As I have mentioned in recent weeks, Russian daily talk shows like Sixty Minutes do not fabricate material for their audience. No, they take video and text from mainstream Western media outlets and put up on the screen very representative excerpts of what is being said in the West about the war in Ukraine. This is then discussed by panelists. Sometimes, when the material is especially outrageous in demonstrating the ignorance and or moral depravity of Western politicians, it is passed along to viewers without comment so that they may digest it on their own.
A couple of weeks ago, Russian television directed special attention to an interview with General Harald Kuyat that was properly published in the West. Kuyat is ex-head of the NATO Military Committee and, before that he was Germany’s highest ranking officer with the title of Inspector General of the Bundeswehr. The interview was originally posted on youtube in German: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws0wX6ZTjkk
The interview was given the title: “NATO General Kujat: Ukraine mit riesigen Verlusten, Selenskyj kann Krieg nicht gewinnen!” [NATO General Kujat: Ukraine has taken enormous losses, Zelensky cannot win the war!”]
If you have not heard about this interview, which is likely, the reason is not due to the language issue. A slightly shortened English language transcript of the interview came out soon afterwards and is available here:
The Russian news broadcasters focused attention on the evaluation this high military expert gave to the state of the war, in particular to the way that Russia is emerging much stronger militarily and economically than it was in February 2022, contrary to the expectations of the United States and its allies, while Ukraine has lost its military potential and cannot win however much assistance it receives from the West since its human reserves have been depleted.
Secondarily, the Russians called out General Kujat’s conclusion that the war could have been prevented had only the United States taken seriously Russia’s demands in December 2021 that Ukraine not be admitted to NATO and that the security architecture of Europe be renegotiated. Moreover, Kujat blames the United States and Britain for sabotaging the March 2022 tentative peace treaty reached between Kiev and Moscow, and for missing another opportunity to conclude a peace on relatively advantageous terms for Kiev in September 2022. He insists that Putin was and is open to holding negotiations while Kiev and its backers in the West have prevented them, even as Ukraine’s war casualties have grown exponentially.
Those of you who take the time to read the transcript will find that there are several other very important points in the interview that Russian broadcasters did not deal with. First, General Kujat remarks that quite apart from control of given territories formerly part of the Ukrainian state, no one will win this war in terms of their political objectives, and for that reason it should be ended as soon as possible before hundreds of thousands more are killed or maimed.
And the interview is remarkable for what Kujat has to say about his compatriots, about the German government leaders’ incompetence and irresponsibility, with, as one might expect, special mention of German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock’s personal contribution to the unfolding tragedy in Ukraine. I believe this merits a quotation at length:
The whole problem is that at least since the last change of government here in Germany, we have people in the leadership of the country who…Let’s just say that these people because of their incompetence and ignorance, make mistakes, and we have the policy that they pursue…
This is a dangerous policy. It is carried out fanatically, according to the same principle that a horse runs with blinders on his eyes. No one looks to the right or to the left. Benfits and losses for the Germans are not taken into account. But here’s the main thing: no one thinks what consequences such a policy will lead to for the Ukrainians. But they suffer primarily from the current fighting. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed, the country was destroyed. Our politicians take all this out of context and shout loudly: ‘The main thing is that Ukraine must win.’ It sounds like a mantra…
But, listen, this is not politics! This is not how politics is done. This is fanaticism. And this is a big disappointment. And, of course, it is very difficult to observe how all the experience that we have accumulated over the past decades is being forgotten. The German leadership is simply trampling on this experience, although it has come in handy both in foreign policy and in the security sphere. It was this experience that allowed us to achieve the reunification of Germany. Thanks to the policy based on this experience, we have lived in security and prosperity for decades…
I consider this behavior [of German politicians] irresponsible.
*****
Yesterday there was another German-sourced news item that received top attention on Russian state television’s Sixty Minutes: an article in the tabloid Bild suggesting that German Chancellor Scholz and U.S. President Biden have agreed to pressure Zelensky to negotiate a peace with Russia. Bild cites sources in the German government who say that the two leaders plan to scale back arms deliveries to Ukraine so that Kiev can hold the line but not have the means to advance against Russian forces and recover its lost territories. Zelensky will be urged to explain to the nation that it is time to open talks with Moscow. Failing that, the war should be declared a frozen conflict without any formal treaty.
In the West, the Bild article has been widely reported by media including The Telegraph and Yahoo News.
In Russia, the Bild article is in line with what they have been talking about on air for weeks, namely how the United States seeks to use the cover of the Israel-Hamas war to disengage from the Ukraine conflict, as if a nod and a wink from Washington is all that is needed to settle up with the Russians..
