Think Differently. Solve the Impossible.

 

This episode helps you think clearly in a noisy world, cut through misinformation, and find the solutions as applied to war, geopolitics, and global stability.

Show Notes

Nikola Mikovic

Contributor: Byline Times, CGTN, Diplomatic Courier, Geopolitics & Empire, Global Comment, Lowy Institute, South China Morning Post, Scoon TV, The Times of Central Asia, The Liberum, World Geostrategic Insights

Political Analyst: KJ Reports, Enquire AI

 

Related Articles:

The Truth About the War in Ukraine: A Conflict Far Older—and More Complex—Than We’re Told

How to End the War - A Peaceful Solution to the Russia - Ukraine Conflict

---

Creator’s Note (updated):

After recording, I read a piece in today’s newspaper: Silicon Valley ‘Warlord’ Gets Pentagon’s attention.” It reinforces one of the points we talked about - the only winners in this war are the United States and China. (The US benefiting from arms sales; China from selling cheap energy to Russia due to sanctions). In the article, Steven Simoni, co-founder of Allen Control Systems that makes an AI-powered, autonomous machine gun says, “I hate war, but war is always going to happen. Someone’s going to make this product at some point.”

Wow! That’s the best solution a Silicon Valley startup CEO can come up with for stopping the war? It’s likely the more profitable one. Either these “smart” guys are not as smart as we give them credit or they are just plain greedy. The company raised $40 million in finding recently in a round led by Craft Ventures, the firm co-founded by President Trump’s AI czar David Sack.

Under the hood, the circuit board has a printed image of him and co-founder Simoni. Co-founder Like Allen said. “If Russia or China recovered one of these they will have to see our faces.” I think they forget that China reverse engineers products, makes them cheaper to manufacture,  more affordable and available to anyone who wants one.

Allen said, “As an engineer, you can basically help the good guys, help the bad guys, or do nothing.” 

I’m sure these guys have good intentions. They just lack critical thinking - what happens when you put profit before trying to find an honest and effective solution.  He made the assumption there are only two choices. There are always additional ones. These guys have’t considered the real reasons for the war, and how they might use their influence and prestige as Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and their invitations to private parties at the White House, to encourage the White House to initiate an alternative solution to ending this war, as suggested with my guest on this episode.

Curious what you think — does this change how you see the issue?

---

Episode Transcript

Welcome to The Daniel Stih Podcast. My guest today is Nikola Mikovi. He's a freelance journalist, researcher, and analyst based in Serbia. His work focuses on the foreign policies of Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine. His focus is the conflict in the Donbas region, relations between Russia and former Soviet republics, and Russia's involvement in Syria and Libya. Thank you for having me on your show.

Nikola -

I'm going to open with being honest, until I read your bio and started to prepare for what I might ask you about Russia and foreign policy there, I'd never heard of Donbas.

It feels like the US media skipped over Donbas. I was under the belief that the Russian, Ukrainian conflict started in 2022, which is what you will see on Fox television. And it appears it started in 2014. Correct?

Yes, correct. It started in Donbas in 2014. That's the region of Eastern Ukraine. Most parts of that region are now under Russian control.

At the time, it was under Ukrainian control.

Actually, the whole conflict, in my view, started in 2013, late 2013, early 2014, following the Euromaidan protests in Kiev, when allegedly pro-Russian Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown.

And then Russia responded by helping the rebellion in the Dombass.

At the time, they had pro-Russia.

Allegedly caught my attention because I'm still with AI and chat GVT.

It's almost hard to get a straight answer.

How can you trust it?

Is it because one person told me, Yeah, Dan, that might be what chat told you or the news.

What if Russia just said that?

Well, you would know the truth.

And you're saying this was in fact a pro-Russian leader.

I don't think he was because at the time, he was trying to reach a deal with the EU.

And that's what actually triggered the Euromaidan protest because he was negotiating with the European Union, economic agreements basically.

But then he decided not to sign it, but instead to develop closer ties with Russia and the Russian-Latgian-Eurasian Union.

And then you had a large Euromaidan protest because most people at the time in Ukraine wanted their country to join the EU.

They still do.

They had those ambitions, although I'm not sure if that will ever happen.

So Yanukovych was, some would say he was balancing between Russia and the European Union.

I think he was just an opportunist, a politician.

Exactly.

So how do you know the truth was he was looking out for himself?

We all do to some extent, especially if our life and our families at stake maybe.

But could it have been that he was actually more under the control of Russia than what the official story has given me?

Well, his oligarchs, most of them were based in the Donbass.

They had close ties with the Kremlin, with Kremlin oligarchs.

So that oligarchy group was, they had business ties with Russia, but there were other oligarchs in Ukraine who wanted to develop closer ties with the EU.

The country was run by oligarchs, whether pro-Russian or pro-Western, for centuries, for decades since 1991, when the country declared independence from the Soviet Union.

