‘Dialogue Works,’ edition of 10 January: Elon Musk and Alice Weidel (AfD) Ignite Controversial Discussion on X!

Yesterday’s two-hour long on-air chat between Elon Musk and the chief of the so-called hard right opposition party in Germany, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) was the principal point for discussion today with ‘Dialogue Works’ host Nima Alkhorshid.  This broadcast provided rich material for analysis of various issues, first among them what influence Musk will be exerting on the incoming Trump administration. I regrettably submit that this influence will be ill-informed and still less poorly considered. The sad truth is that Musk demonstrated that there are no universal geniuses, and that brilliance in the several business and technical domains which he rightly claims does not extend to international affairs.  He obviously will not be the ‘adult in the room’ that so many people have hoped would be there to exert a restraining force on the compulsive Mr. Trump.

For her part, Frau Weidel showed herself to be interested primarily in domestic policy in Germany and to have nothing of importance to say about the two most critical conflicts in the world today, the Israeli rampage in its neighborhood including the genocide in Gaza, and the Russia-Ukraine war. Those who tell us that her possible victory at the polls on 23 February will signal a German withdrawal from NATO, as the widely watched Colonel Douglas Macgregor has done earlier this week, are drawing their analysis from thin air.

In addition to what viewers will find in this video, I will be publishing an essay on the Musk-Weidel online chat later today.

I am grateful to my host to have been given the opportunity to talk at some length about the legacy of Jimmy Carter and about what was said about him in eulogies at his funeral service in Washington.

I expect viewers will find considerable food for thought in this 45-minute-long youtube entry:

Transcript submitted by a reader

Napolitano: 0:32
Hi there, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, January 9th, 2025. Professor Gilbert Doctorow joins us now. Professor Doctorow, thank you for your time. Thank you for all of your time in 2024. It’s all very, very helpful. And it’s a privilege for me to be able to pick your brain. And thank you, of course, for joining us today. And I hope we can continue our weekly get-togethers like this in 2025.

You have written an interesting piece on, for better or for worse, President-elect Trump’s musings about expanding the size of the United States. Not going to ask you about the Panama Canal or the Gulf of Mexico or Canada, but I will ask you about Greenland. How do you suppose the Kremlin would react if the United States moved seriously, either by economic or military or some political means, to acquire an enormous piece of real estate that is not that far from the Russian mainland?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 1:45
I don’t think the Russians are going to be too surprised or excited. I don’t think they’re going to take any change in policy with respect to the States. Frankly, it’s difficult to judge what the opinion of the Kremlin is or of the chattering classes in Russia, because Russia is in the midst of the two-week winter break which runs from December 31st, our New Year’s, to January 13th, their New Year’s, what they call the old New Year’s, according to the Russian Orthodox Church calendar. And during this time, all commentators, most of the hosts of the premier news programs, they’re all on vacation. Therefore, as to the regular news briefs, they have limited their commentary to what we say, what is being said on Western media, the kind of shock that a news organization like CNN expressed when they were reviewing Trump’s latest remarks.

Napolitano: 2:51
Well, you have a handle on the Kremlin’s thinking, more so than almost any American that I know of. How do you think they would react if we wake up some morning and find out, and I’m going to expand the question, that the US has taken control by force of the Panama Canal and by some other means of Greenland? I’m mainly concerned about Greenland, because if you look at the North Pole, you will see the proximity between Greenland and Russia.

Doctorow:
I would rather move, back away, from the way the Greenland issue is being covered by our media, And that is all media, mainstream and alternative. The attention has been to what is in Greenland. It’s been to what Greenland will mean 30 years from now, when the polar ice cap melts, and what this means for American activity, future activity in the Arctic region, what threats it poses or doesn’t to Russian navigation. These are the issues that we see discussed in our newspapers.

3:53
It’s all very fine, but I think it has nothing whatever to do with what President Trump is doing now. I don’t think this man is terribly concerned about anything that could or would happen 30 years from now. His mind is much more focused on what’s going to happen in his lifespan and during his time in power. And for that, we have to take a step back and say that this man– who was generally viewed by mainstream people, by his opponents, as being superficial, transactional, unable to deal with foreign policy issues in a mature way– he is putting something forward which is not the least bit frivolous for today and tomorrow, not for 30 years perspective.

4:43
And what I mean is: he has been advised clearly at what President Reagan did in a similar situation to what he is facing now with the Ukraine war. In October 1983, President Reagan was faced with a very unpleasant fact of 140 plus American soldiers having been blown to bits in Lebanon by a Hezbollah attack on the barracks where they and French soldiers were based in a peacekeeping mission. Two days later, he invaded Granada.

5:15
That is the message from the Reagan administration that Mr. Trump is employing now. He is preparing to throw Ukraine under the bus, and he doesn’t want to be held accountable for it, because he wants the whole thing to diminish in importance compared to the American takeover of Greenland.

Napolitano:
Okay. So is the compensation for throwing Ukraine under the bus the acquisition of Greenland, the acquisition of the Panama Canal, or an invasion of Iran? Something must be done because of the mentality of the people in Washington, D.C. to compensate for and remove the public attention from what will be a humiliating loss in Ukraine. I think you agree with that.

Doctorow:
That is summing it up very precisely. That is what’s going on right now.

Napolitano:
And what do you think he’ll do? Colonel Macgregor thinks it’s the invasion of Ukraine. You’re suggesting something a little bit more benign and probably not military, but who knows, with respect to Greenland and Panama.

Doctorow: 6:25
I don’t see any need for him to use military muscle on Greenland. If you pay attention closely to what the Danish prime minister said yesterday when asked about this whole case in the press, she said, well, it is up, Greenland’s future is up to Greenlanders. Now, that’s as much as saying that she’s given up. She has no intention of facing down Trump and the United States over this or creating a scandal within NATO. When you consider who exactly are the Greenlanders, They are 56,000 people in that vast territory. Don’t you think it would be quite easy to buy them all off?

Napolitano:
I’m sure it would be, and that’s probably a mirror of Trump’s thinking, but how would Putin react to the ability of Trump to put offensive weaponry as cold as it is up there, and maybe cold is an understatement, it’s inside the Arctic Circle, aimed at Russia?

Doctorow:
I don’t see any basis for Putin to complain. It’s been discussed openly in Russian media that they are prepared to make the so-called medium-range Oreshnik an intercontinental ballistic missile. They will simply position it in the Russian Far East. So that would be nothing more– so if Mr. Trump wants to take, wants to eventually place missiles in northern Greenland, it is only, would be a counter move to what the Russians can achieve in the next few months if they want to.

Napolitano: 8:10
When do you think the Kremlin expects the special military operation in Ukraine to be over? And it will end either when President Zelensky leaves or the Ukrainian military collapses or President Putin says “We’ve achieved our goals.” I mean, I don’t know how it’s going to end, but when do you think the Kremlin expects it to end?

Doctorow:
Well, during 19, during 2025, that’s for sure. Whether it will reach a critical stage before the inauguration is the only open question. We have very little time remaining, and the Russians still are several weeks away from capturing Pokrovsk, which is discussed as the major logistics hub supporting the whole Ukrainian front in Donbas. Once they capture Pokrovsk, then it will be really a straight line to the Dnieper River, and possibly it could be so overwhelming for the Ukrainian forces that they capitulate.

That is a possibility, I wouldn’t call it a probability, but a possibility. Failing that, now that Mr. Trump has moved his timeline from a 24-hour solution to a six-month solution, it’s entirely thinkable that the Russians will devastate the Ukrainian army and solve the problem for Mr. Trump.

Napolitano: 9:37
You mentioned the winter break. I mean, is this like World War I where they just stopped fighting at Christmas time? Have both sides stopped for the two weeks or is the fighting going on as we speak?

Doctorow:
Well, the fighting’s going on. The only thing that stopped is the newscasters are all on vacation and many Russian companies shut down, but that’s all.

Napolitano:
These shows that you monitor, particularly the one on which both you and I have appeared called “The Great Game”, it’s not on television any more.

Doctorow:
Well, it’s not on television because the hosts are on vacation. It will be back on the 14th of January, along with all regular programming on Russian television. All they’re showing now are classic films from the Soviet era and some very new blockbusters, something called Spokatyr, which is a Russian folk hero from the Middle Ages. These are for the kids and for the family to enjoy themselves and to get a little break from all the war news.

Napolitano: 10:45
Okay. Secretary of State Blinken has been giving a series of, for lack of a better phrase, farewell interviews. He gave a very long one to the “New York Times”. Even though it was the “New York Times”, it was videoed. I’m going to play a short clip from you, for you and ask you what you think. And I ask you to concentrate on his and Joe Biden’s favorite phrase, which to me is totally unrealistic, but I invite your comments: “Putin has failed.” Chris, cut number two.

Interviewer: 11:19
Do you feel like you’ve left Ukraine in the strongest position that you could have? Or were there things that you could have done differently?

Blinken:
Well, first, what we’ve left is Ukraine, which was not self-evident because Putin’s ambition was to erase it from the map. We stopped that. Putin has failed, his strategic objective in regaining Ukraine has failed and will not succeed. Ukraine is standing, and I believe it also has extraordinary potential not only to survive, but actually to thrive going forward. And that does depend on decisions that future administrations and many other countries will make.

Napolitano: 11:57
This guy’s in another world. Is there any evidence whatsoever that Putin’s goal was to– I know what the answer is going to be, but I want to hear your response– Putin’s goal was to erase Ukraine from the map? I’m quoting him literally.

Doctorow:
That’s total nonsense. But then as you say, he’s living in a different world. He’s in a pure propaganda. He is one of the authors of that propaganda, and he seems perhaps to have swallowed himself, which is the worst possible thing for any manufacturer of propaganda. Fool everybody else, but you certainly shouldn’t fool yourself. He seems to be fooled. The problem is with these interviews, and I’ve read, and you’re showing one that was videotaped, I read the extensive one taken by the “Financial Times”, this was about a week ago, they were giving this man a halo.

Napolitano:
I’m sorry, I couldn’t hear you, They were giving him what?

Doctorow:
A halo, an angelic halo. He should be wearing satanic horns, which would be more appropriate to his moral content.

Napolitano:
Watch this one, because in this one, which is a little bit longer, it’s 90 seconds, it’s the same interview but a different cut. He actually boasts, quote, “We put Ukraine on a path to NATO membership.” I mean, it’s as if he has no awareness or memory of what happened in the past two and a half years. This will raise your blood pressure, Professor, so with my apologies. Chris, cut number one.

Blinken::
Where the line is drawn on the map, at this point, I don’t think is fundamentally going to change very much. The real question is, can we make sure that Ukraine is in a position to move forward strongly?

Interviewer:
You mean that the areas that Russia controls, you feel will have to be ceded?

Blinken:
Ceded is not the question. The question is: the line as a practical matter in the foreseeable future is unlikely to move very much. Ukraine’s claim on that territory will always be there. And the question is, will they find ways, with the support of others, to re-gain territory that’s been lost? I think the critical thing now going forward is this: if there is going to be a resolution, or at least a near-term resolution, because it’s unlikely that Putin will give up on his ambitions.

