In what follows, I will not answer that question but I will provide the community with some food for thought. The text below is a ‘reprint,’ so to speak. It was written in August 2016 and published for a limited, dedicated audience, my Harvard undergraduate class of 1967. This was my entry in the Class Report for the 50^th anniversary of our graduation. I believe that it has direct relevance to the present-day conflict over whether Harvard is an institution of higher education and research or a political entity promoting woke, inclusiveness at the expense of merit and other values that this administration condemns in the name of common sense and civilizational survival.

*****

In this brief space I would like to share several insights that bring together the distant past of our Harvard undergraduate years and the present day. The observations are built around two key words.

The first is ‘Establishment,’ a word always associated with our alma mater. Establishment as a concept got a lot of use and abuse in the 2016 presidential election campaigns between those who stood for and against, so it is really top of mind. The second is ‘Veritas,’ Harvard’s one-word institutional mission statement that was cited proudly at so many of our undergraduate gatherings.

I do not suppose I am alone in admitting that precisely the Establishment status of the institution was an important factor in my being drawn to Harvard, alongside its very demanding admission requirements which made that admission letter a kind of personal validation that we were persons of great promise.

How could it be otherwise? The Kennedy presidency showcased not only an alumnus in the Oval Office but a whole constellation of the ‘Best and Brightest’ who took degrees in Cambridge, taught there, even occupied deanships there. The glitter, the belief that a meritocracy had assumed its rightful place in democratic, lowbrow America was inescapable. The best from our midst was now running the country. The future would be ours to inherit.

Of course, Camelot came to an abrupt halt two months into our freshman year with the assassination of JFK on November 2, 1963. And in our sorrow, I do not think many of us initially paid attention to what our Best and Brightest were doing under Kennedy, and then under LBJ, whom they stayed on to serve, that would cast a pall over our whole generation by setting up and prosecuting the horrific war in Vietnam.

The fraudulent justifications for the Tonkin Gulf resolution that gave us full war were set out by Harvard men who surely knew better and who willingly sacrificed Veritas. Was it a sacrifice at the altar of personal loyalty to a President or to the principle that the end justifies the means in serving their country? Neither explanation does credit to our university. Neither is significantly different from the lies and prevarication regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction presented to the world by our intelligence services and Departments of State and Defense officers who happened not to be Harvard alumni in the run-up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

It is often assumed that an Establishment is the status quo, meaning a vigorous defender of received values which opposes change in any direction. At least in my youth I thought there was solidity there upon which you could build your career, your life. I and, hopefully, you also now know better.

Notwithstanding its liberal image in the country at large, the Harvard of our undergraduate years surely had a lot of residual conservatism of the Eisenhower period about it. On the issue that shaped the lives of so many of us back then, the Vietnam War, Harvard as an institution was on the retrograde side of the barricades. Nathan Pusey was no Kingman Brewster and we were left in the dust by political movements that bubbled up and defined our age coming from San Francisco and from public universities.

But this conservatism of our Harvard was otherwise in conflict with the newly launched social engineering concepts of the admissions committee based on the guiding principle of cooptation. Jews were still a relatively new acquisition, while during our undergraduate years the outreach to Blacks was just getting under way. Women, Asians, all would follow in due course at the College over the coming decades.

Cooptation of the outlying majority (women) and minorities (people of color) came in spurts. Like so much social engineering, it was in a great hurry and the principle of meritocracy applied initially yielded to the overriding principle of inclusiveness. In that sense, one can draw a straight line from the 1960s to our presidential elections in the 21^st century when voting for a black or for a woman has come to outweigh merit. More generally, those social engineering experiments at Harvard of our day have led to the overthrow of traditional Judeo-Christian values in a headlong rush towards globalization and Davos culture. Like it or hate it, our Harvard was out front in shaping the Political Correctness of today.