So that was a struggle within oligarchic groups.

And if people watched the series called The Servant of the People, where the main actor was Volodymyr Zelensky, the ongoing president of Ukraine, he was the main character in that series.

It was about that.

It was about Ukraine being run by oligarchs.

So there's nothing unusual about it.

No secrets is well known.

It sounds just as bad as anything.

What is, is Don Boss a critical bargaining chip?

What do we need to understand about that region to resolve the war, to end the conflict?

Well, it was in 2014 and Russia was actually trying to return, or at least that was the official narrative that the Kremlin was using, to return the Don Boss to Ukraine where the Kremlin reportedly aimed to use it as a region where pro-Russian population would have a certain important role.

It never happened, of course.

But the point with that region is that it's a coal rich region.

So there are a lot of coal reserves in the Donbass.

They're under Russian control now.

There are reports suggesting that there's lithium as well in the Donbass.

So for me, it's not surprising that Russia aims to establish full control over the Donbass because I've been claiming for years that Kremlin's foreign policy is driven by energy.

So in 2014, pro-Russian rebels seized control over several large cities in the Donbass, but they were not fully supported by the Kremlin, which helped Ukraine regain control over significant parts of the region, not over the Donetsk, the capital of the Donetsk Oblast, Donetsk region.

And then in 2014 and 2015, Russia forced its proxies to sign the Minsk Agreements.

And those deals effectively put the war in the Donbass on hold, allowing Russia to focus on the Syrian civil war.

And what war is that?

That's some place else in the country?

No, it's in Syria, in the Middle East.

So Russia basically launched a war in Eastern Ukraine in 2014, but it didn't allow its proxies to seize the entire region.

Also, Russia had the opportunity in 2014 to capture, if not the entire Ukraine, then at least the southeastern part of the country, which is pretty big from...

It's a big portion of the territory.

It's from the Kharkivian in the east until Odessa in the south.

But the Kremlin didn't do that.

At the time, Putin threatened to do that, and he even deployed troops along the Ukrainian border, but he never invaded Ukraine at the time, so it was just a maskirovka, as the Russians would call it.

And he gave Ukraine eight years to prepare for war that came in 2022 when Russia launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

But in 2014, the Kremlin, in my view, had the opportunity to capture.

And why didn't it?

It was busy in Syria?

Well, the Kremlin decided to freeze the conflict in the Donbas.

As I said, it forced its proxies to sign the Minsk agreements.

And then it decided to focus on the Syrian Civil War.

In 2015, Russia deployed its troops to Syria.

Although, the Syrian Civil War broke out in 2011.

So at the time, Syria was Russia's ally.

And Bashar al-Assad was...

Well, some would say Putin's puppet.

He was heavily dependent on Russia and Iran.

So when an anti-Assad uprising was in its very active phase in 2011, the Kremlin did absolutely nothing to help.

It's clients to crack down on the protests and on rebellion.

Instead, it was just waiting, turning a blind eye, waiting for so-called moderate rebels to capture large parts of Syria, including capital Damascus, parts of Damascus.

And then only in 2015, Russia decided to interfere directly.

Although at first, it deployed some troops there, but claiming that they're not Russian troops.

There are some private military companies.

In reality, yeah, Wagner troops were there on the ground fighting along Assad forces.

But then Russia had to eventually openly admit that it's directly involved in Russian regular military was on the ground as well, fighting to help Assad not to win the war, but not to lose it immediately.

Because when Russia sent its troops to Syria, they really managed to recapture significant parts of the country, including those suburbs of Damascus that were under rebels' control and also under the ISIS control.

But if you follow that conflict in 2015, 2016 and so on, when there were large scale clashes and battles, the battle for Aleppo and so on, you notice that Assad never took steps that would allow him to win.

For instance, his troops, with the Russian's help, they seized a certain place, for example, Eastern Ghouta, parts of Iraq close to Damascus.

And then instead of capturing all those anti-government fighters, he allowed them to freely evacuate to Idlib.

Assad sent those famous green buses.

I think they were produced in Belarus, by the way, those buses.

To summarize the story, so I keep track of it.

There's a peace deal, there's a peace deal in Ukraine.

Well, meanwhile, Russia...

Ceasefire deal.

Ceasefire deal.

Meanwhile, Russia is helping with the civil war in Syria.

But instead of really helping win the civil war, and Syria's politician is a puppet to Putin.

Basically, they're listening to Russia.

But I'm lost, why are they not ending the civil war there as fast as they can, as you say?

The crown never ends any conflicts.

In...

actually in 1991, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a lot of civil wars in the post-Soviet pace, for instance.

In Moldova, there was a conflict between Moldovan authorities and the Russian-backed separatist forces in the region called Transnistria.

And the Kremlin didn't actually end that conflict, because now it's still a frozen conflict.