14:09
If there’s a ceasefire, then in Putin’s mind, the ceasefire is likely to give him time to rest, to refit, to re-attack at some point in the future. So what’s going to be critical to make sure that any ceasefire that comes about is actually enduring is to make sure that Ukraine has the capacity going forward to deter further aggression. And that can come in many forms. It could come through NATO, and we put Ukraine on a path to NATO membership. It could come through security assurances, commitments, guarantees by different countries to make sure that Russia knows that if it reattacks, it’s going to have a big problem. That, I think is going to be critical to making sure that any deal that’s negotiated actually endures and then allows Ukraine the space, the time to grow strong as a country.

Napolitano: 14:53
I mean, this is another world in which he lives if he really thinks that in the past two and a half years, we, the US and the West, NATO, put Ukraine on the path to a NATO membership.

Doctorow:
I think this is his bid for a professorship at Columbia University.

Napolitano:
Oh, Jeff Sachs is going to love that, to have Blinken and Mrs. Clinton and Victoria Nuland as colleagues.

Doctorow:
Well, Columbia has taken over the role that the Hoover Institute once upon a time took in the Cold War. And it seems to be a graveyard for people like Blinken, who would like to have the comfort of a prestigious calling card, and who are looking for the opportunity to remain in the public eye. But what he is saying is utter rubbish, and I don’t believe there are too many people, serious people, even in Washington, D.C., who would take what he’s saying seriously.

As for the rest of the world, of course nobody takes it seriously. Yesterday I had a very interesting interview on a rising star in Indian public broadcasting in English. And there was an active diplomat, Indian diplomat, who was firmly believing that the war in Ukraine is just a proxy war of NATO and the United States against Russia, and was expecting Russian victory. I think that people like that in the global south don’t take anything that Mr. Blinken says seriously. And so it’s not just you and me and the alternative media in the States, which has a big audience, who understand this. But I think in this global South, there are a lot of people, even in positions of power, who understand it as well.

Napolitano: 16:44
How stable would NATO be if, as Trump has threatened, the US leaves or if, as Colonel Macgregor believes, after an election, of course, the outcome of which no one yet can know, Germany leaves?

Doctorow:
Well, I’ve paid attention to Colonel Macgregor’s remarks on Germany, and I understand where he’s coming from. He is following now the work that Elon Musk is doing to raise the chances of electoral victory for the Alternative for Deutschland, so-called hard-right party, that would seek to change the relationship between Germany and NATO, and Germany and the United States. Though it’s not entirely clear whether Germany, even under an AfD government, would seek to withdraw from NATO. That’s not 100 percent clear.

17:42
Nonetheless, the likelihood of there being a big change in the political composition of the ruling coalition that takes power sometime this spring in Germany, I don’t believe that the Alternative for Deutchland will have a commanding position. They may do, this may be the single largest party in results possible and not highly likely, but possible, but none of– it will certainly be way below the percent needed to form a government without a coalition partner. And as things are today, the other parties maintain their cordon sanitaire around this party. So it’s difficult for me to agree with Colonel Macgregor that there’ll be a change of policy on NATO in the [near future].

Napolitano: 18:31
Is it difficult for you to accept that the US might leave NATO or radically diminish its role, say removing a lot of troops, no longer commanding all of NATO and European militaries?

Doctorow:
I think I share your second assessment. For the United States to leave NATO, that becomes a congressional decision. There are legal hurdles for Trump to do that, and I don’t know that he would want to waste his political capital on an uncertain outcome.

19:04
On the other hand, he just has to do nothing. Doing nothing means to stop financing, to stop participating in things. That’s within his power. So that he could remove effectively the United States contribution to NATO, which is critical to NATO’s remaining in place. The fact of the matter is that whether European countries devote 2% or 3% or even 5% of their GDP to armaments, to defense, that does nothing to ensure that there is a unified European military force capable of foreign expeditions or even capable of defending Europe without the United States participation. So … yeah.

Napolitano: 19:48
The elites in Europe seem to have fallen in line in the past two years, not necessarily with cash, but certainly with their words behind Joe Biden and Jake Sullivan and Tony Blinken on Ukraine. Is there an attitude of deference on the part of the elites towards the US or stated differently, are they going to change their minds when Donald Trump’s in the White House and he says we’re getting the hell out of Ukraine?

Doctorow:
I think that this requires a little bit of subtlety here. It is too easy to assume that everything that Europe does is aligning itself with Washington’s dictat, that they are totally subservient and have no self-respect. I think that is erroneous. I think it’s missing the point that Europe developed its own neoconservative globalist thinkers. It doesn’t just adopt what Robert Kagan wrote, they had their own people. This was the wave of the times coming out of the monopolar world, the unipolar world of the 1990s. And the Europeans have a little bit of intellectual contribution to all these horrible mistakes.

21:07
So it is today, they are not only lackeys to the United States, they are willing lackeys because they support the overriding principles of a values-driven foreign policy. And that values-driven foreign policy is to defend the democracy, a young democracy, a vibrant democracy in Ukraine, which is the theory, of course. There’s absolutely no correspondence to reality. Nonetheless, what I’m saying is that Europeans have fallen into traps that they’ve made for themselves, not only traps that have been set by Washington for them.

Napolitano:
Professor Doctorow, thank you very much, my dear friend. Always a pleasure. Your insight is unique and valuable and much appreciated by those of us that watch it and by I who get to interrogate you. All the best. We’ll see you next week.

Doctorow:
Well, thanks for having me.

Napolitano:
Of course. Coming up later today at 12 noon, Max Blumenthal; at one o’clock, Ambassador Ian Proud; at two o’clock, Professor John Mearsheimer; at three o’clock, Colonel Lawrence Macgregor,

22:15
Judge Napolitano for “Judging Freedom”.

Transcripti submitted by reader

NewsX: 0:00
We are joined by Dr Sergei Dvorinov, Director, Communication of BRICS Culture Media Forum; Gilbert Doctorow, Russian affairs expert located in Brussels; Ambassador Bhaswati Mukherjee, former diplomat. Thank you for joining us on this discussion. Sergei, I wanted to come to you first. There is a lot of talk about this town of Kurakove. Russia says that it has claimed it. Ukraine does not, has not confirmed this. What can you tell me about the importance of this territory?

Dvorinov: 0:34
Yes. Good evening. Namaste. Namaskar. Like you already mentioned, that is very close to the logistic hub, Pokrovsk. And I just want to remind that eastern part of Ukraine, Donetsk region, is originally was a Russian territory and Russian land. And during USSR time, Mr. Khrushchev gave this, joined this land to Ukraine. It was his own choice and his decision and that’s why we have such kind of problems that our national leader Vladimir Putin should protect that population which is mostly Russian-speaking population with all traditional values of Russian civilization.

1:23
And right now it’s very significant after Christmas, Orthodox Christmas, which was yesterday, we achieve– it’s very significant not only tell about some military achievement, we should tell that right now we can see Ukraine army, they lost already the spirit of win, spirit of fighting, because they completely recognized and understand and realized as well that Mr. Zelensky, who is not legal president of Ukraine, you know this very well, He was not re-elected. During his election, by the time he promised to his nation that he will bring peace to Ukraine. And in history, everybody will tell the name of Zelensky, they will tell it was the president who completely cheat his nation and bring war, not peace, but war to the country, unfortunately.

2:27
And Mr. Zelensky was not invited to Donald Trump inauguration, which is a very important signal. And right now it’s not only loss of Ukrainian army, it’s also like kind of demoralization of all the nation where Everybody only just keep in mind one question. Who will be after Zelensky? Who will be next president responsible and honest and even not belong to some entertainment or show?

Because the mind and life experience of Mr. Zelensky is only before, it was only like a show. He’s a comedian. He is not related to any politics, no any, like, skills in this field. That’s why we can see that it’s a big strategy, but for us, for Russia, again, it’s according to the systematical plan of our national leader, Vladimir Putin.

NewsX: 3:30
Gilbert Doctorow, I wanted to move on to you next. Ukraine has launched new attacks in the Kursk region, or so it says. It has not released any information about these attacks, this offensive. How is Russia handling this? What does it aim to achieve with this?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
Well, Russia has stymied the counter-attacks according to the latest information from their sources. But I think it is important that you bring up this question of Kursk, because the general public doesn’t know this town or that town. Kurokhove or Pokrovsk doesn’t tell the general audience for this program very much. Let me insist that this is the largest war in Europe since World War II. And those who think of Ukraine as a third-world country are missing the point entirely. Ukraine was at the start of this war, probably the strongest army in Europe, second to Russia.

4:30
It had been prepared by NATO instructors. It had been stuffed to the gills with NATO arms. It was prepared for a devastating attack on the Donbass. This is what precipitated the Russian attack in February to prevent a genocide of the Russian-speaking population in Donbass by that very massive and well-armed Ukrainian army.

So what we’re seeing now– despite all of the progress that Russia has made in beating back Ukraine, in moving beyond the fortifications that Ukraine had created in the neighborhood of the capital of Donetsk province in the eight years that they were being trained and armed by NATO countries– Russia has pushed way beyond that. It has now approached and passed the middle point geographically in the Donbas, particularly in the Donetsk oblast, region.

5:39
This is– they have now, when they approach Pokrovsk, which they will rename Krasnoyarsk, they are beyond 60 percent and they have a free road to the Dnieper River, which divides Ukraine in two. I say that because the activities of the Russian army have been to give the– relentless attacks, which give the Ukrainians no chance to fall back and create new defensive positions. So the Russians have opposed any ceasefire and will, since they are moving constantly, advancing and preventing the Ukrainians from creating strong defensive positions.

6:20
The war is approaching its conclusive phase. The Russian population is aware of that and anticipates victory. There is nothing that the incoming Trump administration can do to influence or change the policies of Moscow, which are that of the victorious side in a conflict which was, at the wish of the European Union and United States, to be decided on the field of battle. It is being decided on the field of battle.

6:51
But it’s a very tough fight, and that has to be emphasized. The Russians have a very high advantage in artillery shells, artillery pieces, missiles, compared to Ukraine. They have a very big advantage in manpower on the front, compared to Ukraine. But the Ukrainians are fighting. Despite all the stories that we know of desertions, The fact that 1,700 Ukrainian soldiers trained in France came back as a brigade and disappeared into the population to avoid going to the front. We know those facts, but we also know the facts of the reality of the counterattacks that you described at the start of this program.

And as I say, this is a vicious battle, a vicious war, and no one should underestimate the extreme passions on both sides. Russia is now the strongest military force in Europe and possibly in the world, given everything that it has learned in the nearly three years of war in which the latest technologies of all science have been brought to bear in the battlefield.

NewsX: 8:00
I just wanted to, I’m sorry to interrupt, I just wanted to bring in Ambassador Baswati Makkadi just because we are running out of time. Where did you see the war heading in the next few months? We are obviously approaching a Trump 2.0 administration. Is there any chance of a stable peace soon, peace agreement soon?

Bhaswati Mukherjee:
Thank you. I’d first like to begin by saying that looking at it from India’s perspective in Delhi, we look at the war in Ukraine as a proxy war fought by NATO with Russia. That’s the way we look at it. From that perspective, it hasn’t exactly gone the way NATO wanted it, because when they kept on provoking President Putin by saying that Ukraine will become a NATO member, it was very clear to everyone that at that point of time, Ukraine did not have the necessary qualification either to join the European Union or NATO, but it was just a question of pulling, pushing or pulling or whatever way you want to put it, the bear’s tail as hard as they could, the way we refer to the Chinese as the dragon.

