(MOSCOW) – Two prominent Russian commentators clashed over United States policy, Ukraine and Russia’s war strategy during a broadcast of Sunday Evening With Vladimir Solovyov on Russian state television.
The programme, hosted by Vladimir Solovyov, featured Professor Andrey Sidorov, Dean of the School of World Politics at Moscow State University. The discussion focused on Donald Trump, global power dynamics and Russia’s war against Ukraine.
Sidorov described Trump as a powerful and dangerous political figure, stating that the world now understands “who is in charge”. He referred to Trump’s 2024 election victory and made a controversial remark expressing regret that an earlier attempt on Trump’s life had failed by “a centimetre”. Solovyov immediately objected, saying such statements were unacceptable.
Sidorov argued that Trump’s current actions are serious and difficult to restrain. He said that despite frequent discussion of a multipolar world and counterweights to American power, no effective counter centre currently exists that could halt US policy. He suggested that Russia’s ongoing negotiations with China over extending their 2001 cooperation treaty, which has expired, may become more significant. The treaty covered military technical cooperation and consultations over emerging threats.
He added that China is suffering greater losses than Russia in broader geopolitical terms and claimed Beijing has effectively been pushed out of the Western Hemisphere. He cited Cuba as a current focus of US policy and pointed to Brazil’s elections scheduled for 4 October, suggesting Trump would oppose President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and his party. In his assessment, pro American forces could gain influence across the hemisphere.
Sidorov compared Trump to a tightrope walker without safety protection. He argued that if Trump resolves issues involving Iran and Cuba, two long standing challenges for Washington dating back to the late 1950s and late 1970s, he may face few political constraints. He speculated about discussions in the United States concerning the Twenty Second Amendment to the US Constitution, including theoretical scenarios in which Vice President JD Vance could resign to allow Trump to return as vice president. He described this as speculation but suggested Trump might attempt to justify bypassing term limits.
Sidorov warned that Trump could move towards what he described as tyranny, drawing parallels with the Roman Empire and suggesting the US Senate could ultimately support expanded executive authority. He claimed Trump might accuse Democrats of acting on foreign funding and pursue arrests of opposition figures, including Ilhan Omar, though he acknowledged this was conjecture.
He further argued that recent US military action had given American armed forces renewed confidence. He noted debates surrounding the Strait of Hormuz and described Iran as a country with limited regional support.
According to Sidorov, the only realistic constraint on Trump would be internal divisions within the United States. He dismissed the prospect of Iran stopping US policy through military action.
Turning to Russia’s position, Sidorov said Moscow is deeply engaged in Ukraine but argued that Russia was compelled to enter the war to preserve itself. He claimed that Russia’s diplomatic strategy had shifted its principal adversary from the battlefield into a mediating role in negotiations, thereby limiting the full deployment of US military power in support of Ukraine.
He asked viewers to consider the implications if the full strength of US armed forces were directly engaged on Ukraine’s side. He said Russia is still rebuilding its military political capacity after what he described as decades of decline following the 1990s.
On nuclear weapons, Sidorov argued that Russia should preserve what he described as its principal strategic asset rather than employ it, stating that it should not be used against the United States.
Solovyov rejected suggestions that Russia is “stuck” in Ukraine. He argued that Russia has gained more territory than during the Second World War, with what he described as significantly lower losses. He characterised the conflict as a new type of war and challenged critics to offer alternative strategies.
He concluded by arguing that wars are rarely short and often last for decades, rejecting the idea that modern conflicts should be brief.
