"Transcript of Glenn Diesen interview, 29 May"
Gilbert Doctorow (May 30, 2025)
https://gilbertdoctorow.com/2025/05/30/transcript-of-glenn-diesen-interview-29-may/

Transcript submitted by a reader:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQNqBwqEiE4

Diesen: 0:00
Hi everyone and welcome. I am joined today by Gilbert Doctorow, an historian, international affairs analyst and author. And I would advise everyone to follow his Substack for some very insightful analysis of world events. Welcome back to the program.

Doctorow:
Well, very good to be with you.

Diesen:
I wanted to start off first with the topic of Germany, as this has been a key, well, event, and also it could be a very dangerous new step in this escalation of the proxy war. That is that Merz is proposing, this joint production of Taurus missiles with Kiev. Now Germany seemingly to me is looking for another way to attack Russia while claiming not to attack. I guess the whole problem is you want to change the rules of the proxy war. So if you send the missiles and they’re used to attack Russia, your fingerprints are pretty much all over this.

And as the Russians have said, they’re politicians, you have military leaders, the media, that these missiles will be operated by the Germans and that the Russians have the right to retaliate directly against Germany. So how can Germany attack Russia while claiming not to be involved? I mean, this is the difficult space they’re trying to maneuver, I guess. What are the rules of the proxy war? And so the next step now appears to be this joint production, which opens up a lot of questions. So how are you reading this situation?

Doctorow: 1:44
After I published this morning my “Hotsy-Totsy, another Nazi” essay — by the way, I take no credit for that terminology. It takes us back to the early 1940s and Charlie Chaplin and some other humorous viewings of what was going on in Germany, which was in fact not very funny. In any case, Chancellor Merz is taking a gamble, but he’s always been something of a risk taker. And he’s assuming first that the Article 5 would be successfully implemented to defend Germany if the Russians attack.

2:24
I think he’s also assuming that the Russians are good to their word, and any attack they make on Germany will be directed against a military installation, probably if it makes any sense, against the factory in, I believe it’s in Bavaria, that was producing, up to this year, the Taurus missile. And that it would not have a deep political attack on Berlin or on his government or on him personally. That’s a fairly safe assumption. It would possibly serve his purposes of driving up the German budget and the EU budget for military industry if the Russians in fact attacked Germany. So it’s difficult to read exactly what his calculus is. There is, I mean, trying to suggest there may be something rational behind what looks like a totally irrational position by Merz in Germany.

Diesen: 3:24
Well, what about the Russian position? Do you think, again, they want to come, this is a very stern warning coming from them. I mean, you hear the same from Lavrov, saying that this is a direct attack by Germany. And they’re also drawing some historical parallels, saying that the Germans are going the same path as they did more than once in the previous century.

And again, often we dismiss these things, I think, too easily. That is, we say, “Oh, we have the right to help Ukraine defend itself.” But you can argue that Russia has the right to help Yemen defend itself or any other country that NATO countries have attacked. But if you have Russian long-range missiles operated by Russian soldiers, guided by their satellites striking in the heart of London, we would not dismiss this as, “Oh, well, they have the right to assist a country with help, to self-defense.”

I think this dismissiveness and people are very cautious to speak against, I think, what the governments are doing, because well, anything you say now can be construed as helping, taking Russia’s side. So no one’s really allowed to say the obvious, but this is a direct attack. So how do you think the Russians will react? Is this mere bluff, or do you think that they would actually launch an attack, destroy these facilities? Because I mean, the threat from NATO is, you know, like all threats, is capabilities and intentions. And irrespective of any intentions from the NATO countries, if they don’t have the capabilities, yeah, why wouldn’t you go through with this?

Doctorow: 5:17
Well, let’s take a step back and see how the Germans got themselves into this situation, because it didn’t just happen with the personality of Mr. Merz, though that’s a big contributing factor. We have to go back maybe 10 years or more, when the Alternative for Deutschland started this all, which sounds a bit peculiar, given that the AfD is now one of the strongest resisters to what Merz wants to do. But they started this, in the sense that they made the claims of “Ami go home”, “Americans go home”, which had been a left-wing call previously. And they were saying that Germans of today, this generation, bears no guilt for the sins of their grandfathers, which is a reasonable thing to say, except if you happen to be German, and except if you happen to have Russia as a neighbor, which doesn’t forgive, but certainly does not forget what happened. 26 million citizens died in the war that was conducted, led by Germany.