9:10
So here you’re pulling the tail of the bear maybe a little too hard and the conflict started and it didn’t go the way NATO wanted. It went to a certain extent. They were able to use Ukrainians as a proxy to test their weapons, to see how far they could go, to see how far they could provoke a nuclear weapons state with a non-nuclear weapons state, etc. As my Russian colleague has said, the territories that have been captured by the Russian army are traditional Russian territories which go into the very heart of Russian civilization, of Russian literature, of Russian poetry. They were handed over to Ukraine, it was a strategic error.

9:49
Moreover, when the former USSR was disbanded, it was on the basis of the Minsk agreement; there were certain red lines drawn up which the West and the Russians were supposed to respect; that was not done. Now the question is, in India, how do we look at the prospects? We see the prospect of Ukraine as a defeated country, holding on to a little bit of Russian territory for compensation, because it is clear that when there will be a peace agreement, unfortunately, Ukraine will have to live with territory that has parted with, possibly, in a war which NATO could not win for them. In the process, as my colleague in Brussels has rightly pointed out, the Russian army has experienced how a modern war is fought. We all have, actually.

10:40
So has India. We have watched very closely the role that drones play, etc. This has actually been the age of dispelling innocence of how new wars are to be fought in the 21st century. It’s been an educative experience for all countries including India which have hostile neighbors on their territory, on their borders. I see this war coming to a rapid conclusion, I agree with my Belgian colleagues.

I see that the Ukrainians naturally from their perspective trying to hold on to whatever little Russian territory they’ve been able to capture as a bargaining chip. That’s quite normal too. I don’t see this war continuing. I agree with my Belgian colleagues. But I don’t see it as a victory either for NATO or for Ukraine.

11:25
But yes, like the so-called WMDs in Iraq of Saddam Hussein, it gave the West an opportunity to test out their latest weapons. They always like to do that. It gave a boom to their armaments industry. That’s what capitalism is all about. I think now we are all tired of this war, and I personally would welcome it to come to an end, because as a result of this war people are forgetting what is happening in Gaza which is unfortunate. If the Ukraine conflict would come to an end, we could then focus on ending also the conflict in Gaza and the distressing images that come every day of women and children dying in Gaza.

NewsX:
Thank you very much. We’ve run out of time, unfortunately.

12:08
Thank you to all our guests for joining us.

The discussion today centered on Donald Trump’s latest demands on Denmark and on Panama that they cede to the United States Greenland and the Canal respectively.  We appear to agree that these macho plans serve one overriding purpose:  to distract public attention from what Trump is planning to do to Ukraine, namely to walk away from it and allow the Russians to impose their terms on Kiev.

Blackrock may lose its vast expanses of rich black soil farmland in Ukraine that it has acquired in the past several years for next to nothing, but other rapacious U.S. concerns will surely find offsetting benefits in exploiting the mineral riches said to exist in Greenland. The American juggernaut can proceed merrily on its way, without remorse or regret for the million Ukrainians who have died or been horribly mutilated on the battlefield in a hopeless war on Russia that Washington ignited and promoted.

We also spent some time dissecting Tony Binken’s latest video taped interview with The New York Times. Blinken lives in an alternative universe, as Judge Napolitano sees it.  As I see it, Blinken is setting out in these interviews his claim to a professorship at Columbia University, which is the modern day successor to The Hoover Institution in California as the graveyard of failed politicians.

See  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQx3pg0AyiE

Translation below into German (Andreass Mylaeus)

„Judging Freedom“-Ausgabe vom 9. Januar: Wird Trump die USA erweitern?

Die heutige Diskussion drehte sich um Donald Trumps jüngste Forderungen an Dänemark und Panama, Grönland bzw. den Panamakanal an die Vereinigten Staaten abzutreten. Wir scheinen uns einig zu sein, dass diese Macho-Pläne einem übergeordneten Zweck dienen: die öffentliche Aufmerksamkeit von dem abzulenken, was Trump mit der Ukraine vorhat, nämlich sich von ihr abzuwenden und den Russen zu erlauben, Kiew ihre Bedingungen aufzuzwingen.

Blackrock mag seine riesigen Flächen an fruchtbarem Ackerland mit schwarzem Boden in der Ukraine verlieren, die es in den letzten Jahren für so gut wie nichts erworben hatte, aber andere habgierige US-Konzerne werden sicherlich einen Ausgleich in der Ausbeutung der Bodenschätze finden, die es angeblich in Grönland gibt. Der amerikanische Moloch kann fröhlich seinen Weg fortsetzen, ohne Reue oder Bedauern für die Millionen Ukrainer, die auf dem Schlachtfeld in einem hoffnungslosen Krieg gegen Russland, den Washington entfacht und gefördert hat, gestorben oder auf schreckliche Weise verstümmelt worden sind.

Wir haben auch einige Zeit damit verbracht, Tony Blinkens jüngstes Videointerview mit The New York Times zu analysieren. Blinken lebt in einem alternativen Universum, wie es Judge Napolitano sieht. Meiner Meinung nach erhebt Blinken in diesen Interviews Anspruch auf eine Professur an der Columbia University, die als moderner Nachfolger der Hoover Institution in Kalifornien als Friedhof gescheiterter Politiker gilt.

Yesterday’s panel discussion hosted by broadcaster News X (ITV India) demonstrates that the producers of this news program are in the process of finding their unique place in Indian media. They are now presenting experts holding contradictory positions on the nature of the Russia-Ukraine war and on its likely outcome. 

Readers of these pages will not be surprised by my on-air observations. However, I strongly recommend that they also watch the Indian diplomat who spoke just after me. Her thinking is refreshing and offers hope that India will come down off the fence and be more wholeheartedly dedicated to BRICS.

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

NewsX World (Indien): Russische Truppen überrennen Kurakhove

Die gestrige Podiumsdiskussion des Senders News X (ITV India) zeigt, dass die Produzenten dieser Nachrichtensendung dabei sind, ihren einzigartigen Platz in den indischen Medien zu finden. Sie präsentieren nun Experten, die widersprüchliche Positionen zur Natur des Russland-Ukraine-Krieges und zu seinem wahrscheinlichen Ausgang vertreten.

Die Leser dieser Seiten werden von meinen Beobachtungen während der Sendung nicht überrascht sein. Ich empfehle ihnen jedoch dringend, sich auch die indische Diplomatin anzusehen, die direkt nach mir gesprochen hat. Ihre Denkweise ist erfrischend und lässt hoffen, dass Indien sich nicht mehr unschlüssig verhält, sondern sich voll und ganz der BRICS-Gruppe widmet.

How long can an EU member state survive without a government?

In recent weeks there has been a lot of speculation among U.S.-based pundits over the imagined fragility of the European Union. After all, the traditional ‘locomotives’ of the EU, Germany and France, have both been experiencing domestic political turbulence. 

The government of Olaf Scholz in Germany recently lost a no-confidence vote in the Bundestag after internal disputes in his coalition deprived him of a parliamentary majority. Due to declining popularity of the centrist Christian Democrats and Social Democrats, who have dominated German politics for decades, it is possible that following the elections scheduled for 23 February the formation of a new governing coalition in Germany will take some time. In the meantime, Scholz is acting in the very limited capacity as caretaker.

There are those, for example the widely watched military and political analyst Colonel Douglas Macgregor, who tell us that the next German government will likely take the country out of NATO. This, he says, would put an end to the alliance in a manner not dependent on the whims and political capital of Donald J. Trump.  Obviously, Colonel Macgregor is counting on an electoral victory by the hard right opposition party, Alternativ fuer Deutschland (AfD) across the whole Bundesrepublik and not just in those states, mostly in the East, which have been the bases of the party’s support. However, I believe such an outcome is highly unlikely. What is more likely is a new grand coalition of the centrist parties which may even include Olaf Scholz in some ministerial post where he can do no harm. And if the CDU boss Friedrich Merz should become chancellor, we can expect ever closer German support for NATO and still more equipment and financial aid to Ukraine.

For its part, Emanuel Macron’s France has similar woes that were imposed on it when the president called a snap election in July which he subsequently lost. The premier he then installed was unable to pass a budget through parliament and his government eventually lost a no-confidence vote, the first such instance in many decades.  Macron’s latest choice for premier may very possibly experience the same fate, and the political instability, the mounting debt crisis may bring down Macron himself. In these conditions of uncertainty and unsustainable negative budgets, the interest payable on French state bonds recently rose above those of Greece. If this continues, Macron will be forced out of office by the bankers, not by the people, who mostly loathe him but can do little about it. Should this happen, then there will have to be new presidential elections and one cannot exclude the possibility that Marine Le Pen’s hard right Rassemblement National party will take power. That would challenge the geopolitical orientation of the Union, but by itself might not yet sober up Europe. And yet, I would not place a firm bet on Le Pen: ever since 2012, the CIA has effectively stage managed French presidential elections to eliminate the powerful candidates who were outside the U.S. orbit and to ensure a succession of pitiful incompetents taking possession of the Élysée Palace.

Please note that neither of the aforementioned EU states has faced a government crisis rivaling that of Belgium about which no one seems to take notice, either among European press or American media. To be sure, Belgium is not a powerhouse driving the EU, but it is the place where most of the European Institutions are concentrated and you might think that journalists would consider what it means for a Member State to have only caretakers sitting in ministerial posts for very lengthy periods.

In fact, the last parliamentary elections in Belgium which were held in June 2024 resulted in no ready coalitions possessing the votes to command a majority in parliament. The king has since then invited leaders of the largest numbers of deputies in parliament to attempt to form a governing coalition. But none has succeeded till now and the latest formateur, Bart de Wever, head of the Flemish nationalist party N-VA, has until the end of this month to break the deadlock and assume the reins of power. There are many who expect him to fail.

This situation is not new. In fact, Belgium is the all-time worldwide winner for length of time without a fully functional government. They made the record back in 2018-2020, when there was no proper government for 652 days. Another very lengthy period of caretaker cabinets occurred in 2010-2011 and lasted for 589 days.

Did the end of the world come in Belgium?  Of course not.  Taxes were collected. Government programs were financed. But many ministries operated to rules and people who awaited administrative decisions such as naturalization cases, faced unusually long delays in their applications being processed. Moreover, no reforms or other initiatives could be undertaken.

The lesson to be learned from the Belgian experience is that it will take a much more profound crisis to bring the European Union to collapse, or just to sweep aside the awful elites who are in power in 25 of the Member States (I exclude Slovakia and Hungary).  Even a total collapse of Ukraine under pressure from Russian armed forces may not do the trick; the Europeans may perversely just double down on their subservience to Washington and reliance on NATO for their defense.

Perhaps by their ‘tough love’ Donald Trump and Elon Musk can sufficiently traumatize the European elites to bring about the needed change of direction away from globalism and towards healthy assertion of the national interests of European Member States. Time will tell. But left to their own devices, I do not foresee a return to sanity in Europe in the coming weeks and months, though others, like Douglas Macgregor, may disagree with me.  

