Kind: captions
Language: en
They end up chanting in front of him,
"Viva
Lamuete, long live death." They have
their counterparts today. They are the
people who who taunt Americans,
Westerners, Israelis, and others with
lines
like, "We love death more than you love
life."
The following is a conversation with
Douglas Murray, author of The War in the
West, The Madness of Crowds, and his new
book on democracies and death cults. We
talk about Russia and Ukraine and about
Israel and Gaza. Douglas has very strong
views on these topics and he defends
them brilliantly and fearlessly. As I
always try to do for all topics, I will
also talk to people who have different
views from Douglas, including on the
next episode of this
podcast. We live in an era of online
discourse where grifters, drama farmers,
liars, bots, sickopants, and sociopaths
roam the vast, beautiful, dark land of
the internet. It's hard to know who to
trust.
I believe no one is in possession of the
entire truth, but some are more correct
than others. Some are insightful and
some are delusional. The problem is it's
hard to tell which is which unless you
use your mind with intellectual humility
and with rigor. I recommend you listen
to many sources who disagree with each
other and try to pick up wisdom from
each. Also, I recommend you visit the
places in question as Douglas has, as I
have, or at least talk face to face with
people who have spent most of their
lives living there, whether it's Israel,
Palestine, Ukraine, or
Russia. Let's try together to not be
cogs in the machine of outrage, and
instead to reach toward reason and
compassion.
There is no Hitler, Stalin, or Mao on
the world stage today. Plus, there are
thousands of nuclear weapons ready to
fire. Human civilization hangs in the
balance. The 21st century is a new
geopolitical puzzle all of us are tasked
with
solving. Let's not mess it
up. This is the Lexman podcast. To
support it, please check out our
sponsors in the description. And now,
dear friends, here's Douglas
Murray. What have you understood about
the war in Ukraine from uh your visits
there? Just looking at the big picture
of your understanding of the invasion of
February 24th, 2022 and the war in the 3
years since. Well, I mean, several
things. There's
a political angles which are forever
changing.
But on the human level, as as you know,
if you visit troops, frontline troops,
you have that admiration for people
defending their country, defending their
homes, defending their families. I'm
struck by the way in which that is at a
remove from the sort of political noise
and the media noise and and much more.
Um, it's very easy to get caught up in
the twos and fros of today's news, but
uh that to my mind is is that's the
single thing that struck me most in my
visits there uh is just um the the
people I've met who who are fighting for
a cause which at that level is
unavoidable, undeniable. So the thing
that struck you that's different from
the the media turmoil is just the
reality of war. Yeah, of course. I mean
um you know people who
uh have either lived
under Russian occupation from invading
armies and then come back out into the
world having been liberated as in late
2022 or the people now organized most
recently there in recent weeks who were
just getting on with their job as
soldiers
uh whilst the world was talking about
them. When were you there? In early on
in this escalated war of 22. Yes, first
time was in uh I was with the the
Ukrainian armed forces when they retook
Kersan and I was back in recent weeks
and was there when the Trump Sinski blow
up happened. In fact, I was with I was
in a Ukrainian dugout at the front lines
when I was watching it. How's the
morale? How's the way the content of the
conversations you've heard different on
the from the two visits separated by I
guess two years one
level I mean nothing has changed much
you know it's a sort of it it's not a a
total standoff because intermittently
each side gains territory from the
others but it's it's not I mean there
have been no very significant military
gains by either died in the interim
period. I think uh my experience of the
the soldiers, the people of Ukraine
early on in the war, there's a intense
optimism about the outcomes of the war.
There's a sense that they're going to
win and the definition of what win means
was like all the territory is going to
be one back. Yeah, I I certainly uh on
the front lines facing Crimea was uh
became quite familiar with people who
thought that the Ukrainians in late 2022
would even be able to get Crimea back.
And that struck me even at the time and
I said I I thought that that was an
overreach. And uh now I
think the people the soldiers at least
in my experience when I visited the
second time are more exhausted.
The morale,
the dreams, the certainty of victory
has has maybe faded from the forefront
of their minds. Well, 3 years of war
will tire out anyone. What did you think
of the blow up between Zilinski and
Trump as you're uh sitting there in the
dugout? Well, it is it was a very uh
disturbing place to watch it from.
Perhaps anywhere would have been.
Um,
and I mean obviously it was a meeting
that shouldn't have happened. It was far
too early. Why do you think so? There's
not enough actual pathways to peace on
the table. Well, I think the mineral
deal I mean I love the fact that
everyone's now an expert in Eastern
Ukrainian mineral deposits. But I think
uh as I've learned and we'll talk about
Israel and Palestine. I'm learning that
everybody's an expert on geopolitics and
the history of war on the internet and
now mineral deposits obviously. Yes, the
I'm really speaking at the edge of my
mineral deposit knowledge here, but no,
I mean I from what I could see, the deal
that that uh the American administration
was trying to uh get the Ukrainian
government to sign was was sort of too
early to
um forced. The Ukrainians weren't were
ready to sign a deal, but were obviously
under intense pressure. Um, and I think
certainly Zalinski wasn't expecting to
actually wasn't expecting to go until
pretty much the day
before.