You also have a frozen conflict in Georgia, those two breakaway regions that are under Russian control.

Well, that's the Kremlin's model of sovereignty.

It never finishes conflicts.

Why is that?

It just likes to battle and it'll be boring.

If we're done, it'll be boring.

What will we do?

Well, there could be...

One of the reasons could be that the Kremlin wants to always have a room to maneuver in that region and to use it as a leverage.

Oh, to have an excuse to have forces some place or even to launch a weapon or have a military presence.

It's an excuse to have a military presence.

Yes, in some regions, yes, although now it's completely useless to have a military presence in Moldova because the region is a sandwich between Romania and Ukraine.

Russia cannot get there to help its military in that country.

But in Syria, it's pretty much the same situation.

So the Kremlin did not help Assad win.

Instead, as I said, it helped him recapture some territories, not all, because those rebels were not physically destroyed.

They were just allowed to remove from parts of the country that they controlled.

After Assad recaptured, for instance, Aleppo, and captured large numbers of those rebels, they were allowed to evacuate to Idlib, where they had enough time to regroup, to consolidate, and to prepare for another round of fighting.

And that was the last round when, I think, it was in 2023, right?

The last year, I don't remember anymore, when they finally won and when Assad was forced to leave the country, and now he's reportedly in Moscow.

So that's the result of the Kremlin's policy.

It did nothing to them.

And then at that time, is that when they restarted the Ukrainian war?

Well, they restarted the Ukrainian war earlier in 2022.

But at that time, the Syrian civil war was on hold.

So now Russia effectively, its client Bashar al-Assad was defeated.

And now they're trying to establish closer ties with new authorities in Syria, aiming to maintain those military bases that they still have there.

Although in my view, from Russia's perspective, they're completely useless.

There's no point having the bases there, because in order to reach the port of Tartus, Russian Navy will have to go through NATO territory, because they will have to go through the Bosphorus and the Armanal Strip.

And they're controlled by Turkey, NATO member.

So from that point, it's completely useless having bases there, unless Russia plans to use those bases to have some activities in Africa.

But even there, I don't think it can do any serious business, unless it gets the de facto green light from its Western partners, because...

So back to the Ukraine.

So Americans that I know, when I ask them, when they're just watching TV, but even one of them had watched YouTube, so he was familiar with the Don Boss history, the longer history.

So a little more educated on it.

Ask them as an American, what do you think the solution is?

And you're just watching YouTube a lot.

Kill the Russians or wait for Russia to rot them inside, so it runs short on cash and support from the inside of Russian billionaires that make it off the oil.

I know your expertise is maybe not in peace deals.

How would you create a peace?

How can the war end?

The Russian Ukraine war, what will it take to end it?

I think it will end when one of the two parties agrees to surrender, to sign a de facto capitulation.

I think we're still far from such an outcome, but I think that's the only sustainable solution.

Because from the Russian perspective, as long as Ukraine exists, it will, that's what the pro-Kremlin propaganda always portrays Ukraine as an anti-Russia.

So from their perspective, the West will always use Ukraine as an instrument against Russia.

And from Kiev's perspective, as long as Putin is in power in Russia, and the oligarchy that still runs the country, they will represent a threat not only for Ukraine, but for other European countries as well.

So I think in order to end this war, one of the two countries would have to completely give up on its ambitions.

Now Ukraine, it's not hiding that it aims to win the war.

It declared goals that are quite clear, and it's a victory.

It's an ambition to regain control over all the territory that's now under Russian control, including Crimea.

Now it's rather questionable how realistic is that.

But that's Kiev's goal, and it's quite clear.

And unlike the Kremlin's goal, which is not quite clear, in 2022, Putin said that Russia aims to denacify Ukraine, demilitarize and to force Kiev to recognize Russia's annexation of Crimea and the Dombass, which is something that Ukraine will never agree to do.

So from that perspective, I don't think it's possible to reach a peace deal because they...

So Donald Trump, President Trump, he's always on TV bragging about how fast and easy and quick it is for him to end war.

Specifically, the latest one, the Middle East.

What could he do or what could be done to end the Russian-Ukraine war in a similar manner that ended the war in the Middle East?

That was a similar big conflict.

Is there something that can be translated that could be done to end the war as was done in the Middle East?

Well, he didn't end the war in the Middle East because Israel continues bombing Gaza.

But if he wants to use that approach, then it's simple enough to declare a ceasefire that will not hold.

But for his voters, it will be enough for Trump to portray himself as the...

I think he called the kettle black.

It didn't end.

He likes to say it ended.

Israel is still bombing Palestine.

But we won't see it on the news in America.

Yeah, it's all about the narrative, because I'm writing an article on similarities between Donald Trump and Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic.

Hopefully, it will be published soon.