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Wie lange kann ein EU-Mitgliedstaat ohne Regierung überleben?

In den letzten Wochen wurde in den USA viel über die vermeintliche Fragilität der Europäischen Union spekuliert. Schließlich haben die traditionellen „Zugpferde“ der EU, Deutschland und Frankreich, beide mit innenpolitischen Turbulenzen zu kämpfen.

Die Regierung von Olaf Scholz in Deutschland hat kürzlich ein Misstrauensvotum im Bundestag verloren, nachdem interne Streitigkeiten in seiner Koalition ihm die parlamentarische Mehrheit entzogen hatten. Aufgrund der sinkenden Popularität der gemäßigten Christdemokraten und Sozialdemokraten, die die deutsche Politik seit Jahrzehnten dominieren, ist es möglich, dass die Bildung einer neuen Regierungskoalition in Deutschland nach den für den 23. Februar geplanten Wahlen einige Zeit in Anspruch nehmen wird. In der Zwischenzeit fungiert Scholz in der sehr begrenzten Funktion als Übergangsregierung.

Es gibt Stimmen, wie beispielsweise die des weithin beachteten Militär- und Politikanalysten Colonel Douglas Macgregor, die uns sagen, dass die nächste deutsche Regierung das Land wahrscheinlich aus der NATO herausführen wird. Dies würde das Ende des Bündnisses bedeuten, und zwar unabhängig von den Launen und dem politischen Kapital von Donald J. Trump. Colonel Macgregor rechnet offensichtlich mit einem Wahlsieg der hart-rechten Oppositionspartei Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in der gesamten Bundesrepublik und nicht nur in den Bundesländern, vor allem im Osten, die bisher die Basis der Unterstützung für die Partei bildeten. Ich halte ein solches Ergebnis jedoch für höchst unwahrscheinlich. Wahrscheinlicher ist eine neue große Koalition der Mitte-Parteien, in der Olaf Scholz vielleicht sogar einen Ministerposten erhält, in dem er keinen Schaden anrichten kann. Und wenn der CDU-Vorsitzende Friedrich Merz Bundeskanzler werden sollte, können wir mit einer noch engeren Unterstützung Deutschlands für die NATO und noch mehr Ausrüstung und Finanzhilfen für die Ukraine rechnen.

Das Frankreich von Emanuel Macron hat seinerseits mit ähnlichen Problemen zu kämpfen, die ihm auferlegt wurden, als der Präsident im Juli vorgezogene Wahlen ausrief, die er anschließend verlor. Der von ihm eingesetzte Premierminister war nicht in der Lage, einen Haushalt durch das Parlament zu bringen, und seine Regierung verlor schließlich ein Misstrauensvotum, das erste derartige Beispiel seit vielen Jahrzehnten. Macrons jüngste Wahl für den Premierminister könnte sehr wahrscheinlich das gleiche Schicksal ereilen, und die politische Instabilität und die zunehmende Schuldenkrise könnten Macron selbst zu Fall bringen. Unter diesen Bedingungen der Unsicherheit und der untragbaren negativen Haushalte stiegen die Zinsen für französische Staatsanleihen kürzlich über die Zinsen für griechische Staatsanleihen. Wenn das so weitergeht, wird Macron von den Bankern aus dem Amt gedrängt werden, nicht vom Volk, das ihn größtenteils verabscheut, aber wenig dagegen tun kann. Sollte dies geschehen, wird es neue Präsidentschaftswahlen geben müssen, und man kann nicht ausschließen, dass Marine Le Pens rechte Partei Rassemblement National die Macht übernimmt. Das würde die geopolitische Ausrichtung der Union in Frage stellen, aber allein dadurch würde Europa vielleicht noch nicht nüchtern werden. Und dennoch würde ich nicht fest auf Le Pen setzen: Seit 2012 hat die CIA die französischen Präsidentschaftswahlen effektiv inszeniert, um die mächtigen Kandidaten, die außerhalb des US-amerikanischen Einflussbereichs standen, auszuschalten und sicherzustellen, dass eine Reihe erbärmlicher Inkompetenter den Élysée-Palast in Besitz nimmt.

Bitte beachten Sie, dass keiner der oben genannten EU-Staaten mit einer Regierungskrise konfrontiert war, die mit der in Belgien vergleichbar wäre, von der jedoch weder die europäische Presse noch die amerikanischen Medien Notiz zu nehmen scheinen. Belgien ist sicherlich kein Zugpferd der EU, aber es ist der Ort, an dem die meisten europäischen Institutionen konzentriert sind, und man könnte meinen, dass Journalisten darüber nachdenken würden, was es für einen Mitgliedstaat bedeutet, wenn auf Ministerposten über sehr lange Zeiträume nur Verwalter sitzen.

Tatsächlich führten die letzten Parlamentswahlen in Belgien, die im Juni 2024 stattfanden, dazu, dass keine der Koalitionen über die Stimmen verfügte, um eine Mehrheit im Parlament zu erreichen. Der König hat seitdem die Vorsitzenden der größten Anzahl von Abgeordneten im Parlament eingeladen, um zu versuchen, eine Regierungskoalition zu bilden. Bisher ist es jedoch niemandem gelungen, und der jüngste Formateur, Bart de Wever, Vorsitzender der flämischen nationalistischen Partei N-VA, hat bis Ende dieses Monats Zeit, um den Stillstand zu überwinden und die Macht zu übernehmen. Viele erwarten, dass er scheitern wird.

Diese Situation ist nicht neu. Tatsächlich ist Belgien der weltweite Rekordhalter für die längste Zeit ohne voll funktionsfähige Regierung. Den Rekord stellte das Land in den Jahren 2018–2020 auf, als es 652 Tage lang keine ordnungsgemäße Regierung gab. Eine weitere sehr lange Periode von geschäftsführenden Kabinetten gab es in den Jahren 2010–2011, die 589 Tage dauerte.

Ist in Belgien etwa das Ende der Welt gekommen? Natürlich nicht. Steuern wurden eingezogen. Regierungsprogramme wurden finanziert. Aber viele Ministerien arbeiteten nach Regeln und Menschen, die auf Verwaltungsentscheidungen warteten, wie z.B. Einbürgerungsfälle, mussten ungewöhnlich lange Verzögerungen bei der Bearbeitung ihrer Anträge hinnehmen. Darüber hinaus konnten keine Reformen oder andere Initiativen durchgeführt werden.

Die Lehre, die aus den Erfahrungen in Belgien gezogen werden kann, ist, dass es einer viel tieferen Krise bedarf, um die Europäische Union zum Einsturz zu bringen oder einfach nur die schrecklichen Eliten, die in 25 der Mitgliedstaaten an der Macht sind (ich schließe die Slowakei und Ungarn aus), hinwegzufegen. Selbst ein totaler Zusammenbruch der Ukraine unter dem Druck der russischen Streitkräfte könnte nicht ausreichen; die Europäer könnten sich auf perverse Weise nur noch mehr in ihre Unterwürfigkeit gegenüber Washington und ihr Vertrauen in die NATO für ihre Verteidigung steigern.

Vielleicht können Donald Trump und Elon Musk die europäischen Eliten durch ihre „liebevolle Strenge“ ausreichend traumatisieren, um den notwendigen Richtungswechsel weg vom Globalismus und hin zur gesunden Durchsetzung der nationalen Interessen der europäischen Mitgliedstaaten herbeizuführen. Die Zeit wird es zeigen. Aber wenn man sie sich selbst überlässt, sehe ich in den kommenden Wochen und Monaten keine Rückkehr zur Vernunft in Europa, auch wenn andere, wie Douglas Macgregor, mir da vielleicht widersprechen.

Last night’s and this morning’s lead stories on the BBC and CNN focused on the latest public statement by Donald Trump that he does not exclude use of military force or economic pressure to take back American control of the Panama Canal and to take possession of Greenland over objections from fellow NATO member Denmark, to whom the world’s biggest island belongs. He claimed that both acquisitions were necessary to further American economic security.

A moment later in these same broadcasts, we are told about Trump’s expressing his ‘understanding’ of Russian concerns over expansion of NATO to Ukraine going back to 2008 and his rebuke to Joe Biden for having restored the issue of NATO membership during his presidency and pursued it to spite Moscow. The news presenters also point to Trump’s revised timetable for ending the conflict in Ukraine from the 24 hours he claimed during his electoral campaign to a period of six months set out today.

The two broadcasters do not link these seemingly unrelated declarations of guiding policy for the incoming Trump administration. As for interpretation, their best effort is to say that Trump, after all, is not the isolationist they had feared him to be. No, he is an expansionist, after all. Meanwhile, by contrast, Trump’s attempt to understand Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine is said to show continuity given his supposed sympathy for the Russian dictator that goes back to his first term in office.

Let us try to make sense of it all, if we assume that strategic logic is to be found in the thinking processes of Donald Trump. I freely admit that this assumption is risky.

This exercise must be viewed in the context of the general confusion both in mainstream and in alternative media over Trump’s nominations to fill the top defense, intelligence and foreign policy posts in his administration. Pre-election Trump was, as before the 2016 election, the man who would purge the government of the Neocons who were in control of policy for two decades. The result in 2017 and throughout his first term in office was instead a further entrenchment of Deep State policies that undid all of Trump’s pre-electoral promises. The departure of Victoria Nuland from the State Department, which occurred before he took office four years ago, proved to be only temporary, while her policies in defense of American global hegemony were perpetuated by others in the interim.  Today, looking over the names of most Trump nominees for Senate confirmation, we find that nearly all are promoters of America, the world policeman, which is precisely what 52% of Americans voted against on 5 November 2024.

How can the circle be squared?  I have given the task my best effort by suggesting that Trump is practicing the old rule ‘keep your enemies closest to yourself.’  Some of my colleagues suggest that there still will be many visible opponents to downsizing America’s global footprint who remain outside of Trump’s control and who may create problems implementing his intended policies of withdrawing the country from ‘forever wars.’ I only can say that we must sit and wait to see what were his intentions behind his appointments and whether his logic prevails.

So it is with his latest statements about Greenland and the Panama Canal, on the one hand, and about the Russia-Ukraine war on the other. The logic I see is that a bellicose stand on produced-to-order conflicts that can be solved at little cost to Washington, the proverbial kicking ass that Ronald Reagan practiced to great effect, is intended to provide cover for what otherwise would look like a humiliating defeat for Washington should it cut military aid to Kiev and stand by passively while the Kremlin imposes capitulation on the Zelensky regime.

Indeed, from the statement in response to Trump issued by the Prime Minister of Denmark, it would appear that he has already won that contest without having to send an aircraft carrier detachment to the Jutland coast: she said that it is up to the people of Greenland to decide their future. Up to the 56,000 inhabitants to decide their own future, given that Trump can offer them riches beyond their imagination to get their consent at the ballot box?

In closing, I note that one reader of these pages has written to me asking what the Russian talk shows are saying about Trump’s plans for Greenland and for the Panama Canal. To this I respond that Russia is ‘out to lunch.’ 