Um, was obviously visibly tired and
exhausted again as you are after that
amount of pressure for that long a time.
And um no, I mean the thing that struck
me and I I said this in my column in the
New York Post from there that uh the
thing that struck me was I said to some
of the soldiers I was with uh you know
what do you make of this? And um you
know, one of them just said to
me, well, you know, we're advised not to
follow too closely the ins and outs of
the politics of this, you know, and um
but of course, everyone has Instagram or
scrolls and among dog pictures and the
you know, the hot women or whatever is
um you know what happened in the oval
and uh but what struck me was this same
guy and saying, "I've got a job to do."
Right. And uh there's a
clarity and a wisdom to that. But uh
your job is is is bigger than that,
right? Is to understand the politics as
well. And what do you think about the
politics of that moment? Because that
was a real
opportunity to come together and make
progress on peace, right? And it from by
all
accounts was not a successful step
forward. I don't think by any account it
was a successful step forward
unless to some extent it was a play but
from DC to say to Putin look we ded off
Zalinski and you know now give us
something. That's the only uh remedial
idea I have about what might have been
behind it. But I think it was just one
of those extremely uh I mean just
awful political moments.
Um, Zalinski was
obviously
deeply irritated by the the the
interpretation of the war that he was
hearing from
Washington. Uh, it was only a week after
the Trump comments about Zalinski being
a dictator.
Um, and people in the administration
implying that Ukraine has started the
war. And I think
that's that must be for Zalinski a
pretty Alice in Wonderland situation to
be
in. And uh I had significant sympathy
for him in finding it
bewildering because it would be
bewildering. I think the sad thing to me
also on the mundane details of that
meeting and just the unfortunate way
that meetings happen, I think it's true
that he was also exhausted. Yes, there
was a of a of a reporter that
was asked a question about outfit in a
way that listen Zilinski, everybody has
their strengths and weaknesses. He's an
emotional being for better or for worse
and there's a dumb of a
reporter Taylor Green's boyfriend.
He is. Yeah. The things you know. See,
you're a real journalist. He's he's from
one of the the new I'm all for opening
up the White House press pool and all
that sort of thing, but it means that
you get some people in who are sort
of yeah from Blogland. There's nothing
wrong with that, but it it means that
you get somebody who will do something
like that. The problem with that
interaction as I saw it was that the
that guy asked that well disrespectful
question and uh I I think it was
disrespectful and I I'll very quickly
say why. I mean, I think that I think
that when a man comes from the realm of
war into the realm of peace, the people
in the realm of peace should have some
respect or at least concession that the
other man has come from the realm of
war.
And that if you're sitting in a
political environment where you talk
about people being destroyed and
decimated and defenistrated and much
more to a man
who's for whom none of that is
metaphorical, I think that's extremely
hard to to
accept. Um and I think that probably
also at that moment there was a sort of
sense
of you know Zilinsky is being
disrespected by being asked about what
he's
wearing when as everyone knows you know
Churchill during World War II used to
wear his fatings uh on foreign vis to
remind people you're coming from the
realm of war and I think that probably
in that in that moment one of the things
would have been going through his head
would be. But I mean, if if if this was
Putin sitting here being assaulted by a
journalist, you know, you'd you'd hope
your host stepped in and defended you. I
mean, if let me try this one out. I
mean, if if a if a journalist in the
Oval Office, if Putin was sitting there
or a putitive journalist said to Putin,
you know, um, everyone knows you've had
a lot of facial work done and, uh, word
is you've used the same guy that Berlesi
used to use. Um, can you comment on on
that? You you'd you'd you'd say, well,
that's a kind of disrespectful question
for journalists to ask and it's a little
bit um off off what needs to be gone
over. Uh, and this the same thing with
Zalinsky with the outfit. I think it was
just petty and and and threw things off
in a bad way. Yeah. And it was poorly
researched because I think Zilinski was
explaining this like 3 years ago at the
beginning of the war why he wears what
he wears and he's been consistent
wearing the same. It's also by the way
it's an example of the frivolity of a
lot of the of the attempts to attempts
to understand what's going on. I mean my
view is that is that since actually most
people in fact everybody cannot be an
expert on everything. One of the things
that we always do is to seize
on minor and really quite unimportant
things. I mean for I mean every site
does it. Look at the way in which the
American right for years talked about
the Churchill bust leaving the White
House Oval Office in the Obama years. I
I didn't want to hear another darn thing
about the Churchill bust after eight
years because it just it was in lie of
trying to understand and actually
critique Obama's foreign policy. It was
just an easy
shorthand. I think it's the same. We
we're always tempted to that. But the
thing is I think you mentioned Putin. I
think Putin would have been able to uh
respond himself to that journalist
effectively and he would have done it in
Russian. Oh yeah, the language thing was
Yeah. So I wanted to sort of lay out
several just unfortunate things that
happen in these situations and I think
it happens in all peace negotiations and
it's funny how history can turn in
moments like this. I do think there's a
reporter combined with the fact
that the, you know, with all due
respect, but Zilinsk's English sometimes
is not very good. Yes. And apart from
anything else, if he had have agreed to
not done it in English, he would have
bought himself the extra seconds in some
of his replies that he needed. Yeah.
