I am delighted that the Indians, given their complex relationship with their former colonial overlords in London, permitted me to set out the argument for laying the assassination attempt against Lt General Alekseev before the door of the British MI6. I took the liberty of speaking freely, thinking back at the remark I heard one Indian commentator make on air some years ago that the British concept of ‘fair play’ is a knee to the groin.
For this discussion go to minute 22 on the podcast above. I am saying that perhaps Kiev was right in denying that it was behind the plot to kill Alekseev. That the prime suspect was captured in Dubai suggests to me that the plotters had means and the logistical expertise of a higher level than you would find in Kiev’s military intelligence unit acting alone.
Earlier on the podcast, beginning at minute 16 you will find my discussion with the presenter of the reasons why both Kiev and Moscow are saying that Donald Trump is trying to accelerate the peace talks with a view to winding up the war before June.
I consider it an honor to have been invited to discuss such a sensitive and very timely issue with this Iranian broadcaster over the course of 41 minutes.
Though the viewer numbers are still modest, there was apparently some impact in the region because a day ago I suddenly had 126 Israelis inspecting my Word Press web site, a first time ever event. Who says that Israelis are indifferent to Iranian media?
Our conversation centered on Mr. Trump’s threats of military attack on Iran, his sending an aircraft carrier task force and numerous other military assets to the region for execution of such an attack and his demands that Iran essentially disarm and accept the position of US-Israeli vassal. I directed particular attention to how Trump has exercised great care to control all communications surrounding his foreign policy initiatives, including what he is doing over Iran. I describe in some detail the distinction between what we will hear in public space about any settlement of the Iranian crisis and the real moving parts which are kept secret because they would compromise Trump in the public arena. We will not hear, for example, about the eventual decision on disposition (shipment abroad) of the 400 kg of weapons grade enriched uranium that Iran evidently moved ahead of Trump’s bombing of nuclear installations and their supposed ‘obliteration.’
The presenter, Wesam Bahrani, asks about the possibility that Trump’s aggressiveness towards Iran is being driven by the control that Mossad may have over him going back to his relationship with Mossad-controlled Epstein. He asks why Witkoff goes to visit Israel each time before heading for negotiations with Iran. He asks if Trump really is in control of U.S. policy or is it being decided by far smarter people like J.D. Vance.
I leave it to viewers to follow my answers to these questions in the podcast. Here, however, I want to bring out a bigger point: I maintain that though Trump may have a vocabulary limited to 1,000 words (in contrast to the average educated German who is said to have a vocabulary of 50,000 words), Trump is no fool and has an idea or two in his head. To be precise, I emphasize that the relationship of Trump to, say, the very clever Vice President J.D. Vance is similar to the relationship that Richard Nixon had with Henry Kissinger, who was believed by the general public at the time to be the real brains of the administration. From the perspective of 50 years later, and notwithstanding Kissinger’s efforts to maintain that fiction in his memoirs, it is fairly obvious that Nixon was the author of the foreign policy moves and Kissinger was just the implementer.
This particular interview had considerable material on the key issues of the day in US -Russian relations.
As from minute 4.30 through minute 12.30, we discuss:
– the ongoing talks in Abu Dhabi to end the Ukraine war about which, I maintain, the real subject is the terms of Ukrainian capitulation to the Russian territorial and other demands
-the negligible likelihood that US access to Ukrainian mineral rights will be a point of leverage for the Ukrainians in these talks
-the possibility that the West can persuade China to apply pressure on Russia to end the war, which I consider to be illusory
Further on this podcast, there is a very good analysis by a Chinese commentator of what terms would have to be set in any future arms limitations agreements to which China becomes a party. Then from minute 18.45 to 22.00, I discuss with the presenter Russia’s ‘crocodile tears’ over the expiration of the New START arms limitation treaty.
Russia Says Iran Alone Can Decide on Uranium Removal Ahead Of US-Iran Nuclear Talks
Putin on non-renewal of New START Treaty
My discussion of this issue appears as from minute 20. As I say here, Putin is a politician, and politicians are known to lie. Russia’s Public Relations exercise on the non-renewal of the treaty should not be taken at face value. Both the US and Russia had good reasons not to renew it. For the USA, they cannot be bound by the limits on numbers of warheads when they now want to add to their arsenal to counter China’s build-up lest they find themselves short of weapons in a two-front war with Russia and China. For Russia, the New START treaty imposed on them the obligation to keep their heavy bombers on the airfields in plain view with the result that many bombers were damaged or destroyed in a Ukrainian drone attack on airfields from Murmansk to Irkutsk that was very likely directed by the MI6 (UK) and the CIA (USA).
‘Judging Freedom’ edition of 4 February: What Putin is telling Trump
Today’s discussion focused on the way Trump and Putin have used their backchannel consisting of their personal envoys to do business with no leaks by subordinates in their respective foreign ministry and State Department. Consequently, we observers are left guessing what is the content of the negotiations in Abu Dhabi which are being described as ‘constructive’ when nothing more is being said. We are left clueless about any possible US-Russian talks over Iran.