6:25
So the AfD, I think unleashed this German, a new German thinking that “We are guiltless”, that “We are Europeans with European values” and allowed Germans, particularly the Greens, to step up on soapboxes and to start lecturing the Russians for violating human rights and violating the universally accepted principles of how states behave within Europe. So the AfD unleashed this, but then it was picked up by all German parties and it has gone a lot farther as we see today. It was adopted by genuine revanchist tendencies that are in the center and center-right, of which Mr. Merz is the outstanding case.

7:19
So that’s how we got to where we are. What does Mr. Merz expect? What could he expect? Well he could have is doubts, “Will the Russians really do this? After all, what we Germans are about to do is no more a violation of Russia’s red lines than what the Americans, the British and the French have been doing without any consequences.”

But I would just add, from the Russian perspective, the other three countries were once allies and they hesitate to identify them as Russia’s main enemies. Whereas Germany was not an ally, it was precisely the force conducting the devastating attack on Russia from 1941. And they have free hands to take their revenge on what they see as neo-Nazi-led country.

8:16
Now, just going back to Mr. Lavrov, and your paraphrasing him a moment ago, this is one, it’s like an inch away from saying that Merz is a Nazi. They said, “like Hitler, Merz is…” well, okay. That’s just a hair breadth away from saying that Merz is Hitler today.

Diesen: 8:39
Well, the idea though that, well, “the others are doing it so we can do this as well”. This is a dangerous way of looking at it, because Germany is not the same. That is, for one, the Russians have been seeing this dilemma for a long time, that is, “Do we strike back and then risk a wider war, or do we not strike back but then embolden our opponents to escalate further?”

So they’re under pressure to make a point, because within Moscow there’s people as well saying that Putin let this thing go so far because they kept crossing the lines which were set and there was no real consequence. Now this is my point, the Germans are not like the Americans and the French or the British. First of all, Germany doesn’t have nuclear weapons, so it would have to rely on the Article 5.

Second, as you said, Germany has also a very unique history in terms of the death and destruction it has unleashed upon the Russians. So a lot of this seems to be betting on the idea that Article 5 will stand. Article 5 doesn’t actually obligate the rest of the military alliance to attack, to come to their aid. I forgot the actual text, but it’s more or less they can take any measures they see fit, including the use of military force. But this idea that it triggers a forced military response, it’s not necessarily the case.

10:22
And even if that’s what the text said, I can imagine countries like the United States would think twice, honoring an agreement if this entails their nuclear annihilation. So are they betting now completely on this Article 5 of the NATO treaty?

Doctorow: 10:40
Well, if Merz is doing that, he’s making a terrible mistake. I think Donald Trump and his team hinted, or actually stated openly, that if any of the European countries pursue the war, the proxy war with Russia, they will be on their own. And that is exactly what the Russians would bring to the United Nations Security Council.

They’ve made their, outlined their future steps fairly clearly. They wouldn’t just push a button and send the Oreshniks here or there. They would take their case that Germany is now at war with Russia, and they would take it to the United Nations Security Council. And they would say openly, “We are now about to destroy this or that site in Germany”, knowing full well that their Oreshnik missiles are unstoppable, and the destruction that they are outlining before the world will take place.

11:40
So that is where Chancellor Merz is making a terrible mistake. He is, as you say, refusing to understand that Germany is not England or France, is uniquely vulnerable and will not, likely not have an American backup.

Diesen:
That’s a great point. Yeah, that the Russians probably would go this way too. Because one of the things that actually constrains Russia now, as the blood is boiling in Moscow, is the fact that they have other international partners, be it China, India, with which they would like to maintain a good reputation.

But if they go to the UN, explain, “Listen, this is Germany attacking us. There’s no two ways of looking at this. We have the right to self-defense. We’re not going to annihilate the nation, but we’re going to destroy, as now much of political leadership say, we’re going to destroy their military capabilities which are being used to attack us, which is a measured response.”