Yeah. And have the wit. The guy is
funny, witty,
intelligent, you know, he could do that
in the native language of whether it's
Ukrainian or Russian to be able to
respond and get the interpreter.
So all of that is really unfortunate
because I think on those little moments
it's it's a dance and there's an
opportunity there. You know, the
Republicans, the the right-wing in the
United States have a general kind of
skepticism of Zilinski and and but that
doesn't mean it has to be that way. It
can turn, it can change, it can evolve.
It's very interesting why it has
happened. Why do you think it's
happened?
I the politics in the United States is
so dumb that at the very beginning it
could just be reduced to well the left
went Putin bad, Zilinski good, rahrh
Ukrainian flags. Therefore, the right
must go the opposite. It sometimes is
literally as dumb as that. Let's each
pick a side and call the others dumb. I
I had a a line I used recently. Um the
necessity of people who live too long
online to try to wade their way out of
the memes. It is sort of like that,
isn't it? Because yes, I mean, I can
understand the people who find it very
irritating that so many people who would
put BLM flags or pride flags or, you
know, trans flags in their bio then put
Ukrainian flags in their bio despite
almost certainly not knowing where
Ukraine was. And uh if that happens, the
inevitable instinct of a lot of people
who aren't really thinking is to say,
"That's really annoying. These people
are really annoying. I'll sock it to
them." But that's where you've got to
try to rise above that and say,
"Actually, funnily enough, the fate of a
country doesn't depend on my tolerance
for memes online today." Yeah. So, I
think the memes can be broken through in
meetings like the one that happened
between Zilinsky and Trump. there can
been real camaraderie. I've seen the
skill of that just recently having
researched deeply and interacted with uh
Narendra Modi. M here's somebody who has
the skill of, you know, for his country,
for his situation, being able to somehow
be friends with Putin and friends with
Zilinski and friends with Trump and
friends with Biden and friends with
Obama was to go for and
that while still
being strong for his country and like
fundamentally a nationalist figure who's
like, you very not globalist, not uh
anything but pro- India, India first,
nation first. In fact, nation first with
a very specific idea what that nation
represents. Sure. And that, you know,
Zilinski could do all of those things
but have the skill of navigating
uh the Trump room because every single
leader has their own peculiar quirks
that need to be navigated. Yes. The
obvious one. I mean, I don't want to
make it sound like it was all Zilinski's
fault, but I mean, the obvious one was
at the beginning of the meeting to say
yet again, as he has done for three
years, thank you to America and the
American people and American politicians
from across the aisle for your support
for my country and it's our need. We're
deeply grateful and because he for once
forgot to say that. I I think it's not
that simple. I think there's a It's not
that simple. It's one reason. I think
saying thank you, he didn't need to say
thank you. There's that was why Vance
that was what Vance leapt in on. He's
just picking a thing to leap on. There's
a whole energy. You have to acknowledge
in your way of being that you have been
very Biden buddy buddy with the left for
the last four years. There's ways to fix
that. Listen, these people are
complicated narcissists. All of them.
Biden, Trump. You have to navigate the
complexity of that. And you basically
have to say a kind word to Trump which
is like showing there's many ways of
doing that but one of them is saying uh
feeding the ego by acknowledging that he
is one of the world's greatest
negotiators right I'm I'm glad we're
able to come to the table and negotiate
together because I believe you are the
great negotiator mediator that can uh
actually bring a successful resolution
to like as opposed to have an energy of
Like it should be obvious to everybody
that Ukrainian are the good guys and
Russia is the bad guys. There's this
whole energy of entitlement that he
brought. He forgot that there's a new
guy. You got to like convince the new
guy that this global mission that this
nation is on, this war that is in in
many ways the west
versus the east that this there's
ideals, there's whole histories here
that this is a war worth winning. You
have to convince them, right? Yeah. No,
sure. And he obviously failed on that
occasion. Um, but as I say, it must be
bewildering to have landed in a place
where people were seriously talking
about Ukraine starting the war, right?
And Zalinski, not Putin being the
dictator. I I I did the front page of
the New York Post the day after the
president's comments on that saying that
the big picture of Putin just saying,
"Right, this is this is a dictator." And
you know, I think the people can be uh
live enough to be able to recognize
that, you know, you can make criticisms
of Zalinski or the Ukrainians, but it
doesn't mean you have to fall full
Putin. And again, unfortunately, a lot
of people in our time don't have that
capability. Can we go right into it?
What is your strongest criticism of
Putin? He's a dictator who's very
bloody, as repressive as you can be of
political opposition, internal
opposition. He's kleptomaniac of his
country's resources. Has enriched
himself as much as he could uh as he has
with the cronies around him. uh he's not
just acted to
uh destroy internal opposition in Russia
but has gone to other countries
including my own country of birth and uh
killed people on there our soil using as
it happens weapons of mass destruction.
The use of pelonium in the center of
London is not good. the use of
incredibly dangerous nerve agents that
could kill tens of thousands of people
in a charming cathedral city like
Salsbury. Not good. If the sort of
apologist of Putin say, "Well, he's just
a sort of tough man who's looking after
his house business."