As I mention, being in the pool of analysts invited onto various Indian and Iranian television programs that are later posted as podcasts, I receive some very interesting snippets of information that I find useful in developing my own speculation on what is going on between Moscow and Washington with respect not only to achieving peace in the Russia-Ukraine war but also in finding an off-ramp from his threatened attack on Iran that is face-saving for Trump.
I had shortly before the start of this interview received a couple of lines from News X World that they proposed to pitch to me for discussion starting just after the close of the Judging Freedom show. The main point here is that Russians are speaking of possible removal of Iranian enriched uranium to some foreign country. About this you will find nothing in Mainstream. It matches perfectly what a journalist from an Iranian broadcaster told me several days ago when preparing me for an interview they propose to conduct tomorrow: namely than Iranian weapons grade uranium will be shipped to China. Meanwhile, RT in an article yesterday mentioned that Putin and Trump are in discussion about Rosatom being put in charge of the Iranian civilian nuclear program for medicine and other purposes to ensure that the work stays within the agreed bounds. All of this constitutes an off-ramp for Trump similar to the off-ramp which Putin made for Trump in 2013 over disposition of Syrian chemical weapons.
I heartily recommend to my Community of subscribers your recent podcast on “The Future of Europe,” which you delivered in excellent English, making your thoughts accessible to a wide audience.
Your remarks, your answers to a number of pointed questions from the moderator on intra-Belgian, intra-European and international issues were characterized by unusual openness and, shall we say, boldness. In this sense, what you had to say was as courageous as your public stand in December on the issue of confiscation of Russian state assets held in Euroclear, when you stood up to European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. They wanted to take Europe ‘into uncharted waters’ as you rightly said, exposing Belgium to financial ruin and exposing the global financial markets to a possible melt-down. I said ‘bravo’ to your bravery and success then, and I reconfirm that expression of admiration today.
Your speech in this podcast highlights your insider’s critique of the failures of the European Union in economic, military and geopolitical dimensions due to over-regulation, a wrong-headed approach to immigration, distortions in the energy balance due to the influence of the utterly impractical environmentalists, and complacency in the defense umbrella that was provided by the United States via NATO, to the point where Europe is now defenseless if the US is not at its side, as NATO Secretary General Marc Rutte said directly to the European Parliament a week ago. Your repeated mention of ‘dogmatism’ guiding baneful EU policies might be better called the triumph of ideology over the pragmatism for which you stand.
So far, so good.
However, at the very start of this podcast you show that on the single biggest issue today driving Europe into crisis you yourself are being guided by Cold War ideology rather than realism and pragmatism. You should put aside your father’s uncritical worship of Ronald Reagan and think for yourself. The entire edifice of your solutions to the woes of Europe stands on quicksand, while real foundations for building the future are readily available if only you will open your eyes and put aside sanctimonious language and thinking.
I have in mind your affirmation that Russia is a land of tyranny while Ukraine is a democratic country. This is a misrepresentation far greater than the promotion of offshore windfarms versus nuclear power generation that you rightly denounce. It is this misrepresentation that you are using to justify the root cause of present-day deindustrialization of Europe, namely the cut-off from cheap Russian oil, gas and other natural resources, which have driven, in particular, the ‘existential challenge’ (your words} to Germany, the traditional locomotive of the European economy. It is the justification you use for further integration of Europe to support remilitarization – whereas the shift of sovereignty from the nation states of Europe to the bureaucratic, top-down structures of the European institutions is the very last thing the Continent needs if it is genuinely committed to the principles of democracy versus von der Leyen style autocracy – against which you yourself were compelled to take up arms in December. By your alignment with the European leaders who are preparing for a war with Russia in 2030, you are exposing Belgium to a far greater possible national catastrophe than the collapse of Euroclear over stolen Russian assets.
So what is the reality of Russia? Of Ukraine?
Simply put, Russia is a democracy of sorts, with its own democratic procedures that ensure the voice of the people is decisive in parliamentary and presidential elections which are open to various parties which have their own domestic programs. Only openly seditious parties and individuals are excluded. In addition to the formal, constitutionally mandated structures, there are channels outside of parliament that bring civil society face to face with Power regularly.
Mr. Putin is not an autocrat. He is a politician who maneuvers between conflicting interests in society, just as you must. He is a lawyer by profession and, by the way, he governs out of lawyerly convictions. His ‘Special Military Operation’ is precisely constrained by the powers he sought and obtained from parliament. It is not all-out war, which would allow the total destruction of Kiev and of the ruling Zelensky regime, which is entirely within the capabilities of the Russian weapons. That may happen, but only after Putin goes to parliament for a declaration of war. I contrast this law-abiding behavior of the Russian leader, with what you see Mr. Trump doing in Venezuela, in Iran and elsewhere, i.e. making or threatening war without any authorization from Congress, as he is legally obliged to do.
