Speaking With Our Enemies II

An interview with Russia's Kommersant newspaper

The future ain’t what it used to be.

~Yogi Berra

Just in time for the flurry of political theater, to put it politely, of the last several weeks between the United States and [insert European country], I had an interview published yesterday in Kommersant, one of Russia’s largest business newspapers. Before some of you get upset, Kommersant is described by the US government as being “one of Russia’s most independent remaining publishing companies.” It’s been cited for its acts of resistance against the Russian government and has been accused by the Russian government of publishing unfriendly “fake news” and disseminating state secrets. Coincidentally, BNE Intellinews examined Kommersant today as a case study of why sanctions are often counter-productive.

Last year, I was asked to appear on Russia’s Channel One. I declined due to my fears of violating US sanctions on Russia. I believe any sanctions that would impinge on my free speech would be unconstitutional and petty, but I received wise and trusted advice to be careful, and I chose not to appear. Unlike major American media, which generally does not provide perspective from the other side when it comes to foreign affairs, I was pleased that one of the flagship media platforms in Russia would allow someone like me, who has consistently criticized and condemned Russia’s actions, to appear on their program. And no, this is not general praise towards Russia. Instead it’s a suggestion that maybe things are more complex than our government and media tell us.

This narrow allowance of now being able to speak to overseas media not aligned with US foreign policy, i.e., not hosts of US military bases or customers of American weapons companies, is an improvement from the previous administration. Otherwise, aside from the arising diplomatic possibilities to end the Ukraine-Russia war, this reactionary, cruel and kleptocratic administration has been a horror show.

Russian media interviewing someone who has spoken like this for the last three years is not what our conventional understanding of Russia would suggest.

I’ve not written specifically about the Ukraine-Russia war since last spring, as my views have not changed substantially from what I said in New York at the UN or in London at the House of Lords.

My criticisms of Russia’s strategic errors in 2023 still hold, with the glaring exception of my belief that Russia’s invasion would serve to strengthen NATO’s internal relationships. The current US-Europe tension may well result in a weakened and revised NATO, one that sees the US remove itself from its 80-year role of guarantor of European security with an independent and heavily militarized Europe in its place. Perhaps, the long-sought EU army will finally be realized. I’m not sure this is the victory the Russians are looking for. I’ll stop speculating at this point and get to the interview.

I have pasted below the interview with Kommersant’s correspondent, Ekaterina Moore. The original interview was conducted in English on February 19, translated into Russian and edited for length. Below is the English re-translated from the Russian as it appears in Kommersant, except the second to last question, which utilizes my original English answer. I have lightly edited the translated English answers for clarity.

The interview focuses necessarily on a critical American perspective for a Russian audience. In the preceding paragraphs, I shared some links critical of Russia as a form of balance, because this interview primarily concerns my views on US policies, decision making, politics and society. I hope my answers provide Russian readers with a different perspective on US attitudes and opinions than what they receive from the US State Department and corporate American media.

Five years ago, I authored a similar essay on speaking with our enemies after speaking to 500 Iranian university students. Simply put, citizen diplomacy matters. We need more of it. Here’s the interview:

It has been about a year since your speech at the UN, where you said that there is no alternative to sitting down at the negotiating table to resolve the conflict; on the contrary, continuing to supply weapons will only lead to greater escalation, which will only lead to more deaths and destruction. Let's talk about the events that have happened since your speech at the UN. The new U.S. administration has de facto concluded that your messages were correct. Why do you think the previous authorities did not listen to your and other similar voices, although this corresponds to common sense? Why does the EU insist on continuing military aid despite the economic difficulties within the European Union?

It has to do with the worldview of both Americans and Europeans. Leadership and institutions within these countries have spent years, even centuries, shaping identity politics that implied the need for an adversary.

The slogan "democracy versus autocracy" has become a kind of archaic formula for the struggle of good against evil, in order to bring political benefits. The idea of a "free world" and the U.S. as leader of the free world has shaped international relations and domestic politics. Moreover, the idea of long-term historical hostility towards Russia was inherited by the U.S. from the British – this historical fear is quite deeply rooted in American ideology, starting with the First World War, when the Bolshevik seizure of power gave rise to fears in countries with a capitalist system that the same could happen to them. Fear of the "red threat" grew from the late 1920s, reaching its apogee during the Cold War. This worldview is so ingrained that despite many new challenges in Asia or Central America, this narrative continues to exert a profound influence on minds and sits deep in the political and cultural identity of the West.