Well, I don't think even if you think he
has the right to do that, that he should
be doing it in third
countries, deliberately using uh weapons
that are meant to show that you could
take out tens of thousands of British
citizens. Yeah. I mean, that's just for
starters. What do you make for uh Do you
think he's actually popularly elected?
No.
Do you think the the results of the
elections are fraudulent?
Yes. I mean, do you think it's possible
that it's just that the opposition has
been eliminated and he's legitimately
popularly elected? It definitely helps a
chap if he's killed all of his
opponents.
Something by using the term chap in that
context is just uh marvelous. But, you
know, I know I mean, but I mean,
seriously, you you uh if if if people
are worried about this is another of the
sort of slightly Alice in Wonderland
things recently about Zilinski is people
are saying, why why hasn't he's a
dictator? Because he hasn't held
elections during a total war of
self-defense. And it's like,
well, you know, if you're really really
passionate about free and fair elections
in that neck of the woods, you'd at
least notice that that Russian elections
are not free and fair in any meaningful
sense. But this doesn't mean that you
have to say that therefore they should
have western style elections and and and
freedom, that Russia is is ready to go
and become a western liberal democracy.
It doesn't mean any of that at all.
Let's just at least
note that this is what Putin is. What do
you think is the motivation for his
invasion of Ukraine in 22?
It's what he's said for years, which is
uh the basically the reconstitution of
the Soviet Union. Do you think there is
u empire building components to that
motivation? I would trust most my
friends in Eastern Central Europe who
certainly do think that there's a reason
why the Baltic countries are the
countries that are spending highest in
percentage of GDP on defense and it's
because they're very worried. I I don't
think they're faking it. I don't think
they're faking it for me or for anyone
else. I think the Lithuanians, the
Latians, the Estonians and others are
genuinely worried for the first time in
some decades. Do you think there's a
possibility that uh the war continues
indefinitely even if there's a ceasefire
and the peace reached, the war will
resume? He will seek expansion even
beyond Ukraine. Yes.
And uh the most obvious thing is that if
Trump manages to negotiate a
ceasefire, it'll be a temporary pause
and whoever comes in as president after
Trump, uh Putin will use the opportunity
to advance again. Uh yes, again, one of
the things that I have heard from parts
of the American right and others is that
all he wants is Ukraine. that that's all
he wants and that he has no history or
of rhetoric or actions that suggest
anything else. And again, it's one of
the reasons why it's useful traveling to
places and seeing things with your own
eyes because I very much remember being
in the country of Georgia uh after Putin
tried to invade in 2008.
So I just again people don't have to be
the greatest supporters of the Ukrainian
cause just to recognize that that it
doesn't seem to be the case that that
Ukraine is the only thing in Putin's
vision. Do you see value and uh maybe
depth and power to the realist
perspective of all this? you know,
somebody like John Mir Shimemer's
formulation of all this that uh in these
invasions of
Georgia of Ukraine, it's using military
power to expand the sphere of influence
Mhm. in the region in a cold calculation
of geopolitics. It's interesting. One of
the one of the fascinating things about
the last few years is there's been an
act of sort of necromancy of certain
figures who were totally totally
debunked. uh um in the area of Ukraine,
Mia Shimmer and uh in the case of
Israel, people like Finkelstein and uh
it's been interesting cuz these are
people that one hadn't heard of for some
years because um they were not listened
to for usually for good reason. But by
the way, first of all, I'm very
skeptical of the term realist in foreign
policy
because most people to some extent will
say that they are a realist in foreign
policy. Very few people are surrealists
in foreign policy. Very few people are
unrealists. I would like to meet them. A
surrealist foreign policy analyst. We
did mention Alice in Wonderland. So
yeah, I mean maybe we should introduce
the term, but I mean if you want to say
if you want to look gimlet out, eyed out
across the world, you you're you're a
realist. I think the steelman of their
argument would
be Russia has or believes it has a
sphere of influence and is regrettable,
but there's very little we can do about
that.
That would be about the best version of
that argument that you can make. Well,
to expand on that, Steelman, isn't this
how superpowers
operate in the dark realist/s surrealist
way? Meaning the United States uses
military
power to uh have a sphere influence over
the whole globe really. Uh, China
appears to be willing to use military
power to expand its sphere of influence
and political power. Yeah. More
importantly, in the case of China,
political power,
non-kinetic warfare to take over areas,
Hong Kong being the obvious one. But
behind that, isn't there always a
kinetic threat? Oh, yeah. Of course.
Yeah. I mean, you disappear some book
sellers and and uh students are
protesting. Of course. I just but but to
go back to this. Yeah, of course. Okay.