There's a lot of similarities because they're using the same approach, the same PR propaganda tactics and narrative phrases and everything.

So what's the point?

When Trump comes out and says that he ended the war between Albania and Azerbaijan, I mean, the two countries don't even share the same border.

He wanted to say Armenia and Azerbaijan, but his voters, they couldn't find Albania or Armenia or even Azerbaijan on the map.

But it doesn't matter.

If he comes out and says, I ended the war, they will say, oh, yeah, great, he ended the war.

Look at how great president we have, unlike that sleepy Joe who couldn't end any wars.

And so it's all about the narrative that he's using.

So in Ukraine, I'm pretty sure he would like to do the same thing, but it's a bit difficult because the Kremlin at this point does not seem interested in signing a ceasefire deal because it would allow Ukraine to consolidate into a large scale offensive sooner or later.

But Ukraine is not interested in a ceasefire either, so this war will go on, and I don't think Trump will have the opportunity to portray himself as a peacemaker anytime soon, but he will try to do that in other parts of the world, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and so on.

So there's a lot of conflicts in this world, unfortunately.

If you were, if you had the power to design a realistic peace deal between Russia and Ukraine, could you do that?

Would there be any circumstance besides, as you mentioned, surrender that besides Russia running out of resources, everybody dying or something, is there anything that could, is there any other way to end it besides just death?

I think they could freeze it.

And just like the Korean War, it's still a frozen conflict.

They live in peace, right, for decades, but it's not resolved.

I think sooner or later there will be a war there.

So it could be the same in Ukraine and in Russia, because sooner or later Ukraine will have to launch the offensive aiming to recapture those territories, or Russia will have to capture more territory and to have a puppet government in Kiev that will pursue a pro-Russian policy, because otherwise it cannot achieve its goals.

So I don't think, unfortunately, it's possible to end this war anytime soon.

I'm sad to say that, because a lot of people are dying there, but that's the very nature of this conflict.

I don't see any other solution.

As I said, they could sign a Minsk-style agreement, a Minsk 3 or Istanbul 2 deal, something like that.

But that would essentially just put the war on hold, allowing both sides to prepare for another round of confrontation.

But it's not a sustainable solution.

What if Trump, I think I read recently, is going to send some more Tomahawk missiles or give Ukraine more weapons or something.

It's kind of ironic.

We say we're not in the war as the United States, and yet we're giving countries weapons, which is kind of, in my opinion, in the war.

What if America was even maybe covertly to give Ukraine more support?

Would that change things?

Yes, in a way, absolutely.

Especially if Ukraine gets Tomahawk missiles.

And I think it will get them sooner or later, and it will start using them against targets in Russia.

But again, that will not change the fundamental situation of the battlefield.

Although it can have an impact on the Russian military industrial complex and its economy, its military in general.

And I think it's a matter of time before Ukraine starts firing those missiles on Russian territory.

Especially if Putin and Trump don't hold their summit in the near future, then I think Trump will eventually give Ukraine green light to use those missiles.

Although I don't think Ukraine will get hundreds of missiles.

It might get 50 or something.

But still, it's enough to cause significant damage to the Russian.

To make the president look good, to continue the conflict, et cetera, et cetera, not actually create peace or end the war.

Yeah, I don't see any side that's interested in genuine peace in Ukraine.

From the United States perspective, I think this war is also good.

I know it sounds bad, but I always say that war is good for business because the US military industrial complex benefits from this conflict, because it sells weapons not only to Ukraine, but to European countries, and then they arm Ukraine.

So war is always good for business.

For Russian military industrial complex, it's also very good.

Imagine they stop the war now.

What would Putin do in the Russian military industrial complex?

Because it basically switched the entire economy to war mode, so they will have to still deal with sanctions, because I don't think the West would easily lift sanctions that imposed on Russia, which means that its economy would suffer a lot.

Now it's not suffering as well, but still at least it's working because of the ongoing war.

It has to produce a lot of equipment and drones and weapons and so on.

But if the war stops, then what would military industrial complex do?

So there will be a huge economic crisis.

To which it's a commodity.

Imagine it was food or energy, it's weapons.

And so weapons, we think it's important.

We've got to protect ourself.

When in fact, it's the as the politicians are being influenced by the corporations selling weapons, just like if the corporation was selling automobiles or refrigerators or whatever, to some extent they're controlling the strings of the politicians.

No, I'm sure they have a very strong influence, especially those military industrial companies.

But in Russia, I think energy corporations are much more powerful.

I'm talking about entities such as Gazprom, Rosneft, Zaryuberzhneft, Interal, Locoil and so on.

They have huge influence in the Kremlin.

Why couldn't Russia transition from war economy to back to energy?

Because we need energy.

Energy is helpful for the people.

As the European Union said that even if Russia and Ukraine signed a peace deal, it does not plan to continue purchasing Russian energy, which means that Russia will have to continue selling it to countries such as India and China.

