⚡THE WAR WONT END. When Putins Gone There Will Be a "HORRIBLE WAR" ! w/ Dr. Gilbert Doctorow

Overview

Dr. Gilbert Doctorow argues that efforts by Western capitals (Berlin, London, Washington, Paris) to destabilize Russia—or remove Vladimir Putin—would likely worsen security conditions rather than end the war. He suggests that internal instability in Russia could empower hardliners more willing to retaliate aggressively against the West, potentially escalating to nuclear risks.

He describes the situation as a potential “house of cards” that could be collapsing, alongside expectations of severe economic disruption.

Implications for the War in Ukraine

Doctorow claims Russia is likely to secure major gains in eastern Ukraine, potentially taking control of the entire Donbas within weeks to a few months. He argues that even with these gains, the conflict would not automatically end.

Why the war may persist

• He predicts Ukraine would continue fighting.
• He cites large external funding for Ukraine, including $95 billion in loans, implying Ukraine may sustain resistance.
• He suggests the war could drag on for years unless Russia achieves a decisive “knockout” outcome or a settlement occurs before Europe fully reassesses the likely end state.

Belarus and Potential Spillover Risks

Doctorow discusses recent developments involving Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko and alleged threats.

He argues that Russia warned Belarus that if it failed to cooperate—particularly in the context of Russia’s war effort and alleged drone activity—Russia was prepared to strike many targets in Belarus.

Doctorow portrays Lukashenko as bold and risk-taking, suggesting Belarus can resist being pulled into war on Russia’s terms. He also suggests Lukashenko may act to prevent strikes and would have public backing if confrontation became necessary.

U.S./NATO Negotiations and Russian Motives

Doctorow contends that Russian interpretations of former negotiations (including the “Anchorage” talks) were mostly tactical. In his view, they aimed to keep the U.S. separated from Europe rather than signaling a major strategic change.

He further argues that:

• There has been no meaningful reversal of U.S. enabling of attacks (as he frames it).
• Russian animosity is more strongly directed toward Germany, which Russia views as tied to extremist elements—specifically mentioning Chancellor Olaf Scholz and alleged connections.

Russia’s War Economy and Who Benefits

Doctorow argues that Russia’s military-industrial system differs from the U.S. model:

• It is largely government-owned.
• Oligarch-connected private firms profit as suppliers of raw materials and industrial inputs.

He also claims Russia’s policy of very high interest rates (citing levels above ~20%) was not primarily intended to control inflation. Instead, he argues it was used to:

• divert resources away from small and consumer-facing businesses, and
• steer them toward militarization, while large favored interests received preferential terms.

Critique of Other Commentators and Broader Strategic Claims

Doctorow criticizes other commentators for what he portrays as opportunism and ideological bias. He describes many as “Putin cheerleaders” who rely on insider access and underestimate uncertainty, including:

• the possibility of coups, and
• internal dissent.

He also dismisses or downplays broader claims about Russia’s posture toward “global south” narratives. Finally, he rejects the idea that Russia/China are the key external supporters of Iran in the conflict, arguing instead that Iran prevailed through economic and asymmetrical strategy rather than substantial external military backing from Russia or China.

Presenters/Contributors

• Dr. Gilbert Doctorow
• The YouTube channel host/host team (unnamed; interview moderator speaking with Doctorow)