Countries believe they have or or would
like to have spheres of influence. I do
think at some point that the so-called
realists on that have to try to decide
how much leeway that allows you to give
to a fairly rapacious uh
regime. Uh and it's not I mean it's it's
not the easiest calculation always to
make. You have to work out whether or
not for instance it is true that if if
Russia had if Putin had managed to go
all the way to Kiev in the first weeks
of the war in 22 he would have gone
straight on to other places and you know
maybe he would have done maybe he would
have taken his time. Maybe he wouldn't
have done and this is a very fine
calculation that
changes every week let alone every year.
you know, my friends in Georgia, I
thought were um wildly off the mark when
they were believing that after 2008 they
could get, for instance, either NATO
membership or EU membership. And I I
thought that was completely unlikely and
I still think it's unlikely and almost
certainly undesirable for Europe and for
NATO because you you've got to be very
careful as and obviously this is one of
the issues with Ukraine and has been
since the '90s
is, you know, are you going to set up a
trip wire to start World War II? And
that's not a small thing to consider. So
what do you think the
uh the peace deal might look like? And
what does the path to peace look like in
Ukraine in in the coming weeks and
months? I have thought it would be uh
regrettably the Ukrainians seeding some
territory in the
east and then um making sure they rearm
uh during whatever peace period comes
afterwards and probably all four
territories of uh
dasparation. You couldn't lay any of
that out because it has to be negotiated
on. But I I mean I think that and I
think the ease with which non-
Ukrainians are currently speaking about
Ukrainian seeding territory is is
concerning because these territories
include hundreds of thousands of
Ukrainian citizens who do not want to
live under Putin's rule and people who
have families in the rest of Ukraine and
and and much more. And um uh you know I
I recently
interviewed children who had managed to
get out of the Russian occupied
areas and um it's it's it's brutal for a
Ukrainian to be growing up in that
territory. So I when people say well
obviously you know Donetsk has to be
given to Putin I I think that that
is not as easy a thing if you're in
Ukraine as it is if you're sitting in
New York say um and by the way I think
that on the issue of there is a school
of thought that that is that obviously
President Trump to some extent was was
floating in recent weeks which is that
if if a deal is done a business deal in
relation to minerals or anything else.
You get this great you get a kind of
buffer zone of American businesses and
investment and therefore American
business people in the region which
would
effectively warn Putin not to invade. I
don't uh follow that idea because not
least there were Americans in the
regions that were invaded in 22 and they
left fast and we know from Hong Kong and
other places that just because there are
international financial interests in the
region does not mean that a dictatorship
will not either um militarily or
covertly take over. I I don't I don't
see American miners as being an
effective buffer zone against Putin. By
the way, what did you um learn from
talking to the children, Ukrainian
children from those regions? Well, I
mean, it's it's it's heartbreaking
because the only schooling is u Russian
schooling. Uh obviously teaching the
Russian language, Putin's view of
history, and effectively indoctrination.
and and people can quibble with that
term, but it's Putin indoctrination
schools and any children or families
that do not want that effectively have
to hide and um not go out. And there
were I spoke to children and parents
who'd had school friends who for
instance the Russians set up in 22 and
23 uh uh summer camps uh for the
children of some of the areas that have
been occupied and the children went off
to the camps and then they didn't come
back but they were just stolen. Um I
mean it's thought that around 20,000
Ukrainian children have been stolen in
this fashion. That's not a small thing.
It's not got very much attention, but
um yes, I mean, children who would hide
whenever the Russian troops came to the
door. Uh one teenage boy who described
to me how when his mother was out, a a
woman came around to the house, knocked
on the door, um and gave him his papers
uh and said that he had to attend the
next week to sign up for the Russian
army.
This is I mean this is this is this is
not good. And that's obviously what life
is like for thousands of people behind
the Russian lines in
Ukraine. I just I just have it in mind
when people say things like you know
well obviously these regions have to be
handed over. It's not it's it's very
very hard if you're Ukrainian to concede
to that. Yeah. And even if they are as
part of the negotiation handed over, I
think it'll probably be
generations or never that that could be
accepted by the Ukrainian people.
Absolutely. And I would have thought
never. What do we know about this
kidnapping of children, the stories of
the thousands of children that the the
Russian forces kidnapped? Um, some of
them were in orphanages in Eastern
Ukraine. Not all by any means, but some
were. And it's a very complicated story
actually because many children were
taken from their families. Uh many the
Russians said, "Well, look at these
Ukrainians. They don't even look after
their children. Therefore, we will look
after
them." And I was I was recently when I
was there looking into this story
because it's it's a very interesting
question as to why it hasn't had more
attention. You know, one thinks of, for
instance, the abduction of the Chibbach
school girls some 12 years ago now in
northern Nigeria and that appalling
abduction of 300 girls by Boka Haram uh
completely gained the world's attention
and I was very interested into why the
Ukrainian children who'd been taken by
the Russians had not gained similar
attention. There's a slight similarity
with the war in Israel which I'm sure
we'll come on to. But uh I do think that
one reason is that they were effectively
hostages and the Ukrainians knew this is
this is my estimation of the terrain is
that the Ukrainians knew that if they
made a great deal about this was it were
more than they did that the that the
children would effectively be the most
effective bargaining
chip. And I do think there's
considerable truth in that because if
you look at for instance the way in
which um pressure has been put on the
Israeli government by the Israeli
population about the kidnapped Israelis,
you'll see that it it's it's a pretty
effective tactic for uh any uh
totalitarian regime or terrorist group
to operate in a way that means that the
population of the country you're
attacking
pressure their government to do
something in terms of concession. It's
it's a it's it's a very effective tool
and I think that story was partly played
down not just outside of Ukraine but
also within Ukraine partly for that
reason. As a truth seeker, as a
journalist, how do you operate in that
world where at least to me it's obvious
that there's just a flood of propaganda
on both sides? Now of course when you go
there and directly experience it and
talk to people
uh but those people are still also
swimming in the propaganda. So unless
you witness stuff directly sometimes
it's hard to know like I I speak to
people on the Russian side and there's
they're clearly first of all hilariously
enough they almost always say there's
that there's no propaganda in Russia. Of
course.