The fact is that Russians celebrate two New Years today as they always did: both on 31 December by the Gregorian calendar used in the West and in most of the world and on 13 January per the Julian calendar still used by the Russian Orthodox Church. During these two weeks, all of the leading television news presenters and talk shows are on holiday and Russian state broadcasters offer instead vintage Soviet films or newly released blockbuster films and the like for family entertainment.  When regular news programming returns next week, I have little doubt that the expert panelists on air will be talking at length about the latest peculiar policy declarations of Donald J. Trump, and I will try to bring to your attention what sense they make of it all in Moscow.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Die geheimnisvollen Wege von Donald J. Trump

Die Hauptnachrichten von gestern Abend und heute Morgen auf BBC und CNN konzentrierten sich auf die jüngste öffentliche Erklärung von Donald Trump, dass er den Einsatz militärischer Gewalt oder wirtschaftlichen Drucks nicht ausschließt, um die Kontrolle über den Panamakanal zurückzugewinnen und Grönland in Besitz zu nehmen, trotz der Einwände des NATO-Mitglieds Dänemark, dem die größte Insel der Welt gehört. Er behauptete, dass beide Akquisitionen notwendig seien, um die wirtschaftliche Sicherheit Amerikas zu fördern.

Einen Moment später wird in denselben Sendungen berichtet, dass Trump sein „Verständnis“ für die russischen Bedenken hinsichtlich der NATO-Erweiterung auf die Ukraine zum Ausdruck gebracht hat, die bis ins Jahr 2008 zurückreichen, und dass er Joe Biden zurechtgewiesen hat, weil dieser das Thema der NATO-Mitgliedschaft während seiner Präsidentschaft wieder aufgegriffen und weiterverfolgt hat, um Moskau zu ärgern. Die Nachrichtensprecher weisen auch auf Trumps überarbeiteten Zeitplan für die Beendigung des Konflikts in der Ukraine hin, der von den 24 Stunden, die er während seines Wahlkampfs angegeben hatte, auf einen Zeitraum von sechs Monaten, der heute festgelegt wurde, geändert wurde.

Die beiden Sender stellen keine Verbindung zwischen diesen scheinbar unzusammenhängenden Erklärungen der Leitprinzipien für die kommende Trump-Regierung her. Was die Interpretation betrifft, so bemühen sie sich nach Kräften zu sagen, dass Trump schließlich nicht der Isolationist ist, den sie befürchtet hatten. Nein, er ist schließlich ein Expansionist. Im Gegensatz dazu soll Trumps Versuch, Putins Entscheidung, in die Ukraine einzumarschieren, zu verstehen, Kontinuität zeigen, da er angeblich schon seit seiner ersten Amtszeit Sympathien für den russischen Diktator hegt.

Versuchen wir, das alles zu verstehen, wenn wir davon ausgehen, dass sich in den Denkprozessen von Donald Trump eine strategische Logik verbirgt. Ich gebe gerne zu, dass diese Annahme riskant ist.

Diese Übung muss im Kontext der allgemeinen Verwirrung sowohl in den Mainstream- als auch in den alternativen Medien über Trumps Nominierungen zur Besetzung der obersten Posten in den Bereichen Verteidigung, Geheimdienste und Außenpolitik in seiner Regierung betrachtet werden. Vor der Wahl war Trump, wie vor der Wahl 2016, der Mann, der die Regierung von den Neokonservativen säubern würde, die zwei Jahrzehnte lang die Politik kontrollierten. Das Ergebnis im Jahr 2017 und während seiner gesamten ersten Amtszeit war stattdessen eine weitere Verfestigung der Politik des „Tiefen Staates“, die alle Versprechen Trumps vor der Wahl zunichte machte. Der Abgang von Victoria Nuland aus dem Außenministerium, der vor seinem Amtsantritt vor vier Jahren erfolgte, erwies sich als nur vorübergehend, während ihre Politik zur Verteidigung der globalen Hegemonie Amerikas in der Zwischenzeit von anderen fortgesetzt wurde. Wenn wir uns heute die Namen der meisten von Trump für den Senat nominierten Kandidaten ansehen, stellen wir fest, dass fast alle Befürworter Amerikas als Weltpolizist sind, was genau das ist, wogegen 52 % der Amerikaner am 5. November 2024 gestimmt haben.

Wie kann man die Quadratur des Kreises erreichen? Ich habe mich nach besten Kräften bemüht, indem ich vorgeschlagen habe, dass Trump die alte Regel „Halte deine Feinde am nächsten bei dir“ praktiziert. Einige meiner Kollegen sind der Meinung, dass es immer noch viele sichtbare Gegner der Verkleinerung des globalen Fußabdrucks Amerikas geben wird, die außerhalb der Kontrolle Trumps bleiben und die Probleme bei der Umsetzung seiner beabsichtigten Politik des Rückzugs des Landes aus „ewigen Kriegen“ verursachen könnten. Ich kann nur sagen, dass wir abwarten müssen, welche Absichten hinter seinen Ernennungen stehen und ob sich seine Logik durchsetzt.

So verhält es sich auch mit seinen jüngsten Äußerungen zu Grönland und dem Panamakanal einerseits und zum Russland-Ukraine-Krieg andererseits. Die Logik, die ich dahinter sehe, ist, dass eine kriegerische Haltung gegenüber Konflikten, die auf Bestellung produziert werden und mit geringen Kosten für Washington ausgelöst werden können, die sprichwörtliche harte Hand, die Ronald Reagan mit großer Wirkung praktizierte, als Deckmantel für das dienen soll, was sonst wie eine demütigende Niederlage für Washington aussehen würde, sollte es die Militärhilfe für Kiew kürzen und passiv zusehen, während der Kreml dem Regime von Selensky die Kapitulation aufzwingt.

Tatsächlich scheint es, dass die dänische Ministerpräsidentin den Wettstreit bereits gewonnen hat, ohne eine Flugzeugträger-Einheit an die Küste Jütlands schicken zu müssen: Sie sagte, dass es an den Menschen in Grönland sei, über ihre Zukunft zu entscheiden. Es liegt also an den 56.000 Einwohnern, über ihre eigene Zukunft zu entscheiden, da Trump ihnen Reichtümer jenseits ihrer Vorstellungskraft bieten kann, um ihre Zustimmung an der Wahlurne zu erhalten?

Abschließend möchte ich noch erwähnen, dass mich ein Leser dieser Seiten gefragt hat, was die russischen Talkshows über Trumps Pläne für Grönland und den Panamakanal sagen. Darauf antworte ich, Russland „hat den Kopf woanders“.

Tatsache ist, dass die Russen heute wie immer zwei Neujahrsfeiern begehen: sowohl am 31. Dezember nach dem im Westen und in den meisten Teilen der Welt verwendeten gregorianischen Kalender als auch am 13. Januar nach dem julianischen Kalender, der noch immer von der russisch-orthodoxen Kirche verwendet wird. Während dieser zwei Wochen sind alle führenden Nachrichtensprecher und Talkshow-Moderatoren im Urlaub und die staatlichen russischen Sender bieten stattdessen alte sowjetische Filme oder neu erschienene Blockbuster und Ähnliches zur Unterhaltung der Familie an. Wenn nächste Woche die regulären Nachrichtensendungen wieder ausgestrahlt werden, zweifle ich kaum daran, dass die Experten in der Sendung ausführlich über die jüngsten seltsamen politischen Erklärungen von Donald J. Trump sprechen werden, und ich werde versuchen, Ihnen zu vermitteln, wie sie das Ganze in Moskau einschätzen.

Transcript submitted by a reader

NewsX – Porteous: 0:12
Hello and welcome. I am Thomas Porteous, and you’re watching the World Report. Let’s take a look at the headlines this hour. Hamas releases a new video of a Israeli hostage who was captured in the October 7 attacks. In the three and a half minute video, she appeals in Hebrew for the Israeli government to secure her release. Russia promises retaliation after Ukraine fires US-supplied missiles at the Belgorod region. Russia claims that they shot down eight ATACMS missiles in the border region. Officials in Ukraine have not yet responded to the accusation.

1:01
Thousands take to the streets in the South Korean capital Seoul to rally both for and against the arrest of impeached President Yoon Suk-yul. The arrest warrant for Yoon is set to expire at midnight on Monday. Donald Trump says no American can be happy that flags will be at half-mast when he is inaugurated later this month. Joe Biden orders US flags to be lowered for a customary 30 days on a federal [venue] in honor of late Jimmy Carter, who will be buried in a state funeral next week.

1:43
Tensions rise as Russia claims to have downed eight US-supplied ATACMS missiles fired by Ukraine into Belgorod. The Russian Ministry of Defense vowed retaliation, accusing Kiev of provoking further conflicts. Meanwhile, Moscow has demanded the United nations condemn Ukraine following an alleged drone attack in eastern Ukraine. The attack, which Russia says killed journalist Alexander Martiyanow and injured several others, occurred in the Donetsk region. Ukraine has yet to comment on either incident.

2:17
Today I am joined by Glenn Grant, ex-advisor to Ukraine’s defence minister; Gilbert Doctorow, Russian affairs expert; Professor Madhav Nalapat; and Professor Patrick Lancaster, war journalist. I want to come to you, Glenn Grant, I want to ask what is Kiev’s position on this alleged missile attack that they launched into Russian territory and how is this incident being framed by Ukrainian media?

Grant:
I’m sorry, but I don’t think it is being framed by Ukrainian media at all. I mean, this is a missile attack in the middle of a war. There are plenty of them. And you may have noticed that– you didn’t actually speak it. You may not have noticed that there’s actually another counterattack started in the Kursk area. So there would have been plenty of missile attacks going on all over the front line to try and hold down troops and to take people’s minds off actually what is happening.

3:18
In terms of the journalists being killed, this is only the 18th journalist being killed in this war compared to 150 in Syria. People don’t go out deliberately to target journalists, but war journalists, war correspondents are right up in the front line and they are going to get killed just the same as everybody else. It’s probably the most risky profession after being a soldier in the world.

NewsX: 3:45
This war obviously, there’s speculation about this war coming to an end soon. Do you see that happening? … Glenn Grant, sorry.

Grant:
Yeah, so Russia is not going to stop at the moment. Putin thinks he’s winning. He’s going to keep going and I don’t think that anything that Trump or anybody else is going to say at the moment is going to stop him.

NewsX:
Thank you very much Glenn Glant for joining us. I want to move on to Professor Madhav Nalapath. What [are] the potential consequences of Russia’s retaliation?

Nalapat:
Well, I think Zelensky will be hoping that the consequences will be such as to draw the United States directly into a conflict, thereby presenting a conundrum for incoming President Trump. I think not just Zelensky, but a lot of people within the Biden administration as well have been busily laying all kinds of land mines for Donald Trump to step on. I think they are proving to be very bad losers, not in words the way Trump was, but in practice.

5:06
So frankly, I think Zelensky is hoping that Putin will expand the war significantly and in a way create as large a zone of conflict that the United States has willy-nilly to be dragged in it and Trump will find it difficult to stop it. I don’t think that’s going to happen. I think Putin is taking a very measured stance and I think he realizes that this is a very provocative attack. There will be a very hard-hitting attack on Ukraine; there can be no doubt about that. Possibly it involves some some newer missile and other systems that the Russians have been developing. You know last time around they tested the Orshchnik; this time around they may test something else. But the reality is, I don’t think Putin is going to be drawn into a larger war. He’s not going to fall into Zelensky’s trap. And as for you know– he wants, he’s got a limited purpose in Ukraine and he’s secured about 80% of that purpose.