But I don't think they can replace the Western markets, because until 2021, Russia was earning a lot of money by selling relatively cheap gas to Europe.

But now that story is over, so now it has to find alternative markets which is not very easy.

Is that part of NATO?

Is that the NATO piece of the puzzle or just European or just Europe?

I think at this point, it's just Europe, because Europe is desperately trying to diversify its energy imports and to decouple from Russia in terms of energy.

It will be difficult.

It's still buying Russian energy, sometimes directly, sometimes through the third countries.

But in the long term, I think it will get rid of Russian energy, which means that Russia will have to continue selling its oil and gas to China and India, and the price will be very cheap, as it is now, and that will have an impact on Russian economy.

So sooner or later, Russian economy will face a serious crisis.

Tell me about this potential peace deal.

I'm going to play on Donald Trump or someone who comes up with ideas, brings people to the table.

You and I could do this someday.

We tell Russia, transition, pull out of Ukraine, switch over to energy again, and we tell the European Union and the rest of the world, including America, that we're at peace, buy oil from Russia.

I'm sure that the Crown will be happy.

I'm absolutely sure the Crown will be happy and will be willing to give up on significant parts of Ukraine, just to continue doing business as usual with its Western partners.

But I don't think that's going to happen, because this is part of a bigger game, energy game.

I think Europe will have a hard time finding cheap energy resources, because now it's purchasing expensive American energy, LNG, and from other producers as well.

It could eventually stabilize its energy market, but I think it will be in a serious crisis in the future, my own country too, unfortunately.

And what you mentioned would make sense, especially from the crimeless perspective, because it's very interested in selling gas to Europe.

But as I said, I don't think that's going to happen.

What country are you in?

In Serbia.

Okay.

And so I understand if I was Europe, I don't want to be dependent on somebody.

I mean, that's a fact of life, right?

That you're always dependent on someone helping you out.

You do your best.

As globalization, the world gets smaller.

I mean, you just have to work together.

Who doesn't?

There's another reason someone doesn't want, some other sides don't want this.

What might that be?

I think Europe does not want to be dependent on Russian energy anymore.

I wrote about three or four years ago that there's a new iron curtain.

Now it's probably somewhere in Ukraine, because in the past, during the Soviet era, it was much closer to the West.

Now it's in Ukraine.

So we have a new iron curtain.

We have a new Cold War.

Which means that we will have to have a new energy order and new energy flows.

Now I think they will go from Russia to the East, not to the West anymore, which means that India and China will benefit from the free, from cheap Russian energy as Germany did in the past.

So now I think it's Russian turn to help India and China develop their economies so they could benefit from the ongoing Ukraine war.

At least there is another reason for America to try to step in and do what we're talking about because the reason doesn't come to mind exactly, but it doesn't sound good for China to be getting better energy, cheaper energy than America as a US citizen.

Yeah, well, China is now purchasing relatively cheap Russian energy.

And there are reports suggesting that the United States is pressuring China and India to stop purchasing Russian oil and gas.

I don't think they can do that even if they wanted to, because that would have a serious impact on their economies.

So for now, I think they will continue purchasing.

They could sometimes reduce the volume, which could have an impact on the Russian war machine.

But I think it's this so-called alliance, Beijing and Moscow, developed.

I don't think it will last for too long, because in my view, Russia and China are not allies.

They are not enemies either, but they are geopolitical rivals, just like India and China.

So all that breaks the narrative.

I don't find it interesting and smart enough to debate it.

So in my view, Russia is just trying to get out of this conflict in Ukraine somehow, especially in a way that will allow Putin to save face, which is not easy, because he will have to admit that he did not achieve any of his goals in Ukraine.

So he simply has to continue fighting this war one way or another.

And there are also reports suggesting that China is helping Russian war economy, which is something that Beijing denies.

But I think China also benefits from the ongoing war.

So the United States and China are at this point major beneficiaries of this conflict, because the US is selling weapons and energy to Europe.

And China, on the other hand, is purchasing relatively cheap Russian gas, and then it develops its economy.

So they're at this point major beneficiaries of the Ukraine war, while Russia and Ukraine, of course, are major losers.

The companies making money on sales of weapons and oil are not the people.

Now, of course, there was all these situations.

So Russia is run by Gazprom and other major energy corporations.

And I'm sure it's pretty much the same in the US, where Big Oil and other energy corporations have very strong influence.

So it's nothing new.

So why doesn't the American media, the television, explain any of this?

It's easier to have some other narrative.

Like Russia is about to invade Europe, although Russia does not have the capacity to capture the entire Donbass, let alone to seize Poland or other neighboring EU and NATO members.

But it's, from their perspective, it makes sense to create such a narrative, because it helps military industrial complex continue producing weapons.

Because if there is a threat, then you simply have to continue working.