In talk shows like Evening with Vladimir Solovyov, the host and panelists all agree that their country will not stop until the objectives of the Special Military Operation are achieved now that the Russian forces clearly have the upper hand and are poised for a massive offensive. There will be no ‘frozen conflict’ until the Ukrainian armed forces are destroyed and there is regime change in Kiev, meaning the removal not just of the figurehead Zelensky but of the entire neo-Nazi gang that has directed policy since the Maidan coup d’état in February 2014.
Those in the United States who believe Vladimir Putin will settle for less are deluding themselves
*****
I close this essay with a step back from current events. I want to share with readers what I discovered last night while preparing old files in my archive for shredding now that I am about to move house and must ‘downsize.’
As I was going through documents from 2015, I came across an email exchange with Professor Stephen Cohen that is a valuable reminder not to ‘worship graven images,’ if I may put the lesson in Biblical terms.
Many of you knew Cohen as a profound voice on Russian affairs outside of classrooms, in mainstream broadcasting, going back to the late 1990s when he was routinely invited on air for comment by CBS, CNN and other major channels. In the new millennium he fell from grace as U.S. relations with Russia deteriorated and from 2014 on he was blacklisted by American television for what was deemed to be pro-Russian views. However, he remained accessible to a radio audience that was syndicated nationally and held forth once a week nearly until his death in 2020. His last book, War with Russia? is, regrettably, even more timely than when it first appeared.
For the six years till his death, I was in a close, almost daily correspondence with Cohen. We were co-founders of the American Committee for East West Accord. I was secretary and treasurer of the organization as well as founder of a European office of ACEWA. In that capacity on 2 March 2015 I arranged a round table entitled “Defining a New Security Architecture for Europe that Brings Russia in from the Cold” The venue was the International Press Club of Brussels, now re-launched as the Ukrainian Press Club – times do change! I was the moderator. Steve, his wife Katrina Vanden Heuvel and John Mearsheimer were the panelists. The show was videotaped and posted on the internet where it is still available for viewing: Press Club part1
In the dinner party at our home in downtown Brussels on the evening before the Round Table, John Mearsheimer and I had a chat over Russia’s place in the world. John was totally dismissive of Russia, even if he believed the country had to be given better treatment from the West.
A few days later I wrote to John after reflecting upon our conversation:
"You were fairly certain that [Russia] has no future and based your judgment on economic indicators, in particular GDP per capita, but also on the loss of half the population of what was the USSR, on the de-industrialization that took place in the 1990s, on the over-dependence today on extractive industries, and so forth."
I proceeded to explain why he was wrong, why GDP is a false measure of potential for Hard Power, and why the resilience of the Russian people would restore its position as a great power come what may.
I then wrote to Cohen about this exchange of views and he responded with the following email:
"In John you encounter what I did. He knows nothing about Russia and is dependent on all the lousy media 'sources' that abound. That's why I say he is a one trick pony we can ride only so far..."
Whether or not he is a ‘one trick pony,’ Mearsheimer’s dismissiveness based on willful ignorance and lack of feel for the country is much bigger than the man.
John Mearsheimer is the present day dean of the Realist School in American
political science. He holds a professorship at the University of Chicago which
from the days of Hans Morgenthau has been the cradle of the Realist School.
In principle, the Realist School bases itself on factual knowledge of each and every country that counts in global politics. In that respect it differentiates itself from the now dominant Idealist School, or Wilsonian School, which is embedded in globalism and the belief that people are the same everywhere and so knowledge of languages and country histories is not necessary; it is universal metrics like GDP which tell you all you need to know.
Regrettably, if John Mearsheimer cares not a whit about the intangibles that make a country great or otherwise, then it is a poor quality Realism he is preaching. In this he is by no means alone: Henry Kissinger, another leader of the Realist School in the 20th century also could not be bothered learning much about the country (Russia) that formulated and guided the Holy Alliance that came out of the Congress of Vienna which was the subject of his doctoral work. Henry’s love later in his life was China, as anyone who has picked up his volume On China will understand.
What I am saying is that the difference between Realists and Idealists in American political science is less than theory would suggest. And lest I be misunderstood, my remarks about the shortcomings of Mearsheimer with respect to Russia in no way detract from my admiration and respect for his courageous explanation of why the West is to blame for the Russian-Ukrainian war that goes back to an article he published in Foreign Affairs in 2014.
As a final point, my response to Mearsheimer on Russia’s underappreciated tangible and intangible assets led to publication of my article “Does Russia Have a Future?” which in turn provided the title and opening chapter of a collection of essays that I published later in the year 2015.
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2023