Then I think while they might not approve, the Chinese and the Indians and others might at least understand and, well, may not look the other way, but this would not be seen as being an irrational surprise attack.

So in your thinking then, if the Russians begin to take this to the UN, this is when the Germans should, well, effectively begin to expect a strike on their country.

Doctorow: 13:20
Merz is really exacerbating the situation. When he spoke yesterday with Zalensky concluding their talks, he spoke about this joint production without saying where it would take place, though, obviously not in Ukraine, because the factory wouldn’t last beyond the foundations if such a project were undertaken. But he left it at that. That is to say, he wasn’t contradicting directly his coalition partners in the SPD, the Social Democrats, who have continued the policy of the previous chancellor, Olaf Scholz, in refusing to ship the Taurus to Russia.

14:06
But today’s news, and this is the latest ticker on Russian news, is that he has said that they will deliver the Taurus after all. He’s speaking about within a timeframe of the next few weeks. Actually, when all of the Western countries aiding Ukraine, beginning with the United States, say they will do it in a few weeks, it means they’ve already done it. The missiles have already been delivered to Ukraine. So that is a foregone conclusion.

He is post-dating something that’s happened already. If he’s done that, and if the mission goes ahead, then we are just weeks away from the scenario that you and I have just discussed of United Nations Security Council discussion of it, and likely Russian attack on exactly what is not clear. The factory that has been producing the Taurus is out of production. They say they’re awaiting new orders. And so to attack a non-functioning factory doesn’t look like it’s accomplishing a great deal.

15:20
I also don’t know exactly where Taurus was produced, because it is a joint Swedish-German project. It could be that a lot of Taurus was actually built in Sweden. So this becomes more complicated than it appears at first glance.

Diesen:
Yeah, well again I also think one thing that’s not appreciated enough in the West is the extent to which the German history still plays in. Because we kind of think of Germany now as the country learned from its history and wouldn’t go down any of these routes any more.

But again, this is what the Russians see. This is the same Germany that’s as we speak actually, you know, being complicit in aiding a genocide as we speak in Gaza, but also the fascist elements in Ukraine. I mean, it’s not the thing– we’re, I think, too dismissive of here in the West now, which is kind of strange, because before the Russian invasion in 2022, this was a thing that, you know, the media spoke openly about, politicians could speak about. Leading Western media were discussing that, you know, the fascist elements in Ukraine was a problem, that they had too much influence. Then suddenly Russia invades and it just disappeared.

16:44
But it’s important to keep in mind that they disappeared from our media, not the Russian media. This idea that “Zelenskyy has Jewish roots, so we can just dismiss all the evidence of the actual people who have key positions” is very dangerous. And again, the way they see it, they see it as a wider historical continuity, I think, that is they see the Ukrainian elements in the fascist movements cooperating with the Germans in World War II. They saw after World War II the United States and others backing them to weaken the Soviet Union, and now it’s effectively some of the same again.

So just to repeat this point, I get the impression now that the blood is really boiling in Moscow. They’re very angry about this. I can’t imagine German missiles flying into Russian cities, killing Russians, and somehow they’re just going to look the other way. This is– I don’t understand how he came to this point. How is it possible that Germany is actually contemplating this?

Doctorow: 17:54
Well, the United States has contributed to this, and by specifically Donald Trump. As it may come out in our discussion further this morning, I am quite sympathetic to Trump’s intentions and initiatives. However, there are side effects, which he and his advisors surely did not anticipate. One of the side effects of the United States reducing its attention to Europe and withdrawing from NATO, if not de jure, then in practice by cutting back its support of NATO, is that Europe has been liberated and left to itself. And there are a lot of rotten things in Europe that were kept under the surface or invisible because of the American presence. Now that America is backing away from Europe, these forces are freed to show themselves and to try to take control of politics.

18:55
And Europe really is becoming a war project, not a peace project. So far, the animus and the hostility of feeling is directed against Russia. But I think the way Europe is headed right now with all of the revanchist forces that we see in Germany, they also have counterparts elsewhere in the continent. And we may see a lot of conflict within Europe that was kept at bay, that was kept under the surface by the American domination of Europe.