It's a simple good guy, bad guy narrative.

Of course.

We tell any more to the story, then it gets too complex and people don't buy.

No, it's simply a bad guy.

We need weapons.

No, good guy, bad guy.

Simple story.

Yeah.

And it's also rather questionable if people will be able to understand this, what I'm talking about.

Although it's not rocket science, but still most people cannot easily understand that.

Which is why sometimes you simply have to create that narrative, black and white and good guys, bad guys and so on.

So I'm not surprised that they're doing that.

I'm trying when I write my analysis to explain the situation as it is, which is not always easy, but I'm not a propagandist and I refuse to do the propaganda business to portray anyone as a good or bad one.

Your articles, tell me about yourself.

How did you come to be a journalist and one with a focus on Russia and its foreign policies specifically?

How did you get into this?

I was a long time ago, almost 20 years ago, when I traveled to Ukraine for the first time.

And there I met a guy who at the time worked as a journalist, although he covered movies.

He wrote about that.

I was not a journalist at the time.

I studied the economy.

And I just was trying to find a job, but I was not quite sure what I wanted to do.

And then I got to know him and we became friends.

And so and he told me, why wouldn't you be a journalist?

I said, how can I be a journalist?

I know nothing about that job.

And he said, yeah, you can be, you write pretty good because we were exchanging e-mails at the time.

At the time, there was no social networks.

Facebook was launched relatively a few years before that or so.

It was in 2007, I think.

Yeah, 2007, 2006 when I met him.

And he told me I could be a journalist and I thought about it.

Unfortunately, I found someone here in Serbia who was the editor of a local publication and I asked him if I could start writing for that publication, so he gave me the opportunity.

And that's how I started writing.

I first wrote about local issues and then about the economic issues and so on.

But and then as I continued traveling to Ukraine and to Russia and Belarus and so on, and I learned the language and so on, then I started covering political situation in those countries.

So that's that's how I got here.

So a dozen publications that you write for as a contributor, as a political analyst, and they'll be in the show notes for people.

Yeah.

Dive deep into this.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Right.

For a lot of publications from all over the world, from Australia, China, Hong Kong, United Arab Emirates, Europe, the United States.

So bringing it back to the Ukraine-Russian war, and it's probably pretend because it seems it's a pipe dream.

Let's map out because I'm a solution guy anyhow, even if it's a long shot that someone will never do this.

Back to if we were to say Europe, work with, buy oil and energy from Russia, Russia pull out of Ukraine.

I don't know if America has to, oh, America's got to take down the sanctions for Russia.

Is there anything else we're missing in my peace deal?

I think the Kremlin will be happy to hear about your peace deal, but I don't think that's going to work.

I think in the long term, a direct military confrontation between Europe or at least some European and NATO members and Russia is more likely.

When I say in long term, I think in the next five years or so, I think it's entirely possible.

I see already preparations for that kind of confrontation.

Now, that does not mean that there will be a World War III or some apocalyptic scenario.

I think there could be clashes, border clashes, or even two sides launching drones in each other or bombing each other territories.

So some kind of confrontation between, let's say, the Baltic States, Poland, Romania, Russia, and of course, they will be all helped by other NATO members in the United States.

But again, that does not mean that they would invade the Russian territory.

Although they do have the capacity to do that, they cannot, of course, occupy the Russian Federation.

It's a huge country, the largest in the world.

But if necessary, they could establish control over some parts of Russia.

Donald Trump, who was ever president, looking good.

Europe looks good.

Like the bad guy, good guy narrative.

Like we're fighting the bad guy.

Then where does it lead?

If Russia pulled out of Ukraine because America and NATO flexed their muscle, and Russia said that gives Putin an excuse, right?

Now he can pull out and not look like Softie.

Then what does the world look like then after that?

Well, if that happens, I don't think Trump will be in power because, as I said, I think that could happen in about five years from now or so.

So I don't think Trump will be in office in 2030 or so.

But the reason why I cannot make a prediction about the outcome of that war is because I don't know what the United States plans about Russia are.

I know that there are factions within the US establishment that want Russia's capitulation, that they actually want the end of the Russian Federation as it is, which means that if Russia suffers a defeat in Ukraine and then it will lead to the economic collapse and also a lot of separatist movements in Russia would emerge and there would be a lot of fights over there, series of civil wars in the Russian Federation.

So that would be the end of the country as we know it.

I know that there is a faction that supports that, but I don't think it's a mainstream faction.

I think the mainstream faction within the US establishment wants Russia to, for now, to continue fighting this war because, as I said, the US benefits from this conflict.

But in the midterm and in the long term as well, I don't think they want Ukraine to win because Ukraine would be too strong.

Imagine Ukraine, a country that's supposed to join the European Union and NATO, a country that defeated the Russian Federation.

It will be in a much better position when it comes to other EU and NATO members.