The last years of the Biden administration have been the culmination of ideological attacks against Russia. I am not a supporter of the Russian government and do not support its actions, but Russophobia, especially since the 2016 presidential race, has become a key element of the Democratic Party's identity. It has helped unite Democratic supporters and old-school Republicans in a single impulse, justifying every American military and diplomatic activity on the world stage.

That is why the Democratic Party has used the fear of Russia against Donald Trump and the new wave of Republicans for the last decade. It is something that the Biden administration has been unwilling to let go of or change because it was not only convenient but also an integral part of their political identity.

What was completely ignored was that NATO's expansion to the east had become one of Russia's main grievances. Russian diplomacy saw this expansion as a post-Cold War power grab, a kind of expansion (let's call things by their proper names) by the American empire or the West in territories near national borders.

The culmination of this expansion was the desire to control the energy market in Europe and increase arms sales. American politicians made no secret of the fact that they were ready to support Ukraine as long as necessary, to continue the war, and to invest tens of billions of dollars because it was good for the American economy: the production and sale of weapons helped preserve jobs and stimulate economic growth. These statements came from both Democrats and Republicans, as well as from the White House. Obviously, there were commercial reasons for continuing the war. They all played a role. These factors contributed to the fact that the Biden administration did not seek a path to peace. For European governments, the situation was a little different, on the one hand, due to a sense of identity and a certain narrative. On the other hand, the situation for European leaders is much more difficult because their people are suffering from it (due to refugees, economic problems, rising energy prices after the end of cheap Russian gas supplies, and inflation).

If you look at recent events: the talks in Riyadh and U.S. policy about the U.S., Donald Trump calling Volodymyr Zelensky a dictator and members of his government attacking him. Will this affect the political landscape in Washington, or is this just a game of good cop, bad cop?

I think there is a lot of publicity here. This is typical of Donald Trump. We all expected him to turn back on Zelensky and call him names when he returned; that was predictable. However, the main thing is that Trump sees domestic political benefits for himself. A recent CNN poll showed that 78% of Americans support peace talks in Ukraine. No matter what you think about what he is doing to the U.S. government, to Palestine, or changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico, most Americans support his declarative statements about wanting peace in Ukraine.

In 2022, 72% of Americans believed Zelensky could make correct foreign policy decisions. By 2024, this fell to 48% due to battlefield developments. The prolonged war highlighted Ukraine's inability to win against Russia's superior resources. Even NATO showed limited capacity, with depleted reserves and faulty leadership. While criticisms of Russia exist, its leadership, populace, and economy were better prepared for war. The U.S. and Europe didn't display similar readiness.

Initial U.S. support for wars wanes as failures become apparent, linking wars to leadership failures and corruption. Despite U.S. media like CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post maintaining government lines, public support for war dropped. Four out of five Americans now favor peace talks for Ukraine, seeking news from alternative sources.

That helps Trump’s approval ratings, which are now at 53%, which is a record high for him. Trump sees this as an opportunity and will take advantage of it. He continues to bully people, including Zelensky, by suggesting that he is right to try to rely on the Europeans. Still, because Trump claims the United States has spent twice as much as Europe (which is not entirely true, but the exact numbers don't matter much to Trump, he often manipulates them to get his message across), he is better off making a deal with America, since Europe is not the main player here. Ukraine may just be a way for Donald Trump to reach a larger deal. With New START expiring next year, he is hoping not only for peace in Ukraine but also for a global strategic arms reduction agreement with Russia that would ease tensions and could lead to a reduction in the nuclear arsenal.

We heard Donald Trump say a couple of weeks ago that he wants to meet with Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping and try to cut the defense budget in half. If he could get even a quarter of that, that would be something, even if you don't support Donald Trump, that you have to agree with him on because it's something that no one else has done in a long time. The idea of ending the terrible war in Ukraine and then maybe reducing nuclear weapons is something that I think most Americans can identify with. That's why Trump is very good at what he's doing in the context of peace. You must respect him for that, even if you don't like him.