With the insights from my study of Russia, I now understand the American Establishment with Harvard in front ranks as a North American variant of what the Russians call an ‘intelligentsia,’ meaning the force of progressive humanity which is enlightened, educated and leads the popular masses forward. Is this democracy in action? Not at all, because the fundamental implicit principle is elitism and the certitude that this elite knows best what is good for the country. The people are lazy, uninformed, absorbed in consumerism and lacking in patriotism, to mention just a few of their deficiencies which militate against their views informing government policies, as some well-known political scientists who earned their Ph.D.s at Harvard have unabashedly explained.

There you have it. I will say no more. My feelings about our alma mater are bitter sweet. It remains forever a part of my misguided youth, for which I take sole responsibility. But it was not and is not an unqualified force for good in our country.

My special concern is over the trajectory of U.S. foreign policy since the end of the Cold War, which in many respects has been defined by Harvard graduates and professorate in their capacity as leaders in the country’s policy Establishment. And that trajectory is one of aggressive assertion of U.S. global hegemony that has put us on direct course of military clash with Russia and China with an unacceptably high probability of its all ending in nuclear war and the end of civilization.

*****

With respect to Donald Trump, media remind us these days that he is an alumnus of the elite Wharton School of Business. It is also worth noting that in the run-up to the 2016 election he relied heavily on foreign policy advice from Henry Kissinger, the ‘renegade’ Harvard man whose Realism, read cynicism, was so resented by the Liberal colleagues he left behind.

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Harvard in den Nachrichten: Wer hat Recht in der Auseinandersetzung zwischen der Universität und Donald Trump?

Im Folgenden werde ich diese Frage nicht beantworten, sondern der Gemeinschaft einige Denkanstöße geben. Der folgende Text ist sozusagen ein „Nachdruck“. Er wurde im August 2016 verfasst und für ein begrenztes, ausgewähltes Publikum veröffentlicht, nämlich meine Harvard-Studienklasse von 1967. Er war mein Beitrag zum Klassenbericht zum 50-jährigen Jubiläum unseres Abschlusses. Ich glaube, dass er in direktem Zusammenhang mit dem aktuellen Konflikt steht, ob Harvard eine Hochschule und Forschungseinrichtung ist oder eine politische Instanz, die auf Kosten von Leistung und anderen Werten, die diese Verwaltung im Namen des gesunden Menschenverstands und des Überlebens der Zivilisation verurteilt, „Woke“ und Inklusivität fördert.

*****

In diesem begrenzten Rahmen möchte ich einige Erkenntnisse teilen, die die ferne Vergangenheit unserer Studienzeit in Harvard mit der Gegenwart verbinden. Die Beobachtungen basieren auf zwei Schlüsselbegriffen.

Der erste ist „Establishment“, ein Wort, das immer mit unserer Alma Mater in Verbindung gebracht wird. Der Begriff „Establishment“ wurde im Präsidentschaftswahlkampf 2016 von den Gegnern und Befürwortern häufig verwendet und missbraucht, sodass er derzeit in aller Munde ist. Das zweite ist „Veritas“, Harvards einwortiges Leitbild, das bei so vielen unserer Studententreffen stolz zitiert wurde.

Ich bin wohl nicht der Einzige, der zugibt, dass gerade der Establishment-Status der Institution ein wichtiger Faktor für meine Entscheidung für Harvard war, neben den sehr hohen Zulassungsvoraussetzungen, die die Zulassungsbescheinigung zu einer Art persönlicher Bestätigung machten, dass wir vielversprechende Personen waren.

Wie hätte es auch anders sein können? Die Präsidentschaft Kennedys präsentierte nicht nur einen Absolventen im Oval Office, sondern eine ganze Konstellation der „Besten und Klügsten“, die in Cambridge studiert, dort gelehrt und sogar Dekanate bekleidet hatten. Der Glanz, der Glaube, dass die Leistungsgesellschaft ihren rechtmäßigen Platz im demokratischen, ungebildeten Amerika eingenommen hatte, war unübersehbar. Die Besten aus unseren Reihen regierten nun das Land. Die Zukunft würde uns gehören.