Surprise you as it may, I insist that even in present conditions of wartime, there is greater freedom of the press, freedom of expression in Russia today than in France or Germany, or even than in Belgium if you consider the ban on Russian news sources practiced today under the phony explanation of combatting ‘disinformation.’ Let us be honest with one another. Euronews today is the voice of Ursula von der Leyen. The BBC is the voice of 10 Downing Street. European journalism has been greatly compromised by home-grown McCarthyism. There are no almost no debates on foreign policy in public space, with the result that the policies which are set are done so in ignorance of counter arguments and other, better solutions.
I write and say openly that there is a cult of personality on Russian state television which is plainly stupid. However, in talk shows and featured news programs there is very extensive presentation of original news from CNN, Deutsche Welle, France 24, etc., especially setting out views that are highly critical of Russia and its leadership. On these shows, many panelists speak freely about the wrong headed economic and other policies of the Putin government, and none of these programs has cuts or editing before release on air, which cannot be said of CNN or other major Western programming.
True, Putin has been in power for too long. There are many accumulated ‘barnacles’ on his administration that are off-putting. I have written that it is time for him to retire and pass the baton to a younger generation of leaders who have proven themselves as competent and successful managers, who travel the country and are well known to the electorate. But that is another matter for discussion another time.
As for Ukraine, its depiction as a democracy is a vile falsehood which you should not disseminate, since it damages your credibility as a man who speaks his mind.
We all know that the Zelensky regime has its roots in the coup d’etat of February 2014 which overthrew the legitimate elected president Yanukovich, in violation, by the way, of the terms for holding new presidential elections ahead of schedule that were negotiated by and guaranteed by France and Germany only the day before Yanukovich was forced to flee for his life. The new incoming fiercely nationalist and anti-Russian Ukrainian government was installed by the United States, as the public record of the phone conversations of then State Department officer responsible for Ukraine, Victoria Nuland, made plain to one and all. As for the presently sitting Verkhovna Rada and Mr. Zelensky, their elections were observed by international monitors who reported on the widespread use of intimidation. Physical violence against Opposition candidates was a public scandal. In the years since, the Ukrainian press was purged and made completely compliant with the regime. As we now know from the work of the Anticorruption agency in the summer of 2025, the top levels of the Zelensky regime are utterly corrupt and have been stealing from the vast funds pouring into the country from the USA and the EU. Zelensky’s closest associate, the ‘power behind the throne’ Yermak, was forced to resign and to go underground at the close of last year to avoid prosecution. Moreover, what kind of democracy can Ukraine claim to be when its president has remained in power 18 months after the end of his mandate per Ukrainian law.
Knowing these easily verifiable facts, it is no service to your reputation, Mr. Prime Minister, that you persist in calling Ukraine a bulwark of democracy against the Russian enemies of democracy.
I will not go into the reasons why the Russian military action against Ukraine in February 2022 was not an act of aggression but rather a logical and necessary response to the provocative and existentially threatening advance of NATO to Russia’s borders in Ukraine, and specifically to the preparation of Ukraine as proxy for a war on Russia during the 8 years of the Minsk-2 accords. Moreover, it was a response to the murder of 15,000 Russian-speaking civilians under artillery attack in the Donbas since the 2014 coup d’etat, and to the impending final solution of the resistance by a force of more than 100,000 Ukrainian troops concentrated at the line of confrontation in Donbas in December 2021. All of this is readily available to you in excellent, readable histories if you wish to consult them.
I ask you to pause and reflect on these issues when you consider what the European Member States can do to return to confident economic performance.
Going back to the Benelux alliance that became the European Economic Community, Europe was a continent of growing prosperity that exerted enormous Soft Power globally. Regrettably, ever since the creation of the Union and especially since the beginning of Ursula von der Leyen’s term in office, the EU has turned from being a Peace Project focused on economic integration into a War Project focused on Hard Power. I urge you please to pay close attention to this issue in your thinking On Europe’s Future.
I conclude by noting that the present EU helter-skelter search for new global markets is a lot of motion without movement. The fit between India and the EU or between Mercosur and the EU is not compelling. If it had been so, the big trade deals now being concluded would have taken place 20 years ago. The opportunities for big EU exports in either of these directions is minimal, as will soon become clear. Meanwhile, Europe has foolishly turned its back on the entirely natural and vast trade possibilities with the big neighbor to the East. Given the ongoing and already substantial reindustrialization of Russia, the opportunities for mutually advantageous trade are still greater than when they relied only on raw materials. Take another look, and reconsider.
If Europe can have normal relations with a great many countries around the world which do not share ‘European values’ in their domestic policies, then why is that impossible to do with respect to Russia?
I stand ready to expand on the points made above in discussion with any of your staff should you wish to explore pragmatism as an option for EU foreign policy and not only for the regulating the energy balance or immigration rules.
This 42-minute conversation covers a lot of ground, some of which was already traversed in my latest interviews with Judge Napolitano and Professor Glenn Diesen. But viewers will find that the tone is lighter, that we enjoyed ourselves more and perhaps we shed light in corners that were still obscure in the previous interviews. Viewers will see that Mike now has a sponsor from among the vendors of precious metals. I wish him success in financing his podcasts, but it is a reminder that there is no free lunch, and that all journalists,
Gilbert Doctorow 