Here is Part Two of the interview, following the publication of Part One yesterday.
Q. In an unprecedented joint interview, CIA Director William Burns and MI6 Chief Richard Moore appeared together for the first time in history, addressing the Financial Times Editor Roula Khalaf. They remarked, “Putin’s grip on power doesn’t seem to be weakening, but don’t ever confuse a tight grip with a stable grip.” Given this perspective, what would be the broader implications for the Global South if Putin were to lose this war? How might such a loss affect geopolitical stability, economic conditions, and international alliances in the region?
A: When Russia—at the time, Soviet Russia—was strong, the global South achieved Independence and liberation from colonialism and imperialism. When Soviet Russia collapsed and post-Soviet Russia was weak, the West destroyed former Yugoslavia through a NATO bombing and cruise missile campaign for many months, invaded Iraq and Libya. When Russia regained its strength under Putin, Syria was able to avoid the fate of Libya. The ISIL was defeated primarily by Russia, Iran and the Hezbollah.
If Russia is defeated China will be easier to encircle. The world balance will shift and we in the global South will find ourself less independent, sovereign and autonomous; less free.
However, Russian history shows that the world’s largest country doesn’t stay down for too long. In the 20th century after early decades of defeat under Tzarism, it made a comeback with Lenin and Stalin; in the 21st, after Gorbachev and Yeltsin, it came back with Putin.
It is up to Putin and the present dispensation to do whatever is necessary within the realm of non-nuclear warfare, to make whatever changes to the state system and ideology, to defeat the NATO offensive strategy. The Russian people will find some way to resist, recover, fightback. There is a point beyond which Russia can never be defeated. The same goes for China.
Q. Meanwhile, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy remains in power due to Ukraine’s constitution prohibiting elections under martial law, recent internal shifts, including the removal of Army Chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi and the replacement of Dmytro Kuleba with his subordinate, suggest potential internal discord. What impact might a Ukrainian defeat have? Will the West tolerate such a humiliation, or could it lead to drastic measures akin to the US military’s approach in Fallujah, Iraq?
A: If the collective West was capable of seeing sense, it would have listened to its own great minds Kennan and Kissinger but it didn’t. In its greed to restore unipolar hegemony it is even speculating about fighting on Russian soil. It is already deeply involved in a military sense in this war. In its myopia, and its demonisation of Putin and Xi Jinping, it will actually create the conditions for a more determined, more clear-sighted Russia and China, shoulder-to-shoulder.
The West’s ignoring of Kennan and Kissinger will cause the upending of the entire world order it is trying to hegemonise. Once again, my attitude is influenced by my early reading of Mao, a thinker of great sweep, who declared in his last years: “there is great disorder under heavens! The situation is excellent!”
Q. We must also address the ongoing conflict in Palestine. Since Hamas’s brutal attack on Israel, over 41,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces. The war has expanded beyond its initial borders. During my recent visit to Tehran, shortly after the tragic helicopter crash that claimed President Raisi and his foreign minister, I observed widespread anger and unity against Israel and the US. This region is more deeply divided than many realise, with economies suffering not just from the conflict but from unilateral sanctions that harm innocent people rather than political elites. Professor Alena Douhan, the UN Special Rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures, during an interview with me, emphasised that these sanctions are ineffective and fail to achieve their objectives. Reflecting on our first interview nearly 20 years ago, when you discussed the Palestinians’ lack of unity and strategy, how do you view the current situation? Is a two-state solution still viable, or, as Scottish historian Niall Ferguson suggests, is it an unrealistic notion?
A: Under the Netanyahu administration, the IDF is behaving in a manner reminiscent of aspects of the Nazi armies. I am even tempted to term this ‘NAZIONISM’, that is to say, a combination of ‘Nazism’ and ‘Zionism’. However, I must also say that in the face of indescribable cruelty and suffering, the Palestinian people have displayed incredible courage, fortitude and faith. The fact that Hamas is still resisting from the tunnels—the catacombs of the 21st century—tells me that the spirit of the Palestinians can never be broken. The Palestinians resisted way before Hamas was born, and they will continue to do so even if Hamas and Fatah are no more. Not since the Vietnam war has a conflict in one part of the world impacted so much on the consciousness of youth in the West, including the USA.
I cannot say if the two-state solution is still possible or whether it will have to be one state solution along the lines of the dismantling of apartheid in south Africa, but I do think that the US election will be a key factor. If Harris and Waltz win as I hope they will, the Israeli public may replace Netanyahu with someone more congruent with US values—which in turn may open the road to a peaceful settlement. If Trump wins, the US may join Israel in an attack on Iran, and then all bets will be off.
Q. We are in a crucial period where the divide between the West and the Rest is widening, with immense challenges ahead. Initiatives like BRICS are significant, but it seems unlikely they will match the military might of the West. Most BRICS members focus on improving livelihoods rather than competing with one another. Meanwhile, the West continues to expand its military presence, exemplified by the Pentagon’s recent proposal to establish military repair hubs in Japan, South Korea, Australia, Singapore, and the Philippines. Although this might appear benign, it could be a precursor to future conflicts with China. As an intellectual turned diplomat who has spoken out against powerful countries’ interference in sovereign nations, how do you view this situation? What strategies would you recommend for policymakers?
A: Given the Western official material available in the public domain as well as a clear-sighted view of actual western behaviour, I have no doubt that the encirclement of China is part of Western grand strategy and a possible conflict with China has already been envisaged as a scenario.
I hope China understands that if Russia is weakened, bled-out, beyond a point, it will be more difficult to defend China. China’s strategic safety is inextricably linked with Russia’s and vice-versa.
As for BRICS, ASEAN and all other states mainly in the global south, they should realise the need for new Bandung Conference and a revival of the Nonaligned Movement or a new Movement with the Nonaligned concepts, to ward off a Western aggressive grand strategy which can lead to wars, including a world war.
I say this because Russia has made it clear that its nuclear doctrine is one which permits use—and doesn’t rule out ‘first use’—in case of a threat to the existence of Russia and a state, a country. In sum, the perception of an existential threat to the Russian state is the new red line. NATO may cross it.
To Be Continued Tomorrow