Natürlich kam Camelot zwei Monate nach Beginn unseres ersten Studienjahres mit der Ermordung von JFK am 2. November 1963 zu einem abrupten Ende. Und in unserer Trauer haben wohl nur wenige von uns zunächst darauf geachtet, was unsere Besten und Klügsten unter Kennedy und dann unter LBJ, dem sie weiterhin dienten, taten, was unsere gesamte Generation mit der Vorbereitung und Durchführung des schrecklichen Vietnamkrieges überschatten sollte.

Die betrügerischen Rechtfertigungen für die Tonkin-Golf-Resolution, die uns in den Krieg führte, wurden von Harvard-Absolventen vorgebracht, die es besser wussten und bereitwillig die Wahrheit opferten. War es ein Opfer auf dem Altar der persönlichen Loyalität gegenüber einem Präsidenten oder gegenüber dem Prinzip, dass der Zweck die Mittel rechtfertigt, wenn man seinem Land dient? Keine der beiden Erklärungen gereicht unserer Universität zur Ehre. Keine unterscheidet sich wesentlich von den Lügen und Ausflüchten bezüglich der Massenvernichtungswaffen, die der Welt von unseren Geheimdiensten und Beamten des Außen- und Verteidigungsministeriums präsentiert wurden, die zufällig keine Harvard-Absolventen waren, im Vorfeld der Irak-Invasion im März 2003.

Oft wird angenommen, dass ein Establishment den Status quo darstellt, also ein energischer Verfechter überlieferter Werte, der sich jeglicher Veränderung widersetzt. Zumindest in meiner Jugend dachte ich, dass es dort eine solide Grundlage gab, auf der man seine Karriere und sein Leben aufbauen konnte. Ich und hoffentlich auch Sie wissen es jetzt besser.

Ungeachtet seines liberalen Images im ganzen Land war das Harvard unserer Studienzeit sicherlich noch stark vom Konservatismus der Eisenhower-Ära geprägt. In der Frage, die das Leben so vieler von uns damals prägte, dem Vietnamkrieg, stand Harvard als Institution auf der rückständigen Seite der Barrikaden. Nathan Pusey war kein Kingman Brewster, und wir wurden von politischen Bewegungen, die aus San Francisco und den öffentlichen Universitäten kamen und unsere Zeit prägten, abgehängt.

Dieser Konservatismus unseres Harvard stand jedoch im Widerspruch zu den neu eingeführten Konzepten der Sozialtechnik des Zulassungsausschusses, die auf dem Leitprinzip der Kooptation beruhten. Juden waren noch eine relativ neue Errungenschaft, und während unserer Studienzeit begann die Öffnung gegenüber Schwarzen gerade erst. Frauen und Asiaten sollten in den folgenden Jahrzehnten an der Universität folgen.

Die Kooptierung der peripheren Mehrheit (Frauen) und der Minderheiten (People of Color) erfolgte sprunghaft. Wie so oft in der Sozialtechnik ging es sehr schnell, und das ursprünglich geltende Prinzip der Leistungsgesellschaft wich dem übergeordneten Prinzip der Inklusivität. In diesem Sinne lässt sich eine direkte Linie von den 1960er Jahren bis zu unseren Präsidentschaftswahlen im 21. Jahrhundert ziehen, in denen die Wahl eines Schwarzen oder einer Frau mittlerweile mehr zählt als die Leistung. Allgemeiner gesagt haben diese sozialen Experimente in Harvard zu einer Umwälzung der traditionellen jüdisch-christlichen Werte geführt, in einem rasanten Vorstoß in Richtung Globalisierung und Davos-Kultur. Ob man es nun gut findet oder nicht, unsere Harvard-Universität war führend bei der Gestaltung der heutigen politischen Korrektheit.