Uh, which makes me realize I mean you
you can be completely lied to. Maybe I
am in the United States as well and just
be
unaware. Um, maybe Earth is run by
aliens. Maybe the Earth is flat. So, I
don't know. Maybe you've taken
mushrooms. I have before this and I
finally see the truth. And it's you that
are diluted, Douglas. Okay. But uh back
to our round earth discussion, round
earth shills that we are uh how do you
know what is true? You you can tell it
when the bare facts become not
true. Like you can tell it
when somebody is willing to claim that
everything caused the invasion of 2022
except for Vladimir Putin invading
Ukraine. Yeah. There's a there's a
hilarious thing that happens and I think
you've actually speak about this that uh
people are generally just much more
willing to criticize the democratically
elected leader always always so the
interesting thing that happens is these
wise sages that do the narratives of
like NATO started the war right which
there is some interesting geopolitical
depth and truth to that like that NATO
expansion created complicated
geopolitical context whatever for But
they forget to say like other parts of
that story. Well, yes, of course. I
mean, and I mean, of course, to some
extent, it's rather, you know, there's a
there's a very the most irritating type
of question asker at any event is the
person who says, "I was disappointed
that in your 30inut talk you didn't
address X." And I tend to say, "Well,
looking forward to coming to your next
talk where in 30 minutes you'll cover
everything that could possibly be
covered." Um, there's always stuff
that's going to be left on the sides.
There's always going to be stuff that's
left unressed. There's always going to
be other angles. There's always going to
be somebody else who who who who has
this interesting perspective and you
can't cover it. Nevertheless, if you
cover everything other than the central
things, then it's suspicious.
Many years ago, I was at a debate in
London and there was a debate about the
origins of World War II and uh Pat
Buchanan talking of necromancy was one
of the the the the speakers and um
Andrew
Roberts historian was one of the people
on the other side and at one point you
know they got so completely stuck into
issues of iron ore mining in Poland in
the mid you know something like this and
the moderator I remember it was just it
was just a melee and the moderator turns
to Andrew Roberts and says Andrew
Roberts why did World War II begin and
he says World War II began because
Hitler invaded
Poland and it was a magnificent moment
because everything had been a marsh they
were just so lost in all the intricate
and clever and interesting things that
you can talk about about the origins of
a war that you you you
forget to mention the thing that's most
important.
And certainly my experience as a
journalist and writer is that one of the
reasons why you need to go and see
things with your own eyes is because
people are certain to tell you that what
you've seen with your own eyes didn't
happen or hasn't
happened and it helps to steal you. Yes.
for that moment. It's a gradual thing
that happens where the obvious thing
starts being taken for granted and
people stop saying it because it's like
the boring thing to say at a party and
then all of a sudden over time you just
almost start questioning whether whether
you know like the obvious thing is even
true. I don't know what that how that
happens psychology. Yeah, I think it
does. I I think it does. I've observed
it in a lot of different places which is
the important thing is the only thing
you do forget. Everything else is what
you remember. And some of us are for
some reason wired in a way where we we
don't we try not to forget the important
thing. Remember the obvious thing. Yeah.
Yes. And as you say not wanting to be
the boring guy at the party who
reiterates what is
true cuz what a douchebag you'd be if
you were that guy. Nobody likes Captain
Obvious at a party. Okay. Is it possible
that Donald Trump is a
mediator, a successful negotiator that
brings a stable peace to Ukraine? It's
possible. We'll have to see. I think
it's just too early and complicated to
tell. That he wants to bring a peace
seems to me to be obvious. He stated it
a lot of
times.
Um whether he can, we're just going to
have to see. It's extremely hard to see
some of the parameters of the peace
still. And I would suggest that the most
one not the the most difficult, but one
of the most difficult is that there is
no peace guarantee on paper that the
Ukrainians can possibly believe.
I I just it doesn't matter because we've
we've we in the west we some of the
countries in the west have said it
before that we'd secure
their their peace and we haven't and
so what other than NATO membership which
is not possible in my view what other
than NATO membership would reassure the
Ukrainians that they are going to have
their borders secured and the peace of
Ukraine secured I I can't see I think uh
there's not going to be ever a guarantee
that you can trust. I think the way you
have a guarantee implicit guarantees by
having military and economic
partnerships with as many partners as
possible. So you have partnerships with
uh the uh the Middle East, you have
partnerships with India, perhaps even
with China, with the United States, with
many nations in Europe. All of which
still suggests that if there's enough
financial interests in
Ukraine, they would prevent another
Russian invasion. There would be
financial pressure. Yeah, there would be
uh you know, Russia needs to be friends
with somebody either China or the West.