So I don't think they want to allow that.

So Ukraine would be too strong, and I don't think they're interested in such an outcome.

But they don't want Russia to achieve its goals either.

Because if Russia wins the war and if it manages to establish a pro-Russian puppet government in Kiev, then it will have a de facto control over the country.

And then what was the point of all this?

None of this sounds honest, good guy, bad guy narrative.

Like when you say, we're afraid that Ukraine would be too strong.

Hello?

We're tangiting now from the good guy, bad guy narrative to be in really subjective and manipulative and I'm afraid, afraid not actually doing the right thing, afraid.

Yeah, well, there are no good or bad guys here and there's no black or white.

Things are always gray in life.

So it's the same here.

It perfectly makes sense from the US policy makers perspective to have such an attitude not to allow Ukraine to win or at least not in a way that Ukraine is interested in because it would be too strong after that.

Even though it would have a lot of casualties, of course, and its economy is destroyed, but still if it comes out as a winner, then it could impose its will on some other EU and NATO members because it will have a significant leverage.

Because I am under the, I am assuming that Ukraine is the poor, the poor downtrodden beat up the small guy.

What might that look like that I haven't thought of in terms of, oh, Ukraine's got, that's not good enough.

Now they're coming over to my territory.

That's what it sounds like you're saying, that there's more to them being just the downtrodden.

That we might be, we should be cautious about that.

So I think the United States and other European countries, they just want to Ukraine to continue fighting, because this is the war of attrition.

But in this war, Russia is weakening itself and its economy.

So from their perspective, Ukraine is doing a good job because the longer the war lasts, the weaker Russia will be.

And I think that's one of their goals.

At least that will be my goal if I were the US policy maker.

I would want both countries to come out very weak and then they would be heavily dependent on me.

So I'm pretty sure the United States has the same position.

So once the war is over, they will all be dependent on the US and the US will be much stronger and it will have significant leverage over China, which could be in the future.

It's major geopolitical rival.

At this point, those media that you mentioned there are portraying Russia as the bad guy, as the major rival.

Although I think they all know that Russia is rather weak because it cannot achieve its goals.

In Ukraine, the war has been going on for four years and it didn't achieve any of its strategic goals.

So it does not really represent a serious threat to the United States and to the European countries.

It is a threat to Ukraine, of course, but not Poland and other countries.

Talk about World War III real quick, because that does still, I'm surprised, really people you believe that would happen.

Tell me, tell us why that's not probable.

Well, I think it is probable, although not in a way that a little Johnny living in Arkansas tries to portray it like, oh my God, we're all going to die, there will be a nuclear armageddon.

I don't think it's going to happen like that.

I think they will eventually use nuclear weapons.

I can perfectly imagine Russian nuking Ukraine, or maybe even some European countries, although not in a way to cause serious harm to them.

And I can also imagine Ukraine or European countries, and maybe even the United States nuking Russia.

But again, I think it will be very limited and calculated.

Just like the war between Iran and Israel, you probably remember when Iran decided to strike the US base in Qatar.

It did that in a way not to cause a serious damage to the US.

It was military infrastructure.

I don't think any American soldier was killed there.

It was the same in 2020, right?

When Qasem Soleimani was killed in Baghdad, and then Iran retaliated by striking US bases in Iraq in a way not to kill any American soldiers.

So I think the Kremlin could use the same strategy, striking empty native bases somewhere in Europe with nuclear missiles.

They don't have to be nuclear, they can use...

Sounds like me when I was little with my little brothers.

You know, we hit each other, but we didn't really hurt each other.

And it's more like being a crybaby, more like...

Crybaby is the right word, but...

Afraid to go full out, but just...

It's only a temper tantrum, more or less.

Something like that, yeah, basically.

But I think the European Union and the United States, on the other hand, they will do serious harm to the Russian Federation if they decide to strike Russian territory, whether with nuclear or other missiles.

Unlike the Kremlin, that will most likely try to avoid doing that.

Because the Kremlin is essentially implementing the same policy as Iran, inflicting harm to its own population rather than to its geopolitical opponents.

But yeah, as I said, I think it is possible that sooner or later, we will witness a large scale confrontation between certain NATO members in Europe.

Although I don't think it will lead to World War III.

It will be rather limited.

And in regard to the nuclear weapons, it almost sounds like they might get us used to seeing, oh, it's just a low, whatever it is, a low amount of nuclear radiation, a little bit of nuclear radiation, nothing to worry about.

I think they will use tactical nuclear weapons, which means that radiation will really not be that high.

But the very fact that nuclear weapons, they exist, tells me that they will be used sooner or later.

I mean, why would they create them if they don't plan to use them?

I think, unfortunately, they will use them.

What's a tactical nuclear that doesn't produce a lot of radiation versus, you mean, like a big one that blows out a whole city?