Dank meiner Russlandstudien verstehe ich nun, dass das amerikanische Establishment mit Harvard an der Spitze eine nordamerikanische Variante dessen ist, was die Russen als „Intelligenzija“ bezeichnen, also die Kraft der fortschrittlichen Menschheit, die aufgeklärt und gebildet ist und die breiten Massen voranbringt. Ist das gelebte Demokratie? Keineswegs, denn das grundlegende implizite Prinzip ist Elitismus und die Gewissheit, dass diese Elite am besten weiß, was gut für das Land ist. Das Volk sei faul, uninformiert, vom Konsumdenken besessen und patriotisch ungebunden, um nur einige seiner Mängel zu nennen, die es daran hinderten, seine Ansichten in die Politik einzubringen, wie einige bekannte Politikwissenschaftler, die ihren Doktortitel in Harvard erworben haben, unverblümt erklärt haben.

Da haben Sie es. Mehr werde ich dazu nicht sagen. Meine Gefühle gegenüber unserer Alma Mater sind bittersüß. Sie bleibt für immer ein Teil meiner fehlgeleiteten Jugend, für die ich die alleinige Verantwortung übernehme. Aber sie war und ist keine uneingeschränkt positive Kraft in unserem Land.

Meine besondere Sorge gilt der Entwicklung der US-Außenpolitik seit dem Ende des Kalten Krieges, die in vielerlei Hinsicht von Harvard-Absolventen und -Professoren in ihrer Eigenschaft als führende Köpfe des politischen Establishments des Landes geprägt wurde. Diese Entwicklung ist geprägt von einer aggressiven Durchsetzung der globalen Vorherrschaft der USA, die uns auf einen direkten Kurs auf einen militärischen Konflikt mit Russland und China gebracht hat, mit einer unannehmbar hohen Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass dies in einem Atomkrieg und dem Ende der Zivilisation endet.

*****

In Bezug auf Donald Trump erinnern uns die Medien derzeit daran, dass er Absolvent der elitären Wharton School of Business ist. Erwähnenswert ist auch, dass er sich im Vorfeld der Wahlen 2016 stark auf die außenpolitischen Ratschläge von Henry Kissinger stützte, dem „abtrünnigen“ Harvard-Absolventen, dessen Realismus – oder besser gesagt Zynismus – bei seinen liberalen Kollegen, die er hinter sich gelassen hatte, so verhasst war.

In this evening’s edition of The Great Game political talk show, which we may take as representative of Kremlin thinking, they finally discussed an issue that has attracted the close attention of commentators in the United States and Europe for several days:  that there are sharply divergent views within Trump’s circle of foreign policy formulators and implementers with regard to what the end game in the Russia-Ukraine war should look like. On one side of the issue stand General Kellogg, Trump’s initial appointee as envoy to the warring parties, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.  On the other side stand Steve Witkoff, whom Trump made his chief negotiator with the Russians, and Trump himself.

Kellogg and Rubio are seen as the hard-liners on Russia.  In the view of the presenter on The Great Game, they never were real Trumpists but were put up by the traditionalist majority of the Republican Party. By contrast, Witkoff, who is ‘soft’ on Russia, is a close friend of Donald Trump going back several decades.

The Russians take some comfort from the fact that both sides within the administration are looking beyond the cease-fire idea to what the Russians really want: a detailed concept for the peace treaty. As they see it, this is already substantial progress in American thinking now that Washington is paying attention to what the Kremlin has been saying.

General Kellogg brought particular attention to himself this past weekend in interviews with British news media. He initially was quoted as calling for a settlement in Ukraine along the lines of Germany at the conclusion of WWII, namely to divide up the country. Kellogg later backtracked and said he meant creation of spheres of influence, with Russia holding onto the eastern oblasts that it now occupies and Europeans providing defense for the Western territories of Ukraine, with an independent rump Ukraine in the middle.  The acknowledgement that Russia would keep what is now theirs, of course, was an acceptable element for the Kremlin even if they completely rule out the introduction of European (NATO) forces in the Western Ukraine.

Meanwhile, what Steve Witkoff has been saying since his return to Washington from Oman suits the Russians very well.  Witkoff sees the war ending with Russia rightfully keeping Crimea and the four oblasts annexed in 2022:  Zaporozhia, Kherson, Donetsk and Lugansk.  In his remarks there is not a word about European peacekeepers. He has gone on to say that he is optimistic that agreement on a peace treaty is within reach. He also sees good prospects for normalization of relations with Russia and for development of large mutually attractive commercial projects.