Um I I think a world that's flourishing
would have Russia
trading and being friends with the West
and the East. Thought it would be
ideal. It would be ideal if if if they
if the regime in Moscow wanted it. But
that's that not I mean again you get
into the thing of you know people
accused of Russophobia. that I mean um
the I I do believe that after the fall
of the wall uh Russia was illreated by
the west not treated with the uh some of
the courtesy that it required I do think
that and at the same time that doesn't
justify
uh the actions of Russia in the last 20
years right but let's descent from the
surrealist to the realist it's very
possible for Russia
to uh be on the verge of military
invasion of these nations and that being
wrong while also not doing it because
they're afraid to hurt the partnerships
with the West and with China. It's
possible, but the alliance they formed
with this sort of rogue alliance with
China to a considerable
extent, North Korea, not useful.
uh and Iran is
um something they seem to find bearable.
It's not a very it's not a very good
alliance in most people's analysis, but
it's an alliance. It's bearable, but I
don't think maybe you disagree with
this. I don't think the Russian people
or even Putin
uh wants to be isolated from the West. I
think it wants to be friends with the
West and with the East and with
everybody. He just also wants Ukraine,
right? And
there's How Does the Rolling Stones song
go? Which one?
Um, not the satisfaction one. Sympathy
with the devil. That's the one. You got
me on that one. No, like there there's
interests where there's expanding the
sphere and influence. That's one thing
on the table. But that can be put aside
if you want to maintain the partnerships
with these nations. And uh if Ukraine
has strong economic partnerships with
those nations, then that prevents Russia
from invading. I think the premise is
one that I've seen before. Um there was
a famous uh what was his
name? Norman Angel. He wrote this book
which was a fantastic bestseller in his
day where he believed that Europe would
be in a period of endless cantian peace
because the prospect of European powers
going to war was so economically
unviable. The book was reissued after
World War I. Um, and I never got the
second edition, but I assume it was
significantly rewritten. That's a very
kind of cynical take that just because
the book is wrong. I'm not saying just a
bookstore. I'm saying that that the idea
that cooperation on an economic and
other levels is
any significant preventative device to
madness breaking out is is not something
I see. Could deter some people. It could
deter some very very rational
economically driven actors. But it it
fails to take into account all of the
other things that motivate people to go
to war and to invade and to go mad.
Okay. Well, I would argue that in the
21st century, one of the reasons we have
much fewer wars is because of the much
more gloss tools here on this on the
geopolitical stage. One of them is that
we're just much more interconnected
economically, globally interconnected.
and that that is always a present
pressure on the world to keep peace.
There's a lot of money to be made from
peace. There's also a lot of money to be
made from war. There's just there's a
lot of uh interest tension and I I'm
just presenting one of the tools that a
leader should be using. The alternative
is what military force that is an
interesting one sometimes a useful one
but unfortunately it has its downsides
also. And after 3 years of war and the
hundreds of thousands dead, you have to
start wondering what are the options on
the table. I agree. I'm I'm obviously
for economic
cooperation, but my only caveat is not
to think that that is something which is
of
ultimate interest or even at the top of
the list of interests of uh despots,
tyrants, extremists who want something
else. Yeah.
But uh can you read the mind of Vladimir
Putin? No.
A lot of the ideas I hear about peace
is Putin
bad victory must be achieved NATO
membership required. Yeah. There's this
kind of
like but what's the what's the there you
have to come to the table to to end the
killing is one and uh to have different
ideas of how to uh have a nonzero chance
of peace. So that you know the options
are it seems to me the only
option not the only option but the
likeliest option is a lot of strong
economic partnerships. There's of course
other radical options. There's
uh there's uh Russia joining NATO or
something like this or there's
um giving you know doing flirting with
World War II essentially giving nukes to
Ukraine or something like this. There's
like crazy stuff or a totally new
military alliance with France and and
and Britain and Germany and uh European
nations and Ukraine or some weird
network of military power that threatens
Russia in some way or maybe some big
breakthrough partnership between India,
China and Ukraine something like this
just some really out there ideas and I
think that's how the Well, that that's
how the world finds a balance and
realigns itself in interesting ways. And
look, it could be. I I I hope you're
uh I hope your idea is right. Um I think
it's about the well certainly the most
peaceful way for this to be resolved.
My only caveat as I say is and
also never forget to factor in that
people want different things in this
world and some people don't dream as you
dream. I think we'll talk about that. So
in your new book death cults that one is
an easier one for me to understand to
the story that you're describing.
I am more hesitant to assign
psychopathy to leaders of major nations.
Sure. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm I'm I'm not
by any means urging you to regard
Vladimir Putin as a millinarian madman
who cannot be in any way understood.
I think he could be negotiated and
reasoned with from your lips to God's
ears.
Can you steal me on the case for and
then against Zilinski as the right
leader for Ukraine at this moment? Is he
the right person to take it to the the
the point of peace? We'll see. If if if
if he can, then he then of course he is.
You know, he deserves enormous respect
for galvanizing his people, for being
elected in the first place, for
galvanizing his nation at a time of
incredible peril,
um, for playing the international game
of getting support for his country.
Well,
um, and sometimes the person who does
that, not there are many people like
that, can be the person who also brings
about a peace deal and sometimes not. I
think there's a degree to which he may
have seen too much
suffering of the people, the land he
loves to be able to sit down at a table
with a world leader who
uh did the destruction and to be able to
that is very hard
compromise on anything.
