Transcription
The destabilization of the Russian government, the possible removal from office of Vladimir Putin will have exactly the opposite effect from what they're thinking in Berlin, London, Washington, and Paris. It will bring to power people who are ready to strike against the West for what they have done to Russia via Ukraine. I think it's a question of weeks, if not a few months, when the Russians have control of the whole Donbas. And so what that is not the end of the war. What the Russians need to do is to find a solution that really is a knockout deal before Europe fully regards and believes that it's ready for that war because it doesn't know what it's getting into.
>> World War II is already happening.
>> This is a house of cards and it is in the process of collapsing right now.
>> You're going to see an economic crash which we've never seen.
All right, guys. So, we ran into a bit of a problem with this interview in that the first half of the interview was not properly recorded. Uh, fortunately, we're able to salvage the latter half of the interview with Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, and we will be having him back in the future, but I do think the second half still summarizes rather succinctly his point of view. So, hopefully you can still extract something of value from this interview. Without further ado, let's get to it.
Just to kind of summarize your position then, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, instability is increasing inside Russia and this is going to lead to some major political shift if Russia does not change the manner in which it's prosecuting the war. Is it safe to say that that's your general position? And and what is the timeline you think to when this instability becomes unmanageable and it reaches a breaking point because we're seeing an intensification of strikes week after week and it's only compounding and so it seems like it's just a matter of time before he is forced to make a significant move. Is that your position?
My advice to um to the EU leaders and NATO leaders is watch out what you wish for. The destabilization of the Russian government. The possible removal from office of Vladimir Putin will have exactly the opposite effect from what they're thinking in Berlin, London, Washington, and Paris. It will bring to power um people who are ready to strike and reprisal strikes against the West for what they have done to Russia via Ukraine. It is very dangerous for us all if this destabilizing ambition uh continues because it will subject us all to the possibility of utter destruction. If the Russians who are want to do what Mr. Kagon has said and use nuclear weapons against Europe, if they come to power, then there will be a horrible European war.
What about the Belarusian situation? Uh Lukashenko recently went to Russia and had a two-day visit with Vladimir Putin and then apparently immediately proceeded to China. Uh all of this on the backs of threats by Zelensky apparently that the Belarusians were aiding and abetting the Russian relaying of drones and that war effort there in the north and these rumors that you know potentially there could be an invasion from the north or that the Ukrainians might invade Belarus. Uh what do you make of that whole situation?
>> The Russians said this was a demand that was imposed on uh Zelensky when he visited the G7, imposed on him by the European attendees at that meeting who told him, told Zelensky, either you do this or we can't, we cannot any longer provide for your personal security. He got the message and he passed along that threat to Lukashenko. Uh he also, they listed something like 550 targets within Belarus that they're prepared to strike if the Belarusians were not cooperative. Well, uh, Lukashenko took a couple of days to respond to these threats and he received a couple of emissaries from Zelensky and he told them that if he would drag us into this war, this war will change dramatically. Uh, my reading of that is he's telling them that he will do what Putin is not ready to do and decapitate Ukraine. That's entirely within the personality of Lukashenko. He is a very bold. He is a risk-taker. Uh when the Poles and the Lithuanians were pushing the revolt, the kind of Maidan in Belarus in favor of the failed presidential candidacy of Tikhanovskaya. Mr. Lukashenko came out on the streets with a machine gun in his arms with his son also bearing a machine gun facing the hostile mobs. Well, a man like that uh is not a, is not going to take instructions from from Putin or from Xi. He will do what he sees is necessary to ensure that those 500 or more targets are not going to be hit by Zelensky. So I think he put an end to this. Uh, but it brings the whole incident, I said, the Russians explained of the G7 intervention. Interestingly, our French-speaking newspaper here in Brussels, one of the two main dailies, Libre Belgique, had a two-page article on Zelensky and his threats to Lukashenko. and they repeated uh without citing the source this very same interpretation that Zelensky had been put up to this by the NATO members who were who were present at the G7 that he was invited to.