6:10
I agree with Glenn that he’s going to continue and it will secure 100% of that purpose, and further he would like to ensure that Ukraine never become part of any hostile alliance; that would be a given. So I think yes he is going to continue the war until these conditions are met: he gets the whole of territory that he wanted in the beginning of the war, and he makes sure that Ukraine is not in a position to join any military alliance after the war. Thank you

NewsX: 6:43
Professor Nalapat, I wanted to ask what are the potential international consequences of Russia retaliation? How might it impact NATO’s involvement?

Nalapat:
Look, I don’t think the people running NATO are going to be unwise enough to get directly involved. So far they have done a very very good job of ensuring that the whole war is kept sub-critical. So they don’t have to go in and may I point out to you that over the last one year, public opinion has soured on the Ukraine war and frankly soured on Zelensky. That’s happening also in Ukraine. So I don’t think there’s any appetite among Western voters to go in for a war with Russia. Not at all. The reality of situation is, people like George Soros, I’m sorry to say, I mean judging by many of his actions, people like Joe Biden are still stuck in the old cold war with the Soviet Union, forgetting it’s now the Russian Federation. And as a consequence, they’re giving China a free pass in the actual cold war taking place, which is Cold War 2.0 between the democracies and China.

NewsX: 8:05
Thank you very much. Patrick Lancaster, I wanted to move on to you next. Obviously, you have been on the ground in the conflict. I want to ask what kind of damage one of these ATCMS missiles [does]?

Lancaster:
Yeah, hi, glad to be on again. Those type of missiles do a lot of damage, and the fact of the permission being given to fire them deep into Russian territory of course inflamed the situation. But the situation on the ground in the war zone is now very complicated, as we know, with Russia taking a lot of territory almost every day, taking control from Ukrainian forces. And a lot of these civilians are waiting in these territories and actually welcoming Russian forces. So as far as the side from Ukraine, it’s pretty difficult for them, because the population of these territories that Russia is taking control of is actually in most times supporting the Russian forces. But the daily events here on the ground are very hard for not only the civilian population but journalists as well and first responders.

9:38
Just in the last 24 hours there has been unfortunately six journalists injured and one journalist killed just in the last 24 hours, by Ukrainian drone attacks. Because what Ukraine is doing with these drones is targeting civilian vehicles. And many journalists have been injured and killed over the last years and months, and many civilians. I myself have seen many civilians killed by these target attacks on civilian vehicles by Ukrainian forces. We’re not talking about just personal cars, but also city buses and things like that. It’s not a chance of an accident at this point. These drone operators of the Ukrainian forces are seeing the live footage from the cameras on the drone and choosing to target these civilian vehicles and civilian–

NewsX: 10:35
Gilbert Doctorow, I wanted to bring you in there. What is your response? Have you heard anything about Ukrainian civilian attacks on, yeah, Ukrainian civilian attacks?

Gilbert Doctowow, PhD:
Well, that is one of the most important features in Russian news. And the Ukrainians have used the ATACMS missiles primarily against residential buildings. This is what is called terror. When you strike, intentionally target civilians either by these kamikaze drones, as the previous panelist just described, or if you’re using larger missiles to attack residential buildings, then you are practicing terror. And there’s a reason for terror. Terror is what you do when you cannot fight on the ground, fair and square, with your troops and have any chance of winning.

11:34
The Ukrainians are not just loosing territory, they’re losing men. They’re losing men on the battlefield every day, whether it’s a thousand or two thousand, that depends on which front you’re looking at. And they are rolling back. That is most important. It’s not just the capture of territory, but the Ukrainian forces are retreating without having any place to build a secure protection for themselves. So this will keep on going to the Dnieper River.

NewsX: 12:00
So what do you say to the reports that came out of the Kursk region today of large amounts of Russian troops and even some North Korean troops being killed there?

Doctorow;
That is possible. I would take with a grain of salt any announcements coming from Kiev. They have been unapologetic propagandists from the get-go. And so it is today. All of their numbers are unbelievable. The regrettable thing is that the American intelligence agencies are carrying this phony, false information from Kiev and giving it to the American leadership, to Mr. Biden and those around him. And so American policy is being based on falsehoods which are coming from Kiev. And that is sad, if not tragic.

NewsX: 12:47
Thank you very much for joining us, all our guests today. We will now look at some more news updates from across the world.

NewsX (India) World Report: Russia’s Retaliation Threat

Having spent some time as commentator on television news in various countries, starting with a year of stardom on Russian domestic talk show broadcasts on all national channels in 2016, I am not surprised at how the welcome mat at any one studio, in any given country can be withdrawn at any time under instructions from producers who get their cues from political bosses.

In my recent experience, this is especially true of Indian broadcasting, where the mood of Prime Minister Modi swings to and fro. His seemingly pro-Russian moments as the biggest importer of sanctioned Russian oil alternate with decidedly pro-American moments relating to arms procurement and geopolitical alignment in East Asia. Meanwhile, the vast domestic audience in India seems to be disposed to accept the Washington narrative on international affairs generally and on the Russia-Ukraine war in particular. I say this upon perusing viewer comments posted on my various youtube interviews produced by the country’s leading English language international broadcaster, WION.  The many thumbs up signs were offset by a virtual shower of rotten tomatoes from marginally English fluent viewers who accused the station of being a ‘Putin outlet.’

In fact, the largest audience I have had on any television station worldwide was recorded with WION, where a 10- minute featured interview about the likelihood of the Ukraine war escalating to a nuclear exchange released three months ago received half a million ‘hits.’  By comparison, my high-water mark with the most authoritative US-based political interview channel, ‘Judging Freedom,’ is 150,000 hits, while the norm ranges between 50,000 and 90,000.

 Regrettably after I reached the 500,000 hits record of popularity on WION, their invitations to appear on air dropped off.  That new policy came from on high, because their lead program host had reached out to me on LinkedIn, asking to join my Contact list, so I was doing well at the working level.

In the months since, another Indian broadcaster, News X, produced within the communications corporation ITV (India), has stepped into the breach. I offer in the link below my latest appearance on their news wrap-up of yesterday. Their format typically has been to invite a couple of outside experts to comment on a news item of the day while reserving the greatest amount of time for their own in-house analyst, who tends to repeat the Kiev propaganda line.  Yesterday’s program, however, allotted time exclusively to outside analysts, two Indians, and two Westerners, myself included, and the results were far more nuanced. As you see from the very modest number of hits, NewsX is just beginning to build its subscriber base. I wish them well.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA2-ZbBiPYw

The discussion of Russia’s possible retaliation for the latest Ukrainian use of ATACMS missiles to strike residential buildings in the Belgorod region of the Russian Federation begins at minute 1.50 and ends at 12.50   Note that Vladimir Putin’s public comment issued shortly after the ATACMS strike made it clear that an escalatory move from Russia now is highly unlikely. He strongly hinted that the small number of Oreshnik hypersonic missiles presently in Russia’s arsenal is being reserved for use against strategic targets if needed, but that this is not the case today.

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

NewsX (Indien) Weltbericht: Russlands Vergeltungsdrohungen

Nachdem ich einige Zeit als Kommentator in Fernsehnachrichten in verschiedenen Ländern verbracht habe, angefangen mit einem Jahr als Star in russischen Talkshows auf allen nationalen Kanälen im Jahr 2016, bin ich nicht überrascht, dass man in jedem Studio in jedem Land jederzeit auf Anweisung von Produzenten, die ihre Anweisungen von politischen Vorgesetzten erhalten, wieder vor die Tür gesetzt werden kann.

Nach meiner jüngsten Erfahrung gilt dies insbesondere für den indischen Rundfunk, wo die Stimmung von Premierminister Modi ständig schwankt. Seine scheinbar pro-russischen Momente als größter Importeur von sanktioniertem russischem Öl wechseln sich ab mit ausgesprochen pro-amerikanischen Momenten in Bezug auf die Rüstungsbeschaffung und die geopolitische Ausrichtung in Ostasien. Unterdessen scheint das große Publikum in Indien bereit zu sein, die Darstellung Washingtons zu internationalen Angelegenheiten im Allgemeinen und zum Russland-Ukraine-Krieg im Besonderen zu akzeptieren. Ich sage dies, nachdem ich die Zuschauerkommentare zu meinen verschiedenen YouTube-Interviews gelesen habe, die vom führenden englischsprachigen internationalen Sender des Landes, WION, produziert wurden. Den vielen Daumen-hoch-Zeichen stand ein regelrechter Hagel von faulen Tomaten von Zuschauern gegenüber, die nur wenig Englisch sprechen und den Sender als „Putin-Sprachrohr“ beschuldigten.

Tatsächlich wurde das größte Publikum, das ich je bei einem Fernsehsender weltweit hatte, bei WION verzeichnet, wo ein vor drei Monaten ausgestrahltes 10-minütiges Interview über die Wahrscheinlichkeit einer Eskalation des Ukraine-Krieges zu einem nuklearen Schlagabtausch eine halbe Million Aufrufe erzielte. Zum Vergleich: Mein Rekord beim angesehensten US-amerikanischen Sender für politische Interviews, „Judging Freedom“, liegt bei 150.000 Aufrufen, während die Norm zwischen 50.000 und 90.000 liegt.

Leider gingen die Einladungen, bei WION aufzutreten, zurück, nachdem ich den Rekord von 500.000 Aufrufen erreicht hatte. Diese neue Politik kam von oben, denn der leitende Moderator des Programms hatte mich über LinkedIn kontaktiert und mich gebeten, mich in seine Kontaktliste aufnehmen zu dürfen, sodass ich auf Arbeitsebene gut zurechtkam.

In den Monaten danach ist ein anderer indischer Sender, News X, der zum Kommunikationsunternehmen ITV (Indien) gehört, in die Bresche gesprungen. Über den untenstehenden Link können Sie sich meinen jüngsten Auftritt in der gestrigen Nachrichtensendung ansehen. Normalerweise lädt der Sender ein paar externe Experten ein, die einen Beitrag des Tages kommentieren, während der größte Teil der Sendezeit dem eigenen Analysten vorbehalten ist, der in der Regel die Kiewer Propaganda wiederholt. In der gestrigen Sendung wurde die Zeit jedoch ausschließlich externen Analysten, zwei Indern und zwei Westlern, zu denen auch ich gehöre, eingeräumt, und die Ergebnisse waren weitaus nuancierter. Wie Sie an der sehr bescheidenen Anzahl der Aufrufe sehen können, beginnt NewsX gerade erst, seinen Abonnentenstamm aufzubauen. Ich wünsche ihnen alles Gute.

Siehe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA2-ZbBiPYw

Die Diskussion über mögliche Vergeltungsmaßnahmen Russlands für den jüngsten Einsatz von ATACMS-Raketen durch die Ukraine, mit denen Wohngebäude in der Region Belgorod in der Russischen Föderation getroffen wurden, beginnt bei Minute 1:50 und endet bei Minute 12:50. Beachten Sie, dass Wladimir Putins öffentlicher Kommentar, der kurz nach dem ATACMS-Angriff abgegeben wurde, deutlich machte, dass eine Eskalation von russischer Seite derzeit höchst unwahrscheinlich ist. Er deutete stark an, dass die geringe Anzahl von Oreshnik-Hyperschallraketen, die sich derzeit im russischen Arsenal befindet, für den Einsatz gegen strategische Ziele reserviert ist, falls nötig, dass dies aber heute nicht der Fall ist.

