentation that NATO means Europeans buy American weapons, it it's it doesn't add up because it's not based on equality. That's just based on, you know, pushing shoving American goods to somebody's throat without fair competition and fair choice.
>> Very true. Um so NATO summit ended and then the following day on July the 9th I noticed that Russian Foreign Minister Serge Labrov said and I will quote him here. Um he said quote we will no longer believe the West when it says it wants negotiated solutions. That reserve of goodwill and hope has been exhausted completely. Now that may sound quite boring to uh to American observers who are used to Trump just posting all sorts of things on social media but but Lavrov is very careful in his rhetoric and so is the rest of Russian sort of upper echelons of of political leadership. So um it does sound very measured but in fact this is a very strong statement coming from Lavrov. Um demon how do you read this? What what's your take on what Lavo said and the consequences of this position?
>> Well, I've been saying for the last three weeks or so that there was a change and many of your guests agree and I agree with them, they agree with me that there has been a change in Russian rhetoric and disposition and military planning. uh and that is that uh there's no longer any desire to have any agreement with Zilinski regime as they call it which means that Putin's proposals of four provinces plus Crimea plus a bunch of neutrality things is gone it's done it's finished then the question is and and this is something that a lot of my viewers are asking me why did Putin just wake up now couldn't he see that this is a terrorist regime before couldn't he see that all this is just empty talk. My answer to this is that Putin is a very clever man and what he's been doing is simply playing up Trump uh for what he is uh in order to get his objectives and let me just try to explain what are Putin's objectives. Putin's objectives is not to have united front of all western countries against Russia. So any any possibility of driving a wedge between them, exploiting their differences and playing up to Trump uh should be used to the fullest. This is why he's been inviting him to Moscow and coming to Anchorage and talking about good relations. It's not that he doesn't want them. I'm sure he does. I'm sure he wants good relations, but it's not possible. and he's not foolish enough to think that it's possible when it's not possible. So why is he doing it? This is my answer. I came to that idea just yesterday. My idea is that Putin is playing for time.
>> Uh he needs another two or three months to finish off the job in Donbas to take Katsk and Slavansk and go to the borders of Donbas and the four provinces that he was talking about. Some people say that after the Duma elections he will have a free hand. And what is to be expected definitely is much more vigorous offensive against uh the Zilinski regime or maybe even more dramatic maybe even declaration of war and mobilization because what is clear is that the Russian society is getting tired four years now it's it's four and a half you've got to finish this war and the only way to finish it is by taking Harkov and Odessa. And this is difficult because these are cities with millions of people in them and you cannot if it was worse it would be very easy. You just bomb the hell out of it until it's taken. But these are Russian cities with Russian people living there. He cannot bomb it. The the way to take it is huge concentration of forces by surrounding it with a front of several hundred kilometers like splitting Ukraine into two bypassing Harkov altogether 100 kilometers around it. For that you need a large army and a whole lot of weapons a whole lot of things. So you need to prepare this operation and they've been preparing it because uh you know at the time of the military special military operation began it was like one of your guests said it was 200,000 and then Stv said in 2023 it was only two years three years ago that he said it at that time and poor guy was punished for that he said you could hold the front with 500,000 and you can advance with 700,000. This was prophetic. It's exactly what's going on now. You have 700,000 and they are advancing, but they're advancing slowly. Now, in order to really advance in like breaking through the front and going to the the Neper River and then surrounding Harkov and moving on to Kev and Adessa will fall like a ripe apple at the very very end because you need to cross the Neber and that could only be done when the Russians already are close to Kiev or taken Kiev. So for that you need hundreds of thousands. And so remember a year ago the Putin said that the goal is to build an army of 1 million and a half or 6. They now according to Scott that they're close to it. And I think that this is and you cannot just you know u take volunteers and that's it. They have to be trained. They have to be trained with using sophisticated technology. It's not just a matter of, you know, what they do in Ukraine. Grab somebody in the streets and push them to the front in a in a week or two. So, this is preparation that takes months. And this is what they're doing. But I am convinced that the Russian leadership has come to a conclusion that the only way to shut up the Europeans is that make a situation where there's no place from which one can shoot rockets at Russia. Nowhere. Because if they do it from Poland, there'll be a Russian missile flying right back. But from Ukraine, they think they can. Well, you have to teach them a lesson that they cannot. And the only way to do it is to control all of Ukraine, the entire thing, the everything under Russian occupation. That is couple of million troops to be efficient. This is this is a big territory. It's Ukraine is bigger than France and the West they don't think in those terms. The the so-called Western Front of World War II, World War I is several times shorter than the one now between Russia and Ukraine. It's it's a it's like 800 kilometers from the uh from the Swiss border to the sea. So, this is the thing. They they're not used to the such distances uh as as they are now to to occupy a a huge country like this. Russia needs at least 2 million people and a lot of shells, a lot of ammunition, a lot of logistics, especially now in the age of drone welfare. I think they're getting ready for this because it is clear that to find an accommodation with the Europeans is impossible at least with this leadership. Uh and with Trump, it's only possible when he sees the FA ampli on the ground and then he would accept it. It seems like he has so much trouble of his own now that I think Ukraine is the last thing that he has to worry about. He's in deep trouble with Iran. Deep trouble. Uh it's not clear whether he will win or lose the elections, face impeachment, whether they will keep the majority in the in the Senate. And if they don't, you know, they might even try to remove him from office. I mean, this is absolutely incredible things are going to happen. Uh so he has his you know uh hands full of worries ra other than Putin who he thinks he's doing his job and he wants to win and that's normal and fine because everybody wants to win.
>> As a historian I would love to get your thoughts on on on the following. Um Putin said that Navaroia is the next sort of goal. Um, and as you mentioned, the old the old suggested settlement is off the table now. It's no longer going to be limited to just those four oblasts. So, what do you think the new sort of approach warrants in terms of the territory that Russia is going to uh pursue, that Russia is going to establish as its buffer zone? because it seems that if it leaves Kief and then, you know, 30 years from now, it's just going to be a pause for a new war to to to to to be started effectively for the new Ukrainian regime that is backed by Western actors to say, "Oh, now we have to recononger uh we we need to get back uh to Donbas. That's our territory." So, I'm sure that Putin views this uh through sort of the long-term lens and he's want he wants to make sure that um you know, like he said, there's not going to be a ceasefire. He does want longlasting peace. So, what is this new objective in terms of territory and perhaps Kiev and K of Oblast that would ensure that there is long-lasting peace in Ukraine and in Russia too?
>> Uh the answer is is very simple. uh I think it was provided by mediev I think a year ago and he published and at that time it was a big splash uh that you know he published this map of Ukraine and everybody was discussing it u I don't think it has been finally decided uh the the the actual borders I will comment on it in a second but the most important thing that Putin has been saying all along and everybody agrees with him in his leadership Ukraine cannot be a threat to Russian security. That's it. Whatever forms it will take, it should all of those or any of those should satisfy that requirement. So if there is let's say western Ukraine or or uh beyond the Carpathian Mountains Ukraine uh has left independent on NATO, that's unacceptable. Why? Because they could put their nap their their missiles there and shoot at Russia at any moment. So no territory of Ukraine at all could be uh free from Russian control. It has to be. Now the question is what kind of control and there are various different scenarios uh what what Putin said was you know Russian program minimum was we all know four provinces plus Crimea plus neutrality and this was possible for quite some time but not anymore. this year 2026 will be remembered as the year when that possibility disappeared. It's no longer there. Uh partly it is Trump's fault or his inability to push this through. Partly it is the Europeans's belligerent attitude and inability to uh come to a compromise. So what would be now the next goal is Novarosia and in one of your programs you discussed you yourself uh discussed where are the borders. Different maps show different kinds of uh uh and one of your guests what he said was I believe it was Larry Johnson. He said something that would be the maximalist interpretation of what in Nova Rosia which would be uh you know starting with Odessa and Nikol and Petrovski and Kharkov and then Sumi and Paul Tava and uh Cheriggo and maybe even K. Now that leaves, you know, central and western Ukraine. But what I would add to this is that and that's also from what Putin said, Russia does not want to have any Ukraine led by Banderabite Ukraine by the Western Ukraine. So what what Medivv's map showed when he published it is that there's three pieces of Ukraine. There'll be one Novarosia that is uh that joins Russia and probably with the same scenario as the four other provinces did with a plebicid with a referendum uh and these are Russian speakaking territories and people that are Russian speak Russian have been Russian for the last 200 years as these lands were settled uh after Katherine I okay then there is central Ukraine that's vinit and and the territories uh of central Ukraine going to the Carpathian mountains. These were the territories that were called Malarosia uh in Tsarist Empire. By the way, I I always explain that, but it's sort of interesting maybe for your listeners to understand the meaning of Malarosia. In the dictionary, it just simply says small Russia, but it's not actually small. Uh and um let me just say I've I I like old things and old maps and old books and things and I once bought a map at one of the brokant in France which was in premier there was a printing office of uh his majesty Napoleon Emperor of France. The the year was 88 1805 and the map showed uh Petit France Grand France Petit Polon Grand Poland Gutland Petiti Grandi So that logic means that small doesn't mean small it means core that's what it means >> core Germany big Germany Core France, big French empire. Core Poland, big Poland, including Lithuania, including Bellarusia, including Ukrainian lands. So this is what small Russia meant. Original Russia, core Russia, Rousi. This is where the the Russian principalities grew from from 8th century onwards. So this is why the the very name Ukraine is a Polish name. It means lands at the edge. Ukraina in fact there's a province in Yugoslavia former Yugoslavia. It's called Cryina which is you know a piece a piece of land. That's what it means. Ukra means at the edge of something at the edge of what? Of Poland. These are the lands at the edge of Poland who rebelled against the Catholics and asked Russian Za Alexis to accept them into Russia in 1654. And from that time on the uh this core Russia was a part of the Russian Empire. So these lands will return but maybe they'll have a separate status. Maybe it would be called Ukrainian Autonomous Republic or maybe it will call Ukrainian Republic like Barus a part of the uh confederation. I don't know what they will what what find the room but but they would not be uh identical with other Russian provinces. They will have a separate status uh and also they will not be one state with Bandera lands of western Ukraine. And I I'm sure they're discussing all the time in the Quran what to do with those uh and uh you know if if Putin asked me he never did but if you would ask me I would recommend a a format which is called protectorate uh which is the French word and that used the French used it in Morocco where I lived and taught. And protected means basically that they have autonomy in their own local affairs but they have no foreign policy. They have no international relations. Their foreign policy is controlled by the protector such as Russia. By the way, Cuba had that kind of a status uh under the United States. They were de facto protectorate. They they couldn't have any international relations or anything without the US. uh it was a kind of like a colony until Castro revolution. So this is the format. Uh that way they could have local the Russian police didn't have to bother running them. Let them run themselves. But there should not be any foreign troops, any foreign advisers, any foreign missiles or any foreign anything. So this I think is what it may take. But I don't know what they would decide. As I said, they have not consulted me yet.
>> And well, they really should. Um, so we see that Zalinski continues to request additional weapons, financial aid, and security guarantees. Um, since you're in Europe, I would love to get your thoughts on this, too. Is the political west, what we recall, what we call the political west, is the political west close to the point where it realizes that the war just simply cannot be won. no matter how many billions of euros or dollars you throw at Zalinski and that all of that money is now some cost or are they still living in this illusion that they're going to maybe revise the outcome of World War II?
>> Uh well this is a great question and the the answer is that when you look at the intricacies of uh European politics when you look at the endless meetings that they have you know there's endless endless and there it's a big bureaucratic mechanism there all these ministers of foreign affairs and all these prime ministers and all these presidents and political leaders. So basically what it boils down to uh EU has a huge budget but it's not endless. Uh and every penny has to be accounted for. It's not like you know you could print money no matter how much you want. Even in the United States supposedly uh you know the central bank is independent supposedly. I don't know whether it is but in Europe it's central banks are accountable to their governments and the governments have a very specific figure which they contribute to EU and then they actually argue about it like in France there's debate we contribute more than we take from it the number is defined they cannot manipulate it to a point of billions disappeared nobody knows where they are it has to be voted for and that means that they cannot forever say you know oh we're winning let's give another another two million no they cannot it was very great difficulty that they came up with this so-called 90 billion uh over two years and half of it was taken actually from interest rates on Russian money which they somehow said well when when Ukraine wins then they're going to Russia is going to pay reparations and Then when the Belgians government said what if they don't pay reparations when then we will have to pay for it but they kicked it down the road. In other words the parliaments today do not have to vote for it. So they they bought themselves time but this cannot be indefinite because next year there will be elections in France and then there will be changes coming up in Germany and and and they would have to account to the opposition parties which have not yet been banned uh and to the press which still exists. Wait a second where is the 10 billion that you were supposed to get on this and that. So this is the problem of money. The second problem is with weapons. When a company's producing weapons, you have to pay for it. What do you pay it with? Where do you have to? If it's government that's paying for it, it has to be voted by the parliament. Now, a little bit here and there you can crank out if you know 10 billion, 100 million. This is what uh this is what Macron was doing. But not anything serious and big time. It has to be accounted for. and even from the line he she can squeeze out 10 billion here or there but with great difficulty and still she would have to account for this to the European parliament. So this is the biggest difficulty. The longer the war lasts the more difficult it is for them to justify this expense. This is why Macron launched this propaganda thing that the Ukraine is winning. Everybody knows it's not winning, but they need it in order to make it look like it's such a Soviet thing to make it look like we're building socialism, although we're building junk. Everybody knows it's junk. Everybody knows it's poor. Can you turn on the light, please? Uh and um uh and then it to continue to act as if they're winning the war. It is unbelievably Soviet.
>> Very interesting. And yes, I I would absolutely agree with that. Um there's a really interesting point that you made in the very beginning of this conversation about Iran and I would like to briefly touch upon that point. you mentioned that it actually plays into Russia's hands that Trump may be tied up in Iran because of you know um effectively weapons being you know running low and and the United States cannot manufacture them uh quickly enough to supply to the KV regime. But on the other hand, and I certainly agree with that, but then on the other hand, I also see certain things that would enable the United States um to um inflict greater damage on Russia if Iran falls, which is very very unlikely. Of course, uh we know that it has strategic leverage, it has strategic depth, and Iran is in the driver's seat right now, but would would actually Russia want for the United States to come to a diplomatic solution in the Iranian case in order to have fewer issues on its borders?
>> Yes, but this is a huge topic. It merits a serious discussion, but let me put it in brief. Um, I agree with those who argue that it is impossible to defeat Iran short of a uh carpet bombing and killing millions uh and using nuclear bombs. Other than that, okay, suppose they destroy, well, this is what Trump says that they want to destroy all oil facilities of Iran. Okay, fine. They can do that. That's possible. But Iran in return will destroy oil facilities of Arab shakdoms that they can do too. Now moreover these Arab shakans are not going to sit and and watch. They they are now already weighing whether they should continue to support the United States or whether they should make a separate peace deal with Iran. And then they're scot-free that they all they have to do is let Iran collect the tolls and then they could export. uh and it's not to the US, it's mostly to Asia and partly to Europe. So, uh you know, which way they're going to decide is not clear. But so far, you know, having American bases is is a liability because it doesn't help you. It just gets you bombed. So, this is the thing. Now, what can the United States do uh in addition to uh bombing? Well, they say they could start a land operation and they could seize Hark Island. So what uh you know land operation for what? For what purpose? Are they going to march to Tehran? That's impossible. For that you need 2 million men and you need a place to send them from. What means you have to bring them over to the Gulf States and then you know the Gulf States you have to cross Iraq in order to to go into Iran and then Iraq had already a land war with with Iran and the Iranians held it. They held just Iran. Uh so what makes Americans think that they if they're going to bring 500,000 men or 2 million uh they would be able to advance in a land operation? First of all, they don't have two million men and you have to arm them, supply them, bring, you know, all kinds of food and water and ammunition and everything. All kinds of stuff. The I don't think the United States has all that stuff. It would take them years to build it. And by that time, Trump's time in office will be over. So, for any practical considerations logistic wise, uh the war with Iran cannot be won. What they can do is inflict big damage on it and the Iranians know it and they're willing to face it and they did it with a war with Iran. You know, if you deprive them of oil, what are they going to collapse? No, they they lived like that before. It would be tough, but they know how to live tough. And finally, the big point, Russia and China cannot afford Iran to lose. In other words, they realize Iran is a kind of a loose cannon. I mean, they do things that uh Iran, both China and Russia are very careful, especially China, you know, they're they're very very careful and they don't want to make rough moods and they don't want to provoke Americans and so on. But the bottom line, the red line for both, no, they cannot afford if Iranian regime were to begin to collapse. I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese and the Russians would send expeditionary force to hold it because that is a national interest, absolutely national interest. They cannot allow the United States to take control of Iran and its oil and the entire Middle East. So this is where we are. Uh this is uh this is why I I began by saying that from the Russian geopolitical point of view, it's great that the United States wants to uh you know attack Iran. Well, let them attack it and and waste their missiles and and the aircraft carriers could be shot at. That's a great thing. Uh and and the Patriot missiles would be, you know, months waiting for the US Air Force U needs. Uh and then you know Russia has a corridor to Iran u not just through Azerbajan but directly through the Caspian Sea. It could send anything uh and Iran can actually export oil via Russia and via the railway which was uh bombed. Uh but it it does have a railway to China and a a railway two railways and a ferry uh through Tajikistan through Azerban. I don't think the Azerbaijanis with their their love affair with Trump would dare to say no to Russian trains or to Iranian trains because if they do Russia and Iran could send expeditionary force and just take over Zerbajan very easily if it is in the national interest of the two countries. They let Aliv, you know, pretend like he can do what he want, but within certain limits, if there is danger for the survival of Iran, they might just do that, just have a a a open border between Iran and Russia. But I don't think it will go that far. Uh, you know, Trump also realizes the limits. It's one thing that he likes to show and scream, you know, which is not presidential come and this and that. I mean he's demeaning himself uh by acting like a child like this but deep down he knows and if he doesn't his generals are very professional very educated very um think thoughtful people they will tell him Mr. president. We can't do that. Just we don't have the stuff, the capacity to do this. Um, this is just like they came to Nixon and said, "We can't win that war. We have to get out of it. It's unwininnable because these jungles would always be infiltrated and there's no amount of bombs that can stop the Hoshiman trail and and we have to just admit the fact that we can't do it." Uh, and they did and they left.
A crucial player in the region is of course Turkey. Turkey occupies this unique unique position as a NATO member while also maintaining relationships with Russia, with Ukraine and countries throughout the Middle East. And as they say, Erdogan just he's very very skilled at sitting on two chairs.
So when NATO summit began, Trump said that he approves of Turkey purchasing Americanmade F-35 fighter jets. But then towards the end of the summit, Trump said he wasn't so sure and that he hadn't made his final decision just yet. Well, Turkey purchased the Russian-made S400 air defense system for $2.5 billion back in 2017 and Erdogon has been trying to purchase F-35 fighter jets, but he has been uh prevented by the US Congress. So officially US wanted Turkey to dispose of Russian S400 before it approved of Turkey purchasing F-35s. Now there is another player here which is Israel of course and Israel made it very very obvious that um Turkey acquiring F-35s would as Netanyahu said it would change the balance of power in the Middle East. Israel and Turkey have overlapping interests in some areas, but then they also compete in other areas. How would you characterize the current dynamic, the postNATO summit dynamic between these two regional powers?
>> Well, yes, this is just one more example that the so-called allies are really not allies. Uh in other words, if if Spain is just criticizing Israel for uh genocide, uh Erdogan is ready to go to war with Israel. That's and both are allies and with both uh Trump says, "Oh, he's such a good fellow." But the fact is that um Turkey is using Trump to achieve their own uh agenda. I should also mention that the Turks and Erdogan they detest the Europeans because they they consider Europeans totally and fundamentally racist, anti-Muslim and anti-Turk because they blocked Turkish entry to the European Union and they feel very offended and I can really understand that because that's how the Russians feel when the Europeans tell the Russians you're not European you know that's sort of wait a second They are half of Europe. Why we're not European and Ukraine is? That's weird. So, this is kind of like an insult uh how the Turks regard the so-called allies in NATO. Now, a minor thing, but still is important. The Greeks are terrified uh if Turkey that has already a huge army would acquire F35. And then this whole thing with Israel is just a constant, you know, reminder to everybody that the real ally of the United States, the real ally is Israel and not they they are vassels. They have to do what they're told, including Erdogan. Um, and so he just basically tries to get as much as he can uh out of uh Trump. Uh but they both understand that this is you know a play a show for convenience. Uh and indeed um you know it is important for Trump to have American bases in Turkey that could be used to bomb Iran and it's not sure the Turks are allow going to allow them to do that. Uh and of course the Israelis are very worried um about Turkey and yeah geopolitics is is is key here because Israelis want to control Syria and annex more pieces of land and you know Turkey looks at this that this is their vassel. This is their area of interest and the historical historical dominance in the in Syria that had been a part of Ottoman Empire for centuries I believe since 14 something uh from from the battle of 1415 I think. So that's that's what it boils down to. uh Erdogan has been very very strongly anti-Israel in words but so far indeed but it may come to a point where um you know that may translate into some hostile action well we'll see
>> Um Erdogan also expressed openly his support for a program of supplying NATO weapons to Ukraine and the program is uh is titled the prioritized Ukraine requirement ments list. What is Russia's view on its relations with Turkey at this moment? And Turkeykey's of course it is a NATO member so I don't think it should be surprising but at the same time since Erdogon is trying to maintain good relations with uh with Vladimir Putin it seems to be quite quite unusual to openly state that you support um an adversary Ukraine in this case.
>> Yeah. Uh well again it's pure geopolitics. Uh Russia and the Turkey had I don't even remember how many wars many maybe 10 maybe more. Uh it's all geopolitics. uh and the the reason that the Turkey does not recognize Crimea as Russian is because in 15 uh in 16th century uh in 1550 under um Solomon the Magnificent, there was a four the first war between at that time Ivan the Awesome which the westerners called the terrible uh and Russia uh over over the southern lands and Crimea was not taken yet. It would take another 200 years until Katherine II that Russia would conquer Crimea. So the Turks consider it their lost territory and this is why they really don't want to admit that this is Russian but although they did recognize it when it was Soviet. So they want to play this game that uh divided Russia which means Ukraine separate from Russia is in geopolitical interests of Turkey obviously because that means that your northern neighbor is divided into two uh or one and a half and that's good from their point of view because that means that they have more of a power and presence in the Black Sea. However, my view is that the future of Turkey is in Shanghai uh organization and in bricks or basically in some form or another with the east. Why? Because they were not taken. The Europeans had a chance to bring Turkey in line and they didn't. Why? Well, because they're afraid. For historical reasons, they are afraid of the Turks. Because for the Austrians, you know, Gar from Austin, you know, danger from the east is part of the national identity. It's it's part of fear because this huge Ottoman Empire bigger than the Roman Empire was on Europe's doorsteps for centuries. And the whole history of Venice Republic is a history of wars with the Ottomans which little by little step by step they began to win over uh uh because most of Mediterranean Sea was controlled by the Turks in 16th century. So this is why the Europeans are very reluctant. Hungary spent 100 years of its history under the Turkish occupation and they that's why they paranoid when European Union tells them open borders let the you know the the people from the east come. No no no no no we don't want to be overrun that's only 10 million Hungarians and there's 90 million Turks and they don't want them to flood Hungary uh so that Hungary you know finally is lost. So for these reasons, they don't want Turks to have open borders and open migration as it would be the case if they were a part of the European Union. So you can understand them, but I can only understand the Turks. They feel excluded from the west and now they're looking in the east and it looks incre in increasingly more interesting because it now is the time that China is a shining star of industrialization of examples of how to turn your country from poverty to riches. Uh it is exactly what the Turks want to do and now they're looking up to China and that means to Russia because China and Russia are now pretty much tied in the same boat. Uh whether they like it or not I think they do like it but this is they need each other uh in this today's world more than anything else. And I think Turkey is beginning to see that they could reap more benefit long-term development. What can Europeans give them? Nothing but scorn. Technology, we can get it in China. Trade, markets, all of that is in China. Uh cheap uh stuff for everyday life comes from China. So I think this is what uh Russia g made out of Eran a hub of energy. He's got a great geographic location as a link between east and west, north and south. Uh the Chinese want all this one belt initiative that goes through Russia and Turkey. And I think long term I I think that's where the Turks are going to find in their future. So from that perspective, you know, Ukraine is secondary. Now maybe the last question for today. Uh you mentioned that Turkey may pursue membership um at uh in the SEO, right? But do you think that membership at NATO and SEO are going to be mutually exclusive?
>> I don't know because it they will try to stay in both as long as they can. But if it comes to a point that they will have to choose, I think they would choose China and China related um and Russia related because look uh many of the Central Asian republics are Turk. I mean they have ethnic and linguistic origins that are related. Now, the only way to have normal open border trade relations is if you are friends with Russia because if you're not, then Russia would just shut it down. Uh Russia has enormous economic, political, cultural influence on these lands. Uh they are all members of the Commonwealth of Independent States. And so Russia does not mind when they have cultural links or economic and trade. Doesn't mind it at all. Why? Why not? But it would if if it had military links, if it had some kind of panurism ideas uh that Russia would regard as dangerous. So, it seems to me that if Erdogan wants to develop this kind of a cultural umbrella Turk civilization, it's looking eastwards. It's only possible if you have good economic relations with Russia and China. Then Kazakhstan is a friend of Russia, friend of China, friend of Turkey. Everybody's friends with everybody and they could harmoniously develop. If one tries to dominate or be perceived as a western stoogge or or or ally or agent, then they're going to shut it down because they can do this. This is their neighborhood.
>> It's always great to get your thoughts and expertise, Dr. Brovkin. Thank you so much for joining and I appreciate you bringing in historic perspective and helping us understand and and really get into the details and nuances of the current events too. Thank you so much for your time.
>> Thank you. Thank you. Always happy to do it. Thank you.