Diesen: 19:34
This has been, I guess, the benefit of having the Americans in Europe, though. It’s always pointed out that they were the pacifier that could preserve some cohesion within Europe, prevent too ugly competition and also from doing something reckless. I think we too often under the liberal idea was that we all discovered democracy and human rights and united under common values. But I don’t know, as a political realist, I have a tendency to see more in terms of power, that is the United States has been here and put a lid on some of these things. But now, of course, it is coming out.

20:15
And I think, given that we’re losing this war, we bet everything on this. I mean, the economy, we sent everything of our military, everything has been bet on defeating the Russians there. Now that we’re losing the war, you can see the desperation and the possible crazy reactions coming. But how would America position itself in such an event? If the Germans would now start to engage in such, let’s call them direct attacks on Russia, and Russia decides, well, it goes to the United Nations, “We’re going to retaliate, we have the right for self-defense.” What would the Americans do?

Doctorow: 21:01
Abstain. I think that Trump could get away with that. There are many limitations on his freedom of maneuver, even in international relations, as we see by the way that Lindsey Graham has gathered 80 votes in the Senate to impose severe sanctions now on Russia. But as to how you vote at the United Nations Security Council, I think Trump has completely free hands. And I wouldn’t be surprised if this comes to a vote that the United States abstains.

Diesen: 21:35
Well, it does appear that we’ve come to the point where at least the Russians see that they have a need to establish clear rules of this proxy war. Because again, as I began saying, I think this has been one of the key issues over the past three plus years. What is the rule of the proxy war? Again, former CIA Director Leon Panetta calls it proxy war. Boris Johnson, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, they all defined it as a proxy war.

And the kind of weapons you can use, it’s always escalated so we change the rules. And then I think it came a very critical point when we began to say, “Well, why should the war be limited to Ukrainian territory? Why should Russia be a safe space?” And then we opened up for again, German tanks rolling into Russia, missile strikes deep into Russian cities. But now, of course, the Russians are saying, “Well, why should Europe be a free space? Why is this immune for attacks?”

This is again, as your leaders recognize as well, it’s a NATO-Russia proxy war taking place within Ukraine. And again, the natural development is that this war will escalate and it will widen. So it’s just–

Doctorow: 22:53
Within Russia, within Russia, the latest polls are showing that Putin enjoys 82 percent confidence. But I don’t believe those numbers. Going back a year or two, some of my peers were saying that the Russian high command is very unsatisfied with the way that Putin is directing this war and so forth. I did not take that very seriously, because I think that the subordination of the military to civilian rule in Russia is 100 percent. But as we are today, I think Russians are quite tired of this war, and I think there is a strong undercurrent of opposition to its lengthy continuation of war of attrition for the next 20 years, which was what was hinted about by Mr. Medinsky in the last negotiations. So I think that Mr. Putin’s hand will be forced. I don’t think he has a choice domestically of responding with great force to any German participation in a missile attack or other long-range attack on Russia, that’s by air, that Germany facilitates or … facilitates. The country is a democracy in its own way, and he is not a dictator. He is not a Joseph Stalin.

24:18
When, it was several weeks, several days ago, rather shocking bit of AI reproduced Joseph Stalin on Solovyov’s program, in which Stalin was saying how the Russian people were so important in World War II, the Russians out of the whole Soviet group of nationalities, because the Russian people did not say our leadership– this is after 1941-42, when the Russian forces were rolled back to Moscow– they didn’t say, “Our leadership is not good; we should change it.” Well, this was, of course, quite a mockery, the notion that the Russians, civilian population could get rid of Stalin by saying that he was not an effective war leader. This strains our imagination.

25:13
But today it is feasible. Putin is not Stalin. And yes, he could be swept from power, I believe it, if he could not respond appropriately to a German attack.

Diesen: 25:28
Well, this pressure which is mounting on Putin to take a tougher line. You do see that the Russians are getting much tougher on the battlefield as well. And recently Trump had a statement that Putin is crazy, which is a very strange way to talk to another world leader, especially one when you’re in negotiations. But again, from my perspective, I saw it as also strange because as you were saying, he’s under great pressure, exactly not to be so soft, to be more aggressive, to respond to these escalations.