Transcript submitted by a reader

Nima R. Alkhorshid: 0:06
Hi everybody, today is Friday, January 3rd, 2025, and our friend Gilbert Doctorow is back with us. Welcome back, Gilbert.

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
Good to be with you and happy new year.

Alkhorshid:
Happy new year. Let’s get started with what’s going on right now between Russia and the United States. The Russian representative to the UN said that they’re receiving mixed messages from Washington. What does it mean and what do they understand from Washington right now?

Doctorow:
Well, to my understanding, the Kremlin does not take seriously the belligerent remarks coming from General Kellogg and from the other nominated persons around Trump, nominated to positions in the military and foreign relations. These have been out of line, not supportive of the message that Donald Trump was delivering before the election, which was one of finding a peace solution and one that was rather sympathetic, I would say, to the Russian situation. Instead, there has been this belligerency, how they will pound Russia if Russia does not come to the negotiating table under the dictates from Washington.

1:37
That’s what Mr. Trump’s assistants have been saying. Trump himself has been usually quiet, although when he, a week ago, 10 days ago, came out saying that he believed that Biden’s decision to permit the use of American missiles to strike deep into Russia was a foolish and dangerous decision. That already alerted Russia to the fact that Mr. Trump was a man they probably could do business with.

And accordingly, they have put to the side the negative remarks of his assistants and advisors, and they are hopeful that a meeting with Trump can be arranged, a direct meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. They see, in any case, as the Soviet Union always felt, the natural talking partner in global affairs for Russia is a country of its own scale, and that is the United States, and not these pygmy countries that make up Western Europe, who as they now fully realize are simply servants of Washington. They don’t want to negotiate with the servants, they want to negotiate with the master.

Alkhorshid: 3:05
But the situation, I think at the end of the day, there has to be some sort of understanding of the situation in Ukraine, is the situation in Ukraine and the way that the Biden administration is trying to send more aid, more weapons, and right now with the situation that Ukraine has with the European Union, are they really in a better position in Ukraine?

Doctorow:
Well, the position of Ukraine is worsening day by day. And then you have Mr. Zelensky coming out and bravely saying that the final cutoff of gas deliveries via the Ukrainian pipelines to Europe was a major defeat that he had inflicted on Russia. Well, that is– maybe he can enjoy that small comfort. But the reality on the ground is of course, very depressing for any Ukrainian patriots; they are losing badly on the ground. And that’s not that there’s no fighting spirit on the Ukrainian side; there is.

4:18
And they are making small counterattacks here and there along this 1200-kilometer-long line of confrontation. Nonetheless, their small counterattacks are being beaten down by the Russians, and the Russians are advancing daily kilometers here and there on the front. The most important thing is not to consider just their advancing, or what this means for the Ukrainian defenses. They are not giving the Ukrainians time as they fall back to construct defensive earthen works or concrete bunkers or whatever. So the Ukrainians are moving backwards without any defense.

Therefore, this onward march of the Russians westward is likely to continue, and therefore the Russians have had absolutely no interest in talking about a ceasefire. They will not give the Ukrainians a chance to recover, to most importantly, to find shelter from which they can hold their positions. I think– so the war is going very badly for the Ukrainians and any bright spots that Mr. Zelensky tries to present to the Western press are really beside the point.

Alkhorshid: 5:41
It seems that the Russians were approached by Emmanuel Macron and France. They’re talking about negotiating without Ukraine being part of those negotiations. First of all, is Russia interested to negotiate with France, as we saw? Because France was part of that negotiations in Minsk II, and they didn’t respect that.

Doctorow:
Well, I don’t think that Moscow has any high regard for Macron, on the contrary. The political observers believe that he has lost his political power. And I think they anticipate that his government, not the government, but that he personally will fall, will be forced to resign, especially if the latest government fails the vote of no confidence. So on those grounds, whatever Mr. Macron would say would not be taken very seriously by Moscow. But the bigger issue is that this question of France or another country acting as– European country– acting as intermediary, is of no interest to the Russians, for the reason I said a moment ago. They will seek a solution to the war that is embedded in a solution to Europe’s security architecture.

7:09
The boundaries, where the Ukraine exists, what kind of Ukraine it will be, what will happen to the neo-Nazis — all of these issues are relatively minor and are not of interest to Moscow today. They will be regulated, resolved in accordance with the resolution of the big issue of Russia and NATO in Europe and what is the security architecture. And for that, there’s only one interloctor, only one talking partner, and that is Donald Trump in Washington. All of the NATO member states in Europe account for nothing in this. Decisions about NATO were taken in Washington, not in Paris or London or xxxxx.

Therefore, for Russians to get a solution, to negotiate a solution to what Europe’s architecture of security looks like, there is only one person to deal with, and that man is Donald Trump. And since he made plain in his first term and reiterated in his campaign speeches for this election, November 5th, that NATO does not seem very attractive organization for him, particularly when all the member states are not carrying their weight and are dependent on the United States to essentially defend them. Though I think that there is ground for talk and negotiation and compromise between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin with respect to the future of NATO.

Alkhorshid: 9:01
Do they see Keith Kellogg’s proposal as a bargaining process or they see someone that is totally disconnected with the reality?

Doctorow:
I think it’s the second. But nobody understands, and I put myself in when I say nobody, including myself, understands fully the logic of Trump’s appointing this collection of neocon personalities in which Kellogg is one of them, and Rubio is another. These high-level positions that he’s designated in this future administration, they are hardliners. And what is the sense of this? The sense that I tried to find some weeks ago is that he wanted to gather all of his enemies in one room and then dominate them or ensure that they could not break free of his control and denounce him in general. That’s one possibility.

10:04
Another was an insurance policy for himself. He’s left everyone slightly uncertain what policies he will pursue once he takes office, And that is for him the best protection against another assassination attempt. As when Mr.– when Tony Blinken can believe that by shipping all of these several billion dollars in arms and financial assistance to Ukraine now in the closing days of their administration, they are doing Donald Trump a favor by strengthening his negotiating position– if that’s what they think, then I think that Mr. Trump has been very successful in bamboozling the people who hate him into hoping for or believing in a possible continuation of their disastrous policies under Trump. If he had appointed only people like Tulsi Gabbard, then I think there would be extra contracts out for his murder.

Alkhorshid: 11:11
In your opinion, right now, Russia, when they look at Donald Trump and this administration, as you’ve mentioned, most of them are neocons and connected with the neocon ideology. Do they, you remember those days when Donald Trump was running for 2024 presidential election, just weeks ago, Do they have the same sort of idea about Donald Trump? They have the same sort of hope about him? Or it’s changing in the Russian mind, in the Russian media?

Doctorow:
The Russian media have for weeks been saying that whoever is elected in the United States makes no difference, that the deep state is running the show, and that we should not expect any miracles from Donald Trump. That was the basic policy line across all of the major media in Russia. This came, that was the first reaction to the very disappointing nominations that Trump made.

And also with looking back to the experience of so much hope that was invested in Trump before his first term in office by the Russian side, all to be disappointed bitterly in what followed when he appointed this whole series of very anti-Russian advisors and implementers. So for these various reasons, Russians were saying, “We will solve the problem of Ukraine by ourselves, thank you. We will crush the Ukrainian army and we will make a peace on our terms. End of discussion.” But in their heart of hearts, they knew that wouldn’t the end of discussion, because it didn’t address the reason why they went to war, which was NATO.

13:03
And if they would succeed in crushing Ukraine and making, imposing a peace that prohibited foreign military installations and personnel operating in Ukraine, that would still not end the existential threat that NATO poses to Russia by its other locations. There is a common border with Poland, by Kaliningrad. There is now this 1200-kilometer-long border with Finland, which has invited in all sorts of American installations and personnel. These threats will continue. There’s also the intentions of NATO and the United States to stir up trouble in Georgia, to stir up trouble in Armenia, to stir up trouble in Moldova.

14:10
So peaceful living will not be possible for Russia even if they succeed in utterly destroying the Ukrainian army. Destroying the Ukrainian army of course is a big deal, but it is not the end of the conflict with the United States-led race.

Alkhorshid:
When it comes to this security of Europe and those agreements that Russia was talking about on December 2021, and they were asking for some sort of security agreement. Right now, is that the same or they’re going to put some sort of, I’m not talking about Ukraine, I’m talking about Europe, or do they have some more considerations about Europe?

Doctorow: 15:03
Those terms were set down in December of 2021 dealing with one president who was a bitter, hardline Cold Warrior. Now, what will be on the negotiating table will be before Mr. Trump, who is somewhat unpredictable, but perhaps, perhaps meant what he said when he spoke so disparagingly about NATO. And perhaps, perhaps can scale down American participation in NATO to the degree where it just collapses for lack of military might. Without the United States participation, full steam, there’s nothing. All the European countries put together count for nothing militarily.

15:52
For any overseas mission, they all rely on them, and several of them, unfortunately, in the last 25 years, they have relied entirely on American air support, logistical support, not to mention weaponry. The armaments in Germany– to look only at the number count is to miss the point of the quality of the count. They are inferior to what Russia fields. They’re unable, NATO in Europe, without the United States, is unable to stand up to Russia. It can do so only by resorting to nuclear weapons, since there are after all France and Britain both are nuclear powers and aren’t dependent on America, the nuclear umbrella, they could pose a serious threat to Russia if they decided to replace the United States as the guarantor.

16:53
But that is improbable. The use of nuclear weapons is [to open] Pandora’s box, which would very quickly result in the destruction, the utter destruction of Europe. Therefore, that’s improbable as a scenario. So as I’m saying, if Trump simply cuts back on American support for NATO, doesn’t have to leave NATO. Leaving NATO is a very difficult trick to pull off because American law requires a Congress– congressional approval, which Trump will not get for this.

But he has his own very extensive powers as chief executive to either implement and execute appropriations that were made to NATO or obligations that were assumed with respect to NATO. He can simply default on his obligations and no one can say a word, and NATO will collapse like a house of cards. There is, therefore, room for Russians to hope that a deal can be struck with Donald Trump. It’s not essential to end this war. The war will end, Ukraine will end with a Ukrainian capitulation. That’s almost certain. But the confrontation and the risks of escalation into something horrible will remain so long as NATO enjoys its present status.

Alkhorshid: 18:25
If we consider the Biden administration, Victoria Nuland, Joe Biden, Anthony Blinken, and Jake Sullivan, These were those people who were totally connected with the situation in Ukraine. They have done a lot to bring this war to that region. And right now Joe Biden is not functioning, Victoria Nuland is gone.

Two other characters are Anthony Blinken and Jake Sullivan, still in power. Just removing these two figures from the conflict in Ukraine and replacing them by Waltz and Rubio. We know that Anthony Blinken and Jake Sullivan have a lot of connection with Zelensky and his administration. They’re totally connected. They have a lot of links. But replacing these two figures and by the Trump administration, is that going to bring some sort of change? Is that considerable in your opinion?