I'm like strategic, yes.

They do produce radiation, although not in a way that strategic nuclear weapons do.

So I think they will first use a tactical nuclear missiles aiming to destroy most of your bases.

Like the land mines, or it was the Afghanistan War, where there was a whole bunch of leftover used up uranium or something like that in the land mines or something like that.

Any small doses of radiation, I get the picture.

Well, relatively, compared to strategic nuclear weapons, yeah, relatively.

Is there anything that I haven't asked you that feels real important to mention, especially in regard to your expertise, your focus on the Russia policies?

I'm not sure.

Right now, what's topical is a potential summit between Putin and Trump and Budapest.

They reportedly postponed it.

I think they will meet sooner or later, whether in Budapest or in some other place.

They will continue discussing the Ukraine War.

Although, as I said, I don't think they will reach a solution.

They will not reach a peace deal.

It's possible that they will eventually reach a ceasefire deal and that Trump will be a mediator and that will allow him to portray himself as a peacemaker.

But just like in Israel, right, a ceasefire will not hold.

So the war will go on, unfortunately.

I'm not happy about that.

That's the situation that we have at the moment.

And I'm also very pessimistic when it comes to the energy issue, especially here in Serbia, because the Ukraine war has an impact on the energy situation here, because Russia's Gazprom, energy giant Gazprom, owns a Serbian petroleum industry, and the US imposed sanctions on that Serbian petroleum industry, and we buy Gazprom, and now the country is in a pretty difficult situation, because the company is under sanctions, and the EU also decided to ban the transit of Russian gas through EU territories and to the third countries as well.

So Serbia cannot purchase Russian gas, which means that we could have a pretty difficult winter, because our government did absolutely nothing, or at least not enough, to diversify energy sources, which means that Serbia is still very dependent on the Russian gas and Russian oil to a significant extent.

So the situation in this winter, I think, will be pretty difficult.

The ironic thing about that is when we in America see Ukraine, it's coming up to the war, they do this every year.

Oh, look how rough it's going to be this winter because of blah, blah, blah.

We don't see the impact on countries like yours due to these sanctions.

Yeah, well, of course, the situation in Ukraine is much more difficult, especially since Russia started targeting the other country's energy infrastructure.

Although I think Russia is doing that not in a way to completely destroy it, but just to create significant damage, not to the Ukrainian military industrial complex because it's not dependent on the electricity.

It's using other sources of energy.

What I mean is we feel sorry for the Ukrainians.

We don't see the suffering or the inconvenience that other countries like yours.

I get your point.

Other countries are suffering as well, yes.

Although I think at this point, Ukrainians are suffering the most because of those blackouts they have.

In Russia, they have the same problem because Ukraine is also striking Russian energy infrastructure.

They also have blackouts.

But I'm afraid that here in Serbia, we could have pretty difficult energy situation as well, although we're not a country involved in this war.

But still, we will feel the consequences of that conflict, just like other European countries are feeling consequences, not in that way there.

I personally don't think sanctions help at all.

They only hurt people.

What's your take on?

Are sanctions even effective at all with this conflict or any of these conflicts?

Look, I live in a country that was...

The United States imposed severe sanctions on Serbia in the early 1990s.

So I remember quite well how bad it was.

So those sanctions that the West imposed in Russia are nothing compared to those sanctions that we have, because we were virtually in no position to import any goods, any oil or energies.

It was pretty difficult.

So what Russia is now suffering is relatively bearable, especially given that the United States and the European Union never imposed sanctions on Rosatom, which is very interesting because Rosatom is Russia's major nuclear giant.

It can continue doing business all over the world building nuclear power plants.

So now they see Russia as the enemy, but they allow its enemy to do business in third countries, which is very interesting.

So as I said, the war is good for business, but as you said, sanctions definitely hurt ordinary people, not governments.

They're not effective in ending the war or creating a peace deal?

Well, they could be, because they can...

I think their goal is to turn the population against their governments in the long term.

Now, whether that will happen in Russia, we will see.

I don't think so, to be honest, because Putin, he imposed a reign of terror in that country.

So there is virtually no opposition there.

There is nobody to protest or to rebel.

As I said, I don't think the United States is interested in seeing Putin being overthrown, because as long as he is in power, Russia will have no chance to win the war.

I like the way he put it.

It implies that all we need to do is do sanctions.

No, you do sanctions, that doesn't do anything.

What does something is the people reacting to the sanctions, which if they can't, then then it's a wasted effort and you're just hurting the people more.

Yeah, I agree with you.

I'm not a big fan of sanctions at all.

Um, thanks so much for being a guest on my show.

This is real important and you help me understand the conflict better.

Any last words?

Well, thank you.

It was pleasure being on your show.

I enjoyed it.

And links to all your articles on where you write for it and so forth will be in the show notes.

Take care.