But somehow, yeah, this was Putin being crazy, which, you know, begs the question whether or not you think Trump is well informed because, yeah, President Putin himself came out and said that he didn’t think that Trump was informed. Why would the Russians go out with such a statement against Trump?

Doctorow: 26:40
The Russians, as Peskov made a statement like that, I think a very well calculated statement. They don’t want to let on to where they believe Trump’s sympathies are and what level of understanding they have of him. That would not serve their purposes.

And so they play along with the game, and they issue a very restrained diplomatic response that, yes, the situation is quite tough today, and we understand emotional responses. That’s how they handled it. But that’s not what they believe. They believe, or I believe that they believe, and I myself believe that Trump should be, not be listened to, he should be watched. What he says, everything he says, is calculated.

27:35
The notion that he is a buffoon, that he doesn’t follow the news, that he’s out playing golf and couldn’t care what’s going on, is utter nonsense, which he genuinely manufactures for the purpose of keeping his opponents off balance, for the purpose of allowing them to think that he is another Biden who can be manipulated by his nominal subordinates and can be compelled to do what they want, not what he wants. This is a game. He is a very good actor. He’s been on television. He knows how to act.

28:12
And this is, I find it surprising that some of my peers are taken in by this and decide that he is genuinely under-informed, that people are whispering in his ear and he’s listening to them. Not at all. I think the man who made this devastating, very well prepared speech in Saudi Arabia about the crimes of the neocons and how wonderful it was that Saudi Arabia had raised itself in prosperity by its own bootstraps and not by the American warriors who were introducing democracy and the good life into the world. That speech, he didn’t write it, of course, but he read it, and he knew what he was reading. And that was a speech that is utterly inconceivable as being prepared by a buffoon or delivered by a buffoon.

29:08
He knows what he’s doing. And I follow his feet. What is he doing, not what is he saying? And in this regard, he made through some very strange things, but which I anticipate, for example, what happens if the Senate bill passes that Lindsey Graham has put up and it is non-vetoable and he’s obliged to impose sanctions? I think this will be timed by Trump in a way that looks like an offset.

“Well, I’m walking away from the situation in Ukraine. It’s beyond our possibility to resolve. But I’m sanctioning the Russians to moderate their behavior. And I’m also stopping all this aid to Ukraine to moderate their behavior.”

29:59
It looks very reasonable. And that would be making the best of a bad situation. So I see him as being far more intelligent, far better informed, better informed, if you don’t mind my saying so, than you or I are. Yes, much more, many more sources of information than we have. And I think it is a mistake to underestimate what Team Trump is about. That doesn’t mean you have to like it, but to underestimate it is a mistake.

Diesen: 30:29
Yeah, now that is an interesting question, whether or not he’s a bit of a buffoon as they say, just listens to the last person talk to him or you know he’s easy to influence, or if this is as you said, a game because it is interesting how you know if he’s all incompetent how we ended up in this situation where it looks as if he’s trying to make a competition. Who can compete for his affection the most? Zelensky or Putin. And this is kind of how you’re going to obtain your power. Now this, you know, not linking yourself closely to either one of them and appearing neutral, it is a good game to play, because if you wed yourself to one, then you alienate one and the other one has nothing to fight for.

31:20
But I’m not sure if the Russians want to play this game though, because it looks now that the Americans have set up a situation where they can continue their proxy war against Russia while at the same time demanding essentially that Russia does not respond, because then they’re crazy, they’re aggressive and you will lose the affection of Trump. I’m not sure if they want to play this game. And in terms of the communication, do you think this on the Russian side is a deliberate role of former president Medvedev that Putin tries to be more measured in his speech, but then the good cop, and then he unleashes his pitbull, which is Medvedev who comes out effectively warning World War III.

32:03
Is this how they’re playing their information? Because I can’t imagine this is just, you know, this always seems to be the case that Putin comes with, you know, the soft option and, you know, here’s Mr. Medvedev who is our alternative.