It is clear that the Kremlin expects Witkoff and Trump to prevail over Kellogg and Rubio.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Der Kreml nimmt die Widersprüche in Trumps außenpolitischem Team zur Kenntnis

In der heutigen Abendausgabe der politischen Talkshow Das grosse Spiel, die wir als repräsentativ für die Denkweise des Kremls betrachten können, wurde endlich ein Thema diskutiert, das seit mehreren Tagen die Aufmerksamkeit von Kommentatoren in den Vereinigten Staaten und Europa auf sich zieht: dass es innerhalb von Trumps Kreis der außenpolitischen Gestalter und Umsetzer stark voneinander abweichende Ansichten darüber gibt, wie das Endspiel im Russland-Ukraine-Krieg aussehen sollte. Auf der einen Seite stehen General Kellogg, Trumps ursprünglicher Beauftragter als Gesandter bei den Kriegsparteien, und Außenminister Marco Rubio. Auf der anderen Seite stehen Steve Witkoff, den Trump zu seinem Chefunterhändler mit den Russen ernannt hat, und Trump selbst.

Kellogg und Rubio gelten als die Hardliner in der Russlandpolitik. Nach Ansicht des Moderators von Das grosse Spiel waren sie nie echte Trumpisten, sondern wurden von der traditionalistischen Mehrheit der Republikanischen Partei aufgestellt. Im Gegensatz dazu ist Witkoff, der Russland gegenüber „nachgiebig“ ist, seit mehreren Jahrzehnten ein enger Freund von Donald Trump.

Die Russen finden es tröstlich, dass beide Seiten innerhalb der Regierung über die Idee eines Waffenstillstands hinausblicken und sich mit dem befassen, was die Russen wirklich wollen: ein detailliertes Konzept für einen Friedensvertrag. Aus ihrer Sicht sei dies bereits ein wesentlicher Fortschritt im amerikanischen Denken, da Washington nun auf das höre, was der Kreml zu sagen habe.

General Kellogg machte am vergangenen Wochenende in Interviews mit britischen Nachrichtenmedien auf sich aufmerksam. Zunächst wurde er mit der Forderung zitiert, die Ukraine nach dem Vorbild Deutschlands nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg zu besiedeln, d.h. das Land aufzuteilen. Kellogg ruderte später zurück und sagte, er meine die Schaffung von Einflussbereichen, wobei Russland die östlichen Oblaste, die es jetzt besetzt, behalten würde und die Europäer die westlichen Gebiete der Ukraine verteidigen würden, mit einem unabhängigen Rest der Ukraine in der Mitte. Die Anerkennung, dass Russland behalten würde, was jetzt ihnen gehört, war natürlich ein akzeptables Element für den Kreml, auch wenn sie die Einführung europäischer (NATO-)Truppen in der Westukraine völlig ausschließen.

In der Zwischenzeit kommt den Russen sehr gelegen, was Steve Witkoff seit seiner Rückkehr aus dem Oman nach Washington sagt. Witkoff sieht das Ende des Krieges so, dass Russland die Krim und die vier 2022 annektierten Oblaste Saporischschja, Cherson, Donezk und Lugansk zu Recht behält. In seinen Ausführungen findet sich kein Wort über europäische Friedenstruppen. Er fügte hinzu, er sei optimistisch, dass eine Einigung über einen Friedensvertrag in Reichweite sei. Er sieht auch gute Aussichten für eine Normalisierung der Beziehungen zu Russland und für die Entwicklung großer, für beide Seiten attraktiver Handelsprojekte.

Es ist klar, dass der Kreml erwartet, dass Witkoff und Trump sich gegen Kellogg und Rubio durchsetzen.