Does Lukashenko though have the capability to, I mean, if the Russians are having a problem with Ukraine, does Lukashenko have the conventional forces required to neutralize the Ukrainian threat in the way that you say?
>> Right. He has a standing army of 100,000. He can instantly raise that to 200,000. He has a potential of raising it to 500,000 men. I think that's a pretty good force against Ukraine, wouldn't you?
But the Belarusian population is what, like 10 million people?
>> They had enormous losses in World War II and that uh influences their every action on the on the international stage. They are ready to defend defend themselves.
Does Lukashenko have authority? I mean, obviously, he was given nuclear, well, not given, but he's playing host to uh a variety of non-conventional weapon systems uh that the Russians have put into position in Belarus. Is that something that he would be willing to to utilize in that case? Cuz I just can't see the Belarusians having the capability to conventionally do something that the Russians haven't even done yet. Like, I I find that hard to believe.
>> The Russians haven't done it for lack of will. I'm suggesting that Mr. Lukashenko has plenty of will. And the interesting question though is where does his population stand on this? And uh again, the Libre, I think it was mentioned that uh the the polls of the Belarusian population until recently showed that they had sympathy for the Ukrainian people. However, Zelensky's attack on a bus that was carrying out 20, 30 Belarusian students south, probably to Crimea or to some Russian resort on the Black Sea. It was attacked by drones which very insistently and very, very specifically to to kill. They killed the drone, injured maybe a dozen um of these students who were sent to hospital, some of them seriously wounded and it killed the lady chaperon of this group. When that news broke, the Belarusian people, they were ready for anything against Ukraine. So he would have the backing. Lukashenko would certainly have the backing of his people if he were to engage uh in a war with Ukraine.
>> This is usually the part of the video where we inject the annoying commercial, but this one is actually important. To commemorate Independence Day in the USA, the world's premier freeze-dried food producer is offering a limited-time offer of 20% off all of their delicious 30-year shelf-life food. You can use the coupon code Canadian Prepper for this exclusive offer. This company has years of experience stockpiling the US military's pantries, bunkers, and submarines. Don't miss out on this amazing offer. And now back to the video.
Do you think that the spirit of Anchorage, as it was called, has completely dissipated? I I know the the Russian government tends to when speaking about Trump, uh they tread lightly and there's very little criticism of the Trump administration even though uh it's obvious that the American government is enabling Ukraine to do what it's doing. Uh is there a sea change towards that coming? Is is there a point in which they do become more critical of Trump's uh seeming lack of of interest in reigning in Ukraine? Uh or will there be a a change in attitude towards the Trump administration?
>> Well, the the uh speaking about Putin's position on on Trump, I don't think there was any naivete here. Although maybe briefly there was that when they met in Anchorage after all. But I think that it was tactical in order to keep the Americans separate from the Europeans to ensure that Trump would not join the Europeans uh openly in their measures against Ukraine. Sorry, the in their measures against Russia. the that that helped. He has not uh reversed his policy of um holding back American gifted um war material equipment uh and has only allowed Europe to buy some equipment for delivery to to Ukraine. In that sense, there was some logic to what Putin was doing. uh but there was always the awareness that um these attacks particularly on infrastructure are enabled by the United States. So um there's no big sea change coming in that relationship. The the Russian animosity is more directly against Germany, which is now enemy number one, displacing the United States in that sense. And they're very concerned about what they see as the neo-Nazi position of German Chancellor Scholz, about the fact that he uh is what is the the son, the son of of SS officers. I forget exactly the that they the intimate connection between the um the SS officers and the German government today uh is something of great concern to the Russians. and makes them more uh have greater animosity towards Germany than towards the United States.
Who do you think uh benefits from Russia's current approach? You talked about the oligarchs. You talked about how there might be some interest in military industrialization and profiteering in in that way. uh there must be somebody powerful enough to benefit from Russia's willing to sacrifice and incur this damage because as you've said, if nothing significant happens by September, then Putin might not be long for the position of uh the presidency in Russia. So there must be somebody benefiting from the manner in which Russia is very slowly prosecuting this conflict. Have you had any other thoughts? I know last time we spoke, you you kind of discussed uh the fact that yes, there is a military-industrial complex inside Russia which is very similar to the one in the United States and that there's a vested interest there. >> Have you refined that opinion at all or I know that's not, you're not dead set on that perspective, but that's something that you talked about.