At the Munich Security Conference, we saw that the EU is essentially going against the will of the U.S. Can we talk about forming a new world order, where U.S. interests are limited to the Western Hemisphere and the struggle for power in Eurasia is renewed with renewed vigor? How does the idea of creating EU troops independent of NATO fit into this picture of the world? This is not new, but it has not been possible to implement it before.

About the new world order: I believe this should be considered globally - as the curtailment of American hegemony. It has become almost a cliche to talk about the empire's decline. The question now is not whether this will happen, but when it will happen. As you know, empires collapse quite quickly. The period of how quickly world empires rolled from governing the world to attempts to redistribute power within the country and retrograde is quite fleeting. A striking example is Britain after World War II - remember how quickly the British Empire shrank to a regional European country.

I think the Europeans should see what is happening with the U.S. as an opportunity to move away from American influence, especially since this administration has made it clear that Europe is not a priority for them, that the priority is Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and the Arctic. I think that for Donald Trump, it is a question of looking at things in terms of returns and investments, and he does not see the prospects in Europe anymore. You know, we talked before about how his predecessors, whether Democrats or Republicans, were loyal to institutions, to power, to structure, to laws. Donald Trump is different. He is still an imperial president, but his view of what the country should look like is different - his goal is not to preserve what he has now but to change it. That makes him strikingly different from Joe Biden, Barack Obama, George Bush Jr. and Sr., Bill Clinton, Reagan, etc. So, I think this is an opportunity for the EU to break away from America and find its way. It is also an opportunity to establish Europe as an independent force in a multipolar world, independent of the U.S. They will not need to call the American embassy before making important decisions. This is a good chance for Europeans who are thirsty for a Continental or EU army. However, the question immediately arises as to what will happen to NATO.

At the same time, I think building this identity and independence through Ukraine would be dangerous. They would essentially throw Zelensky and his government a lifeline instead of America. The financial deficit would be huge, it would impoverish their people, it would cause even more political division, which is already enough in Europe, and it would also lead to further militarization and cuts in social programs and the welfare of citizens, right? And, of course, if the Europeans do what they are threatening to do, send troops into Ukraine, they risk a continental war. So you can see that this is precisely the alternative to peace talks that leads rather to more militarism and even more war because of these peace talks. You have to be careful here.

If an agreement between the U.S. and Russia is reached and Ukraine and the EU agree, where will the compromise lie?

At best, you get an end to the conflict, an agreement that people on both sides of the dividing line can live with some stability. If we discuss the deal, I think it will look closer to what the Russians want. But there are many complications. Although the prospect of the deal as a whole seems encouraging to me, I am not sure it will go smoothly. Russia wants to annex four regions, but they do not control them completely. In the final deal, will they get full control over these regions or only the parts they control now?

Russia has also made it clear that Ukraine should not join NATO. As long as the U.S. is in NATO, such guarantees can be expected, especially with a Republican administration. A neutral Ukraine, on the model of Austrian neutrality during the Cold War, is proposed as a solution. On the other hand, Donald Trump has expressed a desire for the U.S. to continue arms supplies and aid, but what should we do about that? The idea is also to introduce foreign troops and European peacekeepers to Ukraine, but the Russians are categorically against it. Regardless of the flag of these troops, they are de facto part of NATO.

So, there are some real points of contention regarding the concessions both sides must make. And I think the Russians are willing to, you know, give up some territory if Ukraine becomes neutral. And then you have the other issue of the Ukrainians occupying parts of Kursk. They've lost a lot of people, but they still hold that Russian land. Will there be an exchange there?

You are an expert in post-war reconstruction - how long might it take to recover, given the extensive damage from military equipment and the mines that were used there? And finally, the idea that rare earths could be part of this agreement, how likely is that to happen?

Modern wars are a toxic legacy. Talk to people in Southeast Asia, Algeria, and Iraq. Women there, because of the pollution from modern wars, give birth to children with serious and abnormal births; the Russian-Ukrainian conflict will not be an exception. War is mines, unexploded bombs, missiles, and modern vehicles that were destroyed in combat, from which toxins are washed into the ground. Large parts of the territories under the control of both sides will be closed. It will take a very long time to dispose of all this. But even this will not be able to protect the population, and people will continue to die and suffer.