Doctorow: 32:22
Yes, both sides are play-acting and that’s not surprising. Better they play-act than they go directly to one another’s throats. The position of Russia is to follow its own North Star. Last week, we heard recommendations from the States that the Russians get rid of Modinsky, that they appoint a new team, that they hand over their memorandum in advance.

What are they doing? The Americans will know about the Russian memorandum on the 2nd of June when it’s delivered to the Ukrainians. No advance information. The discussion that some people, including Americans, put up that the negotiations be moved to Geneva. It’s not going to be moved to Geneva. The Russians and the Turks agreed it’s going to be in Istanbul and it will be in Istanbul if it takes place at all on the 2nd of June. Mr. Medinsky will head the delegation.

In short, the Russians are listening to Mr. Trump. They’re not insulting him, but they’re doing what they damn well please according to what they think best defends their national interests. And that’s how it’s going to continue. Mr. Trump can pretend that he’s influencing or directing things, but he’s not.

Diesen: 33:50
On the negotiations though, why is there no actual NATO-Russia negotiations? Why is– because I was making the point long before the Russians invaded, that the conflict was being artificially constructed as a Ukraine-Russia conflict. But, you know, because NATO said, you know, we’re going to expand, we have an open-door policy, the decision has been made. In other words, this whole great power responsibility between the Americans and Russians to come together and find a European security architecture that isn’t too zero sum in nature, that this was effectively, they closed the door on this thing. Now we’re going to expand. If you want to prevent this, then you have an issue with Ukraine effectively.

34:33
And we’re still continuing down this path. That is the idea that Ukraine has to give up on its NATO ambitions. I don’t think Russia would be even content with this because Ukraine can change its mind next week. It had this in its constitution. It wasn’t supposed to join any military blocs. So–

But why are there no talks between NATO and Russia? Surely, these are the main two actors in the European security architecture, which should sit down and again, return to the whole Helsinki Accords format. How do we create Europe based on indivisible security without dividing lines? Something that is a positive-sum game.

Doctorow: 35:22
Let’s go back to December, 2021, and to the spokesman for the Russian Ministry of Defense, Deputy Minister Ryabkov. And there I find the answer to your question. There’s step one, there’s step two. Yes, the whole crisis in Ukraine was over the architecture of European security. And logically, as you say, the negotiation should be with NATO. However, what did Ryabkov say?

He said, we go back to the status quo and to before the expansion of NATO, 1997, 1999. We go back to that period. That’s what we want to reinstate. And if you don’t agree to it, we will push you back. Pushing NATO out of Ukraine is the most important demonstration of Russia’s ability to physically push back NATO. If it means marching on Paris, they will march on Paris. And I think everyone understands that.

36:32
If they destroy the Ukrainian army, they are in effect destroying NATO’s capabilities. And I don’t think that even the thickheads here in Brussels will miss that point. So step one is capitulation in Ukraine. Step two is capitulation in Brussels.

Diesen: 36:53
So, yeah, because, well, that was my last question. That is, even in Western media now, they have reports that the Russians are producing a lot of heavy military hardware. However, they’re also reporting that very little of this is going actually to the front. They’re already supplied sufficiently, they’re already manned. Instead, you’re seeing a very powerful army being built up in the rear.

And we also know that the Russians have Oreshnik missiles and they are likely putting this onto mass production to get as many as possible. But we’re not seeing any of the Oreshnik missiles being used either. Do you see the Russians preparing for a wider possible war? I’m not suggesting that this is a desired situation indeed. Even Western observers are recognizing that Russia has gone to great length to avoid a direct conflict with NATO.

37:52
But now that we’re reaching the final stages, the Ukrainian military is collapsing, the Europeans are getting very desperate, The Germans are now seemingly preparing to engage in direct attacks on Russia. But the Russians are setting themselves up, preparing for a wider war once the Ukrainian army has been broken.

Doctorow: 38:15
Let me go back to where we were at the start of all of this, when Lavrov said, bold truth, “If you want peace, prepare for war.” And that’s exactly what it is.

Diesen:
Well, that’s a good answer. So, okay. Well, Gilbert Doctorow, thank you so much for taking the time, on a holiday as well. So I appreciate it. So yeah, have a good day. Thank you.

Doctorow: 38:39
My pleasure.