>> Let me correct this. The the Russian military industrial complex is not like the United States. It is not private. It is um that these are government-owned factories where the where the oligarchs come in is that they're suppliers to those government factories. They these all require steel, concrete, you name it. And who produces them? Not government factories, private factories. So in that sense, the suppliers of critical uh raw materials to the military-industrial complex, which is state-owned, uh are is privately owned, oligarch-owned uh factories, mines, and whatever that is where they would take profit, not from producing. Uh, now there are some private, some small private companies selling drones, selling parts for drones to the uh to the Russian military, but I don't believe that they are oligarch-controlled. Uh, so I don't see that as a as a motivation for oligarchs to pursue the war. They just simply profit, and they profit from many things. The now there's the question of um of loans, the question of the interest rates. We all know that uh that Nabiullina raised Russian the Russian prime rate to over 20%, 21% for months on end, saying this was to fight inflation, which was utter rubbish. The econ, the effect on the economy was quite the opposite because it deprived small and medium-sized businesses of working capital, and these small and medium-sized businesses were mostly suppliers to consumer needs. So if the production of goods and services to consumers stagnates or declines, uh, whereas the amount of money in circulation increases, that is an instant formula for inflation. So the idea of 21% uh was not, it was not there for the reason that was given to the public. It was there to oversee the um militarization of the Russian economy, to take uh men and material away from the consumer sector and put it into the military-industrial complex. That is what it was all about. And the the um uh the oligarchs were not hit by this. They were favored. They received um privileged interest rates. So they're paying 3 or 4% interest rates on loans, and the middle class, the media, these these small independent uh producers and service providers are paying 20%. So there you have an indication of how the big boys were favored by the by the um Putin government during this this wartime.
You've uh diverged from your peers who in many ways vociferously have attacked you and in a way that I've always thought was unjustified for criticizing Vladimir Putin's approach uh to the conflict. And your your assessment seems quite reasonable. Why do you think some people, your your colleagues or your people within your cohort are so vehemently opposed to any alternative way of viewing the manner in which the Russians are conducting the conflict? Like because it seems like, you know, they're they're very passionate. I've never seen you disrespect anybody, but it seems like I've seen many disparaging remarks uh towards you. Why do you think that is?
Because they don't know the field. This is not my subjective statement. Like someone like Ritter would say, "Dr. Doctorow doesn't know what he's talking about," and who dis, who disregard my academic credentials. No, I'm not saying that none of them is a Russia expert by definition. They have all, they are all opportunists. They have come to enjoy enormous popularity on the podcasts for saying passionate things, and their source of information is perversely the the people around Putin. They have been Putin cheerleaders without knowing much about Russia and frankly speaking, without caring about Russia. For almost all of the people whom you see on the podcasts, and certainly for a great many of the viewers of these podcasts, Russia is an abstraction which is only interesting in so far as it is the enemy of the United States and of American global hegemony. Uh, that is the Russia that they that they adore, and they supported Vladimir Putin because they thought that he is the leader of that Russia that is ready to break down the walls and to get and to end the American hegemony and to support the global south. Well, my friends, uh, what I am saying, I'm not the only person who says that, but thanks to uh Judge Napolitano and a few other people, and I hope this program is well, my voice has has gotten a lot of attention and has reverberated, whereas many of the other people who are saying the same thing that I'm saying are simply invisible to the general public. So I I don't take special credit for um for being the only one to see to see what's going on. I also want to emphasize that those of my peers who believe they have their arms around Russia and uniquely understand it because they have friends in the circle of Putin, of of Putin, because they're invited to to second row of the plenary session of the um of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, because they have these friends around Putin, but they have no other source of information and they have discounted what is available. When um someone like Scott Ritter said, I believe was on the Judge Napolitano program a week ago, that he was down in Donbas, he was down in Donetsk and he saw that the Ukrainians really are fighting hard. My goodness. I was saying that two years ago, watching the interviews on Russian state television of the soldiers at the front. I didn't have to go down to Donetsk personally to see that. And the problem is that my these colleagues, they don't speak Russian, and so they can easily say, who needs Russian television because they can't understand it. There is such a thing as expertise. It has a place in this world. It doesn't guarantee infallibility, but it also should have a certain measure of humility. Russia has 145 million people, and anybody, whether it's Dr. Doctorow or Ritter or Johnson or McGovern, any of these people who say that they have a perfect understanding of what the Russian public thinks, that is utterly inexcusable. I try my best to to present what I see, and I never say that it is the absolute truth.