Ukraine has lost more than 10 million people as refugees. How many will return? The Ukrainian Minister of Economy warned of a population shortage two years ago. There will not be enough people to work and restore. So, there are all the prerequisites for the recovery to drag on for decades.

And I'm not even talking about the divisions within Ukraine itself, which will take a very long time to overcome. And it's not just the blatant divisions between Russian and Ukrainian speaking, but also the divisions among those who supported different sides. There's also corruption that needs to be dealt with. And let's not forget the fact that, essentially, Ukraine signed agreements with American and European banks, such as BlackRock, who will be responsible for the reconstruction. Essentially, they handed over their country to American and European banks. So, the prognosis for the future is not very good, but it's certainly much better than the current war.

What do you think about including REE in the deal?

I think Donald Trump and many Americans have blown a mountain out of a molehill. You have to rebuild the country before you can start mining any volumes to benefit from it. The same thing happened in Afghanistan. There was a deal to mine trillions of dollars worth of rare earth minerals. But in reality, there was no infrastructure to support all of this; it had to be built. And now, years have passed, and there is now a Taliban leadership, and the process has stalled. You can't compare Afghanistan and Ukraine head-on. They are two different countries for several reasons, but similar challenges exist. Also, many of these rare earth minerals and metals are on lands now controlled by the Russian military.

And how will things be with Russia after a possible deal? There is all this talk about ending isolation and returning to the G8.

It would be interesting to see how Russia handles this, wouldn't it? You know, over the last few years, we've seen a shift in the issue of Russia, its trade, its relations with Europe and other parts of the world. The idea that Ukraine is the front door to Russia, or the back door, if you like, I don't think that holds anymore.

Now, it all depends on how Russia orients itself. If Russia has done so well under sanctions in the last three years amid this war if its economy has adjusted, and if it is closing all these gaps in terms of domestic industry and domestic consumption because of sanctions, why should it turn around and go back to where it was a few years ago? Why should it "reintegrate" back and orient itself toward the West instead of advancing where they have had such success, in the East and the South? It will be intriguing to observe how Russia progresses within the context of Europe and the broader Western world.

You mentioned earlier that you have a more positive view on the resolution of the conflict in Ukraine than in the Middle East. Why is your view on the conflict more pessimistic?

The relationship between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu and the degree of support the United States provides to Israel will obviously eclipse what it was under Joe Biden.

When Benjamin Netanyahu returned from the United States, he spoke of opportunities and chances that Israel had never dreamed of before, full and unconditional support for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza and the West Bank, and their annexation. The idea of a greater Israel is alive and well in the minds of Washington. And so, Israel's expansion into southern Lebanon, Israel's expansion into Syria. These are things that have been given the green light.

Relations with Iran are also becoming even more problematic, and last week, the Washington Post and WallStreet Journal wrote that American intelligence does not rule out that Israel will attack Iran within a few months. And what will American support be in this case?

Donald Trump, meanwhile, talks about Iran, and he says he wants to start saying that he doesn't want war, and that may be true. But when looking at the bigger picture, look at Turkey and Iran. If Donald Trump is sincere in wanting a big deal with the Russians and the Chinese, if the United States sides with Israel, which is going to conduct operations against Iran, what will Russia do? What will happen to Turkey, which sees itself not just as a regional power but as a global power? We are seeing, of course, the strengthening of Saudi Arabia's role. So, if you start looking at the various processes in the world in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it becomes much more complicated.

In the short term, I am pessimistic, I don't see any hope there. I think, at best, we will get a return to what we had about a year ago. The Israelis are hoping that eventually, the Americans will be able to put enough pressure on the Egyptians or the Jordanians or some other country that will send cruise ships and take all these people, and that will solve the Gaza problem and annex the West Bank for the Israelis. That has been their main goal for almost 60 years.

What about Trump's idea of creating a resort area in Gaza?