Doctorow: 19:30
That’s imponderable. Look, I go back to what I was saying a few moments ago. The appointment of these odious figures to be, to senior positions in the administration, can be what it looks like, which is not good, or it can be something that it doesn’t look like at all, which is following the rule of “keep your enemies close to your chest”.

Alkhorshid: 19:59
Yeah.

Doctorow:
The way to disarm, to defang these people is to have them more close to himself and that he is not dependent on them for advice. He will be keeping counsel with himself and with a very few select people who are not in that circle. For example, Elon Musk, who is probably the person closest to the president and who certainly cannot be expected to pursue any of the Biden policies that people like Rubio would appear to back.

Alkhorshid: 20:35
The situation with the Russian gas, Russia not being able to send their gas directly to Slovakia and other countries. Do you think that– Sikorsky yesterday he was bragging about how strong Ukraine is in cutting off the Russian gas. Do you think that this would bring even more problems within the European Union, or the situation cannot get worse?

21:07
Well, it certainly doesn’t improve relations between Slovakia and Brussels. That’s … clear. Mr. Fitco was rightly angry at everything that Von der Leyen was doing, and she is among those who is calling for an absolute cutoff of Russian hydrocarbons to the European Union.

The poll of Russians, Mr. Sikorsky can make his propaganda points. In general, I think Sikorski is the shit on his pants. The Poles, the top-level Poles, I think are very worried about Russian power today. They may have their orders for tanks and everything else coming in from Korea, but the reality is that Russia has everything now.

And what was true two years ago, that the Polish elite were saying that Russia could just roll over them. I think that remains the case. And therefore, Sikorsky is kind of singing a nice positive sound for the public. I don’t believe for a minute that he feels confident of Polish security in the face of an aggressive Russia, aggressive if Russia feels threatened by anything the Poland is doing.

22:27
Therefore, let’s look at the reality of this cut-off. Russia’s relations with Ukraine over the transit of its gas to Europe, over on the same pipelines and gas reserve system that Ukraine has maintained. This goes back to 2005. There were big conflicts in 2005, 2006, and 2009 over first of all over siphoning off gas that was in the pipeline from Russia with intention of being transferred to Western Europe, but was siphoned off by Ukraine for its own needs without any records, without any offer of compensation. Then there was Ukraine’s inability or unwillingness to pay for the gas they received. And so there were big conflicts and a shutdown of Russian delivery of gas in 2009, which was of course raised as an issue of Russia’s reliability by all the usual propagandists in Washington and Western Europe.

23:36
The fact that the cut, shut-off, took place because they weren’t paid for what they delivered, nobody bothered to talk about. Nonetheless, there was this background of Russia’s difficulties with a pre-2014 Ukraine that was dishonest, thieving, and malicious. And after 2014, it has been, and particularly after the start of the special military operation, when the Ukrainians, who Mr. Zelensky has been calling daily, weekly, monthly for Europe to impose the most drastic sanctions to deprive Russia of its financial means to pursue the war against Ukraine, it was an anomaly that Ukraine itself was facilitating the delivery of six and a half billion dollars worth of Russian gas to Central Europe over its pipelines. Of course, there had been much more delivered over those pipelines prior to the self-prohibition imposed by various European member states on receiving pipeline gas from Russia.

24:52
But there was still this residual six and a half billion, which represented five percent of European Union gas consumption that was passing through the Ukrainian pipelines. Now that has stopped since the five-year contract under which it was being delivered was not renewed. And that is six and a half billion dollars less that Russia will earn from that particular pipeline. It means one billion dollars per year less that Ukraine will earn as transit fees. So he can claim that he is harming the Russians, but he is harming his own economy to the tune of one billion dollars a year.

25:36
Considering the kind of infusion of money he receives from Washington, I don’t think that one billion is a great loss to Mr. Zelensky and his circle. A loss of six and a half billion for Russia is also not what it looks like. It is reasonable to assume that a fair portion of that gas that is not going to be delivered by this pipeline will be delivered as liquefied natural gas to Europe by Russia. Despite all of the talk of cutting back on hydrocarbon imports from Russia, in 2024 the European Union imported more Russian gas by liquified natural gas than it did in 2023.

26:27
So it’s reasonable to assume that some of the gas deliveries not going through the Ukrainian pipeline will now reach Europe in the form of LNG. But that remains to be seen, of course. Overall, to take that six-billion-dollar loss, and I want to say all the Russians are suffering, the Russians have imposed on themselves a much heavier loss of income in arms sales. I believe their annual arms sales were running at 30 billion dollars a year. They’re now running at zero, because all of Russia’s arms production capability is focused on satisfying demand of its own armed forces to pursue the war in Ukraine and to prepare for a war with NATO.

27:14
Therefore, if you want to look at overall costs, let us say this is one fifth, one sixth of what Russia has itself sacrificed to pursue the war without any reference to sanctions or actions by Western Europe or the United States. That’s to put it into perspective.

Alkhorshid: 27:35
If Fico in Slovakia, you’ve mentioned Brussels being responsible for what’s going on, but I would point out that Washington would be responsible for what’s going on with Ukraine. I do believe that they’re thinking that it’s going to be part of the bargaining process for them. And the question is, to what extent Washington is willing to sacrifice Europe in the process of conflict in Ukraine?

Doctorow:
Oh, it doesn’t hesitate for a moment. I think one of the wins for the United States in the whole war in Ukraine is precisely that it’s reinforced, reached probably a never-before level of control over everything that’s going on in Europe. So from that standpoint, for Europe to be weakened, for Europe to feel threatened, and to realize its total dependency on the United States for security. That is all a plus for Washington, in Washington’s book.

28:42
You would think that in a normal world, the United States would want to have strong allies. But regrettably, that wisdom is not understood in Washington, and they much prefer to have slaves. And in the crop of elected leaders in Europe, they have 27, 25 willing slaves, which is very, very sad and is what condemns Europe in its present configuration to a zero role in the world.

Alkhorshid: 29:20
How about Syria? Do we know that Russia would stay in Syria or they’re going to leave?

Doctorow:
I don’t have any special insider knowledge. I look at what’s on YouTube and there are a lot of sensationalist video clips on what Putin is doing, not doing in Syria, what he is doing, not doing in Libya. I cannot comment on this because I don’t believe any of these … widely watched and sensationalist video clips are based on verifiable fact. So I just sit tight and wait to see how it develops. I believe the Russians would like to stay in Syria.

I believe that the government in Damascus would like to have the Russians there as a kind of counterforce in case things don’t go too well with Israel, in case things don’t go too well with Israel, in case things don’t go too well with Turkey. They would like to have another player of weight at their side. So it could be they’ll strike a deal, but I have no insider’s knowledge to judge what is now going on. And Russian media say nothing about it.

Alkhorshid: 30:39
It seems that the deal between Iran and Russia, the agreement that comprehensive agreement would be signed on January 20th, hours before Donald Trump takes office in Washington. Are they talking about what it’s going to be with how they’re going to, what are the … influence, what are the main objectives of this agreement? Because right now nobody knows what’s going to be in that agreement. Are they talking about it in the Russian media or they’re not talking about anything about it?

Doctorow: 31:19
No, they’re not talking about it. I don’t think that the content has been leaked by anybody in the circle of Vladimir Putin. And so we’ll wait and see. The logic is that it will have this big component of mutual defense. The logic is that this will provide substantial assistance to Iran in deterring irresponsible, reckless action by Israel and its US backers. But to what extent Moscow is comfortable with the government in Tehran, we don’t know.

Alkhorshid: 32:03
Yeah. And right now, situation in Ukraine, Joe Biden is leaving Washington and Donald Trump is coming. Are we going to be surprised before Joe Biden leaving? Because the days are just running out. The Biden administration is running out of time right now.

Doctorow:
The logic is that the Russians will increase their offensive and will try to reach the Dnieper before the inauguration. That would certainly facilitate talks with Trump, because they will have achieved most of their objectives in the special march operation. And they would ease the situation for Trump himself because it wouldn’t look like he’s compromising things when they’ve already been lost. That is the logic. But whether I think Putin is willing to take additional losses, which any major offensive would necessarily entail, that again is unforeseeable. The latest Russian achievements is that they took Kurakhove, which is one of the logistical hubs.

They still have not completed their conquest of Pokrovsk, or Krasnoyarsk, as they’re calling it now. But that is clearly going to fall in the next several weeks, meaning that the Russians will have a clean route to the Dnieper, because the major defence points and logistical points will have been lost by the Ukrainians. And it’s a straight run across the plain without any particular elevations or major rivers that would slow them down. The Ukrainians will not be slaughtered in one day. They will fall back and fall back and fall back until they reach the river and find a way across. But I think there’s a reasonable expectation that in the coming month, the Russians could finish up xxxx xxxxx.

Alkhorshid: 34:18
The situation in AfD, Alternative for Germany, and the changes that are happening in Germany, do you think that these parties capable of standing against the policies of Washington in Germany, or they’re not that capable?

Doctorow:
Well, we will see in the elections in February, to what extent they are capable of winning over a substantial portion of the electorate, sufficient enough for the cordon sanitaire that the centrist parties have built around the AFD to prevent it centering the government. I have to say, I’m not very happy that Elon Musk is throwing his money and his prestige behind the AfD. And I would have been much happier if he had backed the leftist candidate, Sahra Wagenknecht and her party, which is, I think, much cleaner than the AfD. For me, the AfD has one particular drawback.

35:33
What we’ve been living through for the last 15, 20 years has been a new generation thinking within Germany about collective guilt and collective responsibility. And it was precisely the Alternative for Deutschland that raised this issue and made it a public issue, that of refusing to accept guilt, responsibility, for what the grandfathers, the Hitler generation had perpetrated in Europe and the destruction of European Jewry. It’s understandable that they would like to see statute of limitations for this responsibility, but regrettably I cannot support that. And regrettably, the decisions that Germany has made under Scholz indicate that there are the same weak points of utter conformism and pursuit of policies that are self-destructive and a unwillingness to heed the voice of conscience in the question of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. These issues raise for me a question of national guilt in present-day Germany.

37:01
And lest anyone think that I am being unfair or unreasonable, I extend the same logic to the United States of America. The whole American nation now bears collective responsibility or collective guilt for the genocide in Gaza. Those who are not protesting against it in the streets, those who are not finding ways of civil disobedience or whatever to express their utter dislike, their utter contempt for the politicians who are facilitating that genocide — this leaves the whole country with a kind of collective guilt.

37:47
I do not believe, I am not a subscriber, to “woke” principles. I personally reject the notion of responsibility of anyone living today for what great grandfathers, for what people 150 years ago did or didn’t do. I think that is unreasonable. But we all have responsibility for what we do or don’t do. And that’s where I say, I’m not happy with the AfD, and I’m not happy with the American political, or the American voters today for their silence, relative silence on the disaster being perpetrated in their name by the Biden administration’s support, unqualified support for Israeli aggression.

Alkhorshid: 38:37
Yeah. Thank you so much, Gilbert, for being with us today. Great pleasure as always.

Doctorow:
I thank you for the opportunity to express some unusual news.

Alkhorshid:
And happy new year.

Doctorow:
Fine. You too. Bye-bye.

Alkhorshid: 38:53
Bye-bye.