Yeah, I think the the people who write off the possibility of things like a palace coup or, you know, dissent uh reaching a critical mass inside Russia, there's a there's a real danger in that uh in that if you were like an advocate for fairness and and justice and you wanted to see both Russia and, you know, the West thrive, you run the risk of creating a situation where Russia makes many missteps and in fact does collapse upon itself and fall on its own sword. So I I think that what we're seeing now is a lot of your peers are coming into alignment with the very even-keeled perspective that I think you've you've put forth and, you know, I I know Mark Labott gets a lot of things right and he kind of views it through the realpolitik lens that I think you do in a way, but perhaps he's a bit more sympathetic to the Putin, Putin-splaining, if you will. Uh, but I, you know, I respect the perspective of both of you guys and I, I like that there's divergence. I like that we're not in an echo chamber because I think, like you say, when people speak really passionately about these issues and lack humility, that actually will backfire for the cause they claim to represent at some point. So, you know, I would encourage you to continue. And, you know, there's that old expression, what is it? uh first they ridicule you, and then they then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win, or something. So, I think we're we're kind of entering into that realm of the Overton window where your perspective is starting to be realized. And, you know, I think it's only a matter of time before people start getting real with respect to what the the Russians have to do in order to put an end to this conflict. Um, I guess I'll just lastly ask you, what is your, if you were to, you know, look into your crystal ball, where do you see this going in terms of the movements along the front line in the next six months? And, uh, what are the, uh, range of outcomes that we might be looking at?
Well, as I think that there was general agreement that although the Russians have not gained a lot of territory in this spring compared to a year ago because of the drones which made uh big operations in open fields impractical or terribly uh destructive of your own manpower. Uh nonetheless, they are concentrated on key fortified towns and they are in the point of taking Konstantinovka, which is uh leads them to the two smaller towns that are fortified, an agglomeration of fortified towns of Kramatorsk and Sloviansk, which are the last redoubt, the last fortified defenses of the Ukrainian forces within Donbas. I think it's a question of of weeks, if not a few months, certainly early autumn, when the Russians have control over the whole of Donbas. And so what, as I say, the that's not the end of the war. There, the Ukrainians are not going to roll over and die. They just got $95 billion in loans, half of which is being dispersed, and that will keep them going. Uh, what the Russians need to do is to find a solution that really is a knockout blow. Uh, if they don't want to be knocked out themselves, because otherwise we find in front of us is three years uh during which the Russians are tied down, suffering very big infrastructure losses, while Europe re-arms and prepares for a war. a war which Europe doesn't need because it will be devastating. The Russians, if assuming that Mr. Putin is replaced, because it's it's inconceivable that he will stay in power till 2030. Um, if the more aggressive people in his circle or outside his circle take power, then the war that the Europeans are looking for will be, my goodness, something of utter devastation of European civilization. So I hope and pray that a solution will be found to this before Europe fully re-arms and believes it's ready for that war, because it doesn't know what it's getting into.
>> If Putin was to be replaced, who do you think the most likely successor would be?
>> I have no, I have no idea. I have my, I had my own personal uh favorites. Discuss. This is interesting. When you discuss this with ordinary people, you find that ordinary people know a lot. I was discussing with a moving company guy who was, I spent 12 hours with him when they were packing up my possessions in an apartment uh that we got, that we sold. And he told me, he asked me, "Well, who do you think will could succeed Putin?" I said, "Well, it could be Sobyanin. He's very good." And this moving guy, some company guy said, "What do you mean? He's just a, he's just a manager. He's not a leader." So, yeah, I don't know who could replace Putin, but I'm, I had a, I had a boss 30, 40 years ago when I was still rather uh fresh in the business world who said the cemeteries are filled with irreplaceable people. And that's certainly true. Who ever heard of Putin before he was, he got, he got the appointment from Yeltsin? Of course, he was there. Everyone knew knew his name from his uh conduct of the second Chechen war, and uh, and yet it was not envisioned this man could be the replacement to to Yeltsin. So who could replace Putin? I don't know. But you can be sure there are people waiting in the wings.
>> Interesting. And uh and lastly, with respect to Iran, does that factor into Putin's strategy at all? What is happening with Iran? Like the war flares up again? Is there something that's going on there that is impacting the course of action in in Ukraine?
>> Let's burst a bubble here. The notion that Russia and China are the fighters for the global south is another fiction of our day. They, I don't see that China or Russia did most anything worthwhile to help Iran in this war. Iran won the war because Iran understood that uh this asymmetrical approach, fighting not militarily but economically against the United States, was a winning hand, and they were right. So uh the notion that Mr. Putin is trying to think how he could help Iran doesn't exist. Uh, the the Iran has been a very big factor in Russia, but for a very different reason. It woke up the the Russian um uh public, and certainly woke up all of its geopolitical experts to just how cowardly their country looked on the world stage. When you saw the boldness, uh, Mr. Putin spoke for several years about sovereignty, while Russian sovereignty was dwindling in front of our eyes in the sense of uh, its loss of its deterrence factor. Iran stood up to the biggest military force in the world and won the war. That had an enormous impact on the self-consciousness of patriotic Russians, and it was not to the favor of Mr. Putin.
>> Interesting. Okay. Uh, where can people find more information uh about you, Dr. Doctorow?
>> Well, I hope that they will look me up in the search box of Amazon, and find uh my three volumes of war diaries, which are um unusual. I want to stress that this is a day-by-day account of what people are thinking about the war, including uh links to podcasts like this, so they can see what was on the public mind uh about the war day after day and week after week um and how that changed. And I point out in the introduction to these books the turning points as I saw them. Uh, they are primary sources, and they are history looking forward. That may sound like a contradiction, but I'll explain. History looking backward is very simple. It's all straight line. Uh, history looking forward, there are all kinds of possibilities, and we don't know about the paths not taken. So it's a different perspective, a different way of approaching these things to see how we all understood the situation as it was unfolding versus how it all turned out when when the dust settled. So in that sense, I I think that readers will find this refreshing, and each book is different. Uh, the last of the the following three uh called The Year of Trump, and I insist that uh this negotiation process with the Russians, the Ukrainians, uh overtook the action on the field of battle as in our news and in our consciousness. So that is a definitive nature of volume 3, and volume two has its own definitive nature in volume one, uh, as well. Uh, I particularly, uh, emphasize the the links that I've made to to the relevant podcasts and and news in interviews, because I have been on almost daily on on Indian broadcasting, that is NewsX World, and I've been on Iranian Press TV television, and the links are there, so they can see not just what the American uh viewing public broadcasts wants to know, but also what uh these other countries are thinking about the war.
>> Well, there's no doubt going to be a million stories to tell when, if and when the dust settles on this this conflict, and I'm sure it'll make its way into many uh a movie adaptation. I'm going to post the link to your books in the description below. So hopefully that is helpful. Uh, thanks a lot for coming out today, and I look forward to speaking with you again in the future.
>> Well, thanks so much for inviting me.
>> The best way to support this channel is to support yourself by gearing up at canadianpreparedness.com where you'll find high-quality survival gear at the best prices, no junk, and no gimmicks. Use discount code prepping gear for 10% off. Don't forget, the strong survive, but the prepared thrive. Stay safe.