This is just crazy, this is insane, and this is absurd, and I don't think Donald Trump meant it when he said it. But the bottom line is - I don't think you're going to see American troops in Gaza, but I think you're going to see the full support of the United States for Netanyahu. In my view, the end of the ceasefire is just around the corner. Some of the pressure on the Israeli government has eased, and some of the hostages have been released. So shortly, we may see the Israeli government say, look, Hamas has violated the ceasefire, and here we go, we're starting it again. They see this as the perfect opportunity to fulfill their ambitions of full annexation of Gaza and the West Bank.

Can we put an end to the two-state concept?

I don't think there has ever been a two-state solution since Oslo. I don't think the Israelis were ever interested in it. There is no one in the Israeli cabinet right now who is even close to anything resembling a two-state solution. And anyone who could replace Netanyahu, Yair Lapid, and Benny Gantz, or anyone else will never support a two-state solution. A one-state solution that continues to oppress the Palestinians is where it's headed.

Can you comment on the dramatic drop in support for the Ukraine War in the US?American support for Volodymyr Zelensky would always decline the longer the war continued. The longer the war went on, the more porous the foundational narrative of the war was to become.

This was a war that was always going to be a war that Ukraine could not win and Russia could not lose simply because of the comparative advantage Russia has in manpower, resources and industrial base. That's just not compared to Ukraine but compared to NATO.

American and European political, military and industrial leadership, capabilities and capacities are corrupted and hollow. I can throw a lot of criticism toward Russia, which it deserves, but the reality is the Russian leadership, people and economy were prepared for this war. Russia's military took time to adjust, but it did improve, and three years into this war, I think the Russian leadership and people are right to be confident in their military. The same cannot be said along those political, economic or military lines for the Americans or Europeans.

Initial support for a war but a decisive transition to opposing the war has been the case for American wars in the modern era since WWII. Early support for the war is generally high. However, when the war's moral, strategic and battlefield failings become clearer and more evident over time, US public support for the war decreases. It certainly doesn't help when the American public rightly feels or registers the malfeasance that permeates at all levels throughout the war. These wars then connect not just sequentially but familially in American minds and are understood as more of the same regarding the corruption of overseas wars.

And the final question. Do you believe that US-Russia relations can be improved in reality, not words, and what is their future?

Yes, I certainly do. There is a chance, especially if the US, Trump, and his successor do what they promise. If the Democrats come back, they will try to maintain hegemony. And then, of course, it is very dangerous. We have a saying in the U.S.: "A dying mule kicks the hardest." I am not a Republican, but I think if you have someone with Trump's way of thinking, with his point of view, a more mercantile type of thinking in terms of his foreign policy, not militaristic, ideologically driven, he will recognize the dangers of collapse, of recognizing the overextension of U.S. influence, of recognizing the dangers of the trap that we have created for ourselves.

A lot of people have written about this problem, our currency is the world's reserve currency, which is great, but it's also a trap because it means you have a really strong dollar, it's incredibly hard for us to sustain manufacturing, it's hard for us to be an exporter and not a consumer economy. So, I think if Republicans are serious about reorienting ourselves, we need to move away from hegemony and toward a more multipolar world. And I think that's the smart way forward. You look at other institutions, alliances, bilateral agreements, or multilateral agreements.

When Donald Trump breaks the trade agreements with Mexico and Canada that he made four years ago, it tells the world that the United States is not a reliable partner. And that is not the right approach, in my view. We need competent American leadership that can successfully manage the repositioning of the United States. And that essentially brings us back to the question of relations with Russia. Of course, if you could get a strategic agreement and return to normalization of relations, that would continue the path to normalization with other countries with which the United States now has difficult relations.

---

If you are interested on my current thoughts on Israel-Palestine, here’s my interview from last week with Judge Napolitano:

---

Some help?

I tend not to write very much. Last year, I authored only 15 pieces here on Substack, while doing more than 310 interviews, panels, webinars, speeches, etc. Several of those essays on Substack were nothing more than transcribed speeches. I have had people ask me to post my video and audio commentaries as I conduct them. However, I currently do not have the means to post them in a format other than Substack.

Even though I have been doing this form of work for more than 15 years, I don’t have a good grasp on the technology side of communications. I have no idea what an RSS feed is, for example. So, this is my long-winded way of asking for advice on how to post the appearances I do and speeches I give in a manner that is professional, not overwhelming and manageable. If you have any ideas or suggestions, please message me.