That's that's possible. Again, it puts
the onus on him though. sort of slightly
presupposes that Putin doesn't have the
same human instinct on that. It is
extremely hard. I've noticed this in a
lot of conflicts. It's extremely hard
the way in which outsiders come in and
others who haven't seen what you've seen
or gone through what you've gone through
and say, you know, it's time to get
around the negotiating table and just,
you know, you think you didn't see what
I saw. You didn't go through what I went
through. who you'd tell me. Goes back to
that thing of the the visitor from the
land of war and the visitor from the
land of
peace. The visitor from the land of
peace can easily talk about getting
around negotiating tables, but the
visitor from the land of war has seen
other things. And
um it's it's very hard for somebody who
hasn't seen it to tell the person who
has that they
should act differently. And the sad
thing about humanity is both the the
person from the land of peace and the
person from the land of war are right.
Yes. That's a
struggle. That's definitely a
struggle. It's it's like asking somebody
to forgive. I've seen that at a lot lot
of ends of conflicts. People say, you
know, the important thing is that we
forgive and move
on. And then the other person
says, you know, your child didn't die of
shrapnel wounds. Yeah, this is, you
know, I got a lot of heat for interview
with Zilinski. By the way, people
privately, the people that messaged me
is all love and support. Even the people
that disagree in Ukraine, soldiers, uh,
people online are ruthless. They're
misrepresenting me. They're lying.
People online are ruthless and
misrepresenting and lying. Yeah. Good
god, Lex. You've discovered a new uh
phenomenon. I'm a real radical
intellectual.
Nothing misses your
eye. I see the truth and I'm unafraid to
point it out. Uh, no. There's a
degree this this
idea that
you need to compromise with the person
with the leader of a nation you're at
war with and in so doing to some degree
are forgiving their actions because the
actual feeling you have is you want it
to be fair. And the definition of fair
when you've seen that much suffering is
for him and everybody around him and
maybe even all of the people on the
other side to just die because you've
seen too much suffering. But the the
other side of that is yes there's
children that have died but you go
coming to the negotiation other children
from dying. Yes, of course. And so like
there is just you had this kind of way
of speaking about it embodying that
perspective that it's naive to say to
come to the negotiation table and it is
for a person from the land of war but
the very smart intelligent and not naive
person from the land of peace that is
often right in some deep sense about the
long arc of
history for them it does it is the right
thing to come to the negotiation table
to end the more killing. The one thing I
would add to that though is, you know,
don't forget that it it's also depends
on whether or not there's a clear shot
of winning.
Sure. If there's a clear shot of
winning, and that's a the most important
the most important thing in wars is not
uh final negotiations or anything like
that. It's simply winning and losing.
And if you have a clear shot of winning
and you can take it and you're near it,
um then having somebody else come in and
saying, "Uh, why not stop just before
victory is is is very hard." That's one
of the complex one of the many many
complexities of the conflict we're
talking about. You know what's the the
other big complexity of that? Because
the clear shot of winning is like a man
walking through the desert seeing water.
Uh it could be during war. It really is
an illusion. So here's what happens. The
really complicated aspect of
negotiation is in order to
negotiate peace from a place of
strength, you have to have victory in
sight. Yes. And so the temptation from
that position is to not negotiate, is to
keep pushing forward to achieve victory.
And this I would say
uh hindsight is 2020 but this is the
failure in 22 and two occasions to
achieve to negotiate a ceasefire and
peace. One in the spring because there
was a Ukraine was in a real big I would
say position of strength he have having
fended off the Russian forces around
Kiev. That's one. And then as you
mentioned in the fall of 22 with with
Hersan and Hardgave had a lot of
military success. They were in a place
of strength and from that place they've
decided to keep going because victory
was in sight. But that was also an
opportunity to make peace. It's
perfectly possible. Yes. That's the hard
thing. It's very hard. It's all hard.
But I'm just again
it's victory can be won in wars and is
often won in wars. Uh and you're right,
they can also grind on because
nobody has the capability to make a
breakthrough. Uh it's a case I mean the
wisdom about civil wars tends to be that
they sort of burn out after about 10
years or so
uh for similar reasons. When you're in
the war, can you actually know that a
victory can be won? It's a very good
question. And
um you mean troops on the battlefield or
military leaders or political leaders?
Military and political leaders. It just
feels like like I said man in the desert
seeing water. I think there's a sense
that victory is so
close. There times there's times in a
war when you feel like victory is close.
No, you're right. It's and it just slips
away. Yes. It's an interesting insight.
It's like the way in which um there's a
there's a force in nature which is that
if you amass an army
[Music]
um amassing it will pull you in to using
it. Yeah. Extremely hard to amass an
army somewhere and then say let's go
back.
Yes, you're right. No, it's it's one of
many many interesting aspects to
warfare. I think the sad thing about
successful wars, at least in the modern
day, is it takes a great military
leader, which I would argue that
Zalinski really unified Ukraine in this
fight in the beginning of the war. Mhm.
You have to be that. And like you said,
after either you amass the army and have
military success to be able to step back
and make peace that those two just don't
often go han