In the past several weeks, I have repeatedly called out the destructive role of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron as they try, by hook or crook, to build a ‘Coalition of the Willing’ that would send troops to Ukraine to create a deterrent against ‘further Russian aggression’ at some point after conclusion of a peace agreement. The net effect of their proposals is to sabotage Donald Trump’s efforts at brokering a cease-fire, and/or permanent peace.

Ugly as this would-be ‘leadership’ of Europe may be, ugly as were the words of Starmer yesterday in his public statements condemning the latest Russian missile attack on Sumy, the fact is that what Macron and Starmer are up to is posturing, without effect.  Their latest attempt last week to enlist European and non-European countries in their coalition was a complete failure, bringing to their side only the three Baltic States, which count for nothing in military terms.

However, there is now another European ‘leader’ whose anti-Russian words may translate into actions that will be devastating for Germany and could just drag us all into a third world war. I am speaking about the incoming chancellor Friedrich Merz, who has been building upon his warlike rhetoric from the electoral campaign that positioned him to form a governing coalition and has now gone completely rabid in his stated plans for inflicting punishment on Russia.

During his tenure in office, the mealy-mouthed and indecisive outgoing chancellor Olaf Scholz took baby steps towards supplying the Zelensky regime with ever more lethal weapons systems. Yes, he yielded in giving to Kiev the celebrated Leopard tanks.  Yes, he allowed Germany to be home to the NATO coordination centers where Americans and British officers planned every move of the Ukrainian armed forces on the field of battle. But Scholz held back on his country’s prize weapon, the air-launched long-range Taurus missile.

The reason for Scholz’s refusal to budge on this issue was the admission of his highest officers that use of the Taurus in Ukraine would be possible only if German officers and technical personnel actually controlled the programming, thereby making Germany a co-belligerent with Ukraine, and subject to Russian retaliation.

Even after the United States gave permission to the United Kingdom and France to provide Ukraine with their long-range precision missiles, the Storm Shadow and Scalp respectively, Scholz held back.

Yesterday Friedrich Merz told reporters that he is prepared to send the Taurus to Kiev. Still more irresponsibly, Merz signaled that Ukraine would be allowed to use the Taurus to destroy the Kerch (Crimea) bridge and other targets in Russian Crimea.

The Russians took notice of these statements at once. They stand ready to deliver a devastating counter-blow to Germany if Merz proceeds with policies that reflect the worst of German revanchism.  What will happen after that is anyone’s guess.

                                                                *****

Day by day, in the run-up to the 80^th anniversary of the Victory in Europe, 9 May, Russian state television news is broadcasting special reports on the European cities that were liberated by the Red Army back then on its way to Berlin.  Yesterday was the turn of Vienna, which the Red Army conquered at the cost of 150,000 fatalities among its troops.

As Russian news explains, the Austrian authorities declined to send any representatives to the memorial ceremony which the Russian diplomatic mission had arranged in Vienna together with the embassies of the member countries of the Community of Independent States, i.e. the former Soviet republics.

Is it any wonder that Moscow is determined to impose its will on the West here and now, to ensure that the genie of Nazism is forced back into its bottle. The means to do this is the redrawing of the security architecture of Europe. For this to happen, its victory over Ukraine must be acknowledged by all participants in the proxy war on the Ukrainian side.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation into German below (Andreas Mylaeus)

Friedrich Merz: der gefährlichste deutsche Staatsmann seit Adolf Hitler

In den letzten Wochen habe ich wiederholt auf die destruktive Rolle des britischen Premierministers Keir Starmer und des französischen Präsidenten Emmanuel Macron hingewiesen, die auf Biegen und Brechen versuchen, eine „Koalition der Willigen“ aufzubauen, die Truppen in die Ukraine entsenden soll, um irgendwann nach Abschluss eines Friedensabkommens eine Abschreckung gegen „weitere russische Aggressionen“ zu schaffen. Der Nettoeffekt ihrer Vorschläge besteht darin, Donald Trumps Bemühungen, einen Waffenstillstand und/oder einen dauerhaften Frieden zu vermitteln, zu sabotieren.

So hässlich diese Möchtegern-„Führung“ Europas auch sein mag, so hässlich waren auch die Worte, die Starmer gestern in seinen öffentlichen Erklärungen zur Verurteilung des jüngsten russischen Raketenangriffs auf Sumy fand. Tatsache ist, dass Macron und Starmer nur Effekthascherei betreiben, ohne Wirkung. Ihr jüngster Versuch in der vergangenen Woche, europäische und außereuropäische Länder für ihre Koalition zu gewinnen, war ein völliger Fehlschlag, da sie nur die drei baltischen Staaten auf ihre Seite ziehen konnten, die militärisch gesehen nichts zählen.

Es gibt jedoch einen weiteren europäischen „Führer“, dessen antirussische Worte in Handlungen münden könnten, die für Deutschland verheerend wären und uns alle in einen dritten Weltkrieg stürzen könnten. Ich spreche von dem künftigen Kanzler Friedrich Merz, der auf seiner kriegerischen Rhetorik aus dem Wahlkampf aufgebaut hat, die ihn in die Lage versetzt hat, eine Regierungskoalition zu bilden, und der nun in seinen erklärten Plänen, Russland zu bestrafen, völlig außer Rand und Band geraten ist.

Während seiner Amtszeit unternahm der wortkarge und unentschlossene scheidende Kanzler Olaf Scholz kleine Schritte, um das Zelensky-Regime mit immer tödlicheren Waffensystemen auszustatten. Ja, er gab nach und lieferte die gefeierten Leopard-Panzer an Kiew. Ja, er erlaubte, dass Deutschland die NATO-Koordinierungszentren beherbergte, in denen amerikanische und britische Offiziere jeden Schritt der ukrainischen Streitkräfte auf dem Schlachtfeld planten. Aber Scholz hielt sich mit der preisgekrönten Waffe seines Landes zurück, der luftgestützten Langstreckenrakete Taurus.

Der Grund für Scholz’ Weigerung, in dieser Frage nachzugeben, war das Eingeständnis seiner höchsten Offiziere, dass der Einsatz der Taurus in der Ukraine nur möglich wäre, wenn deutsche Offiziere und technisches Personal tatsächlich die Programmierung kontrollieren würden, wodurch Deutschland zur Kriegspartei auf Seiten der Ukraine würde und russischen Vergeltungsmaßnahmen ausgesetzt wäre.

Gestern erklärte Friedrich Merz gegenüber Reportern, dass er bereit sei, die Taurus nach Kiew zu schicken. Noch unverantwortlicher ist, dass Merz signalisierte, dass die Ukraine die Taurus zur Zerstörung der Kertsch-Brücke (Krim) und anderer Ziele auf der russischen Krim einsetzen dürfe.

Die Russen haben diese Aussagen sofort zur Kenntnis genommen. Sie sind bereit, Deutschland einen vernichtenden Gegenschlag zu versetzen, wenn Merz seine Politik fortsetzt, die den schlimmsten deutschen Revanchismus widerspiegelt. Was danach passieren wird, kann niemand vorhersagen.

                                                                *****

Tag für Tag, im Vorfeld des 80. Jahrestages des Sieges in Europa, dem 9. Mai, strahlt das russische Staatsfernsehen Sonderberichte über die europäischen Städte aus, die damals auf dem Weg nach Berlin von der Roten Armee befreit wurden. Gestern war Wien an der Reihe, das die Rote Armee unter dem Blutzoll von 150.000 Toten unter ihren Truppen eroberte.

Wie russische Nachrichten erklären, lehnten es die österreichischen Behörden ab, Vertreter zur Gedenkfeier zu entsenden, die die russische diplomatische Vertretung in Wien zusammen mit den Botschaften der Mitgliedsländer der Gemeinschaft Unabhängiger Staaten, d.h. der ehemaligen Sowjetrepubliken, organisiert hatte.

Ist es da ein Wunder, dass Moskau entschlossen ist, dem Westen hier und jetzt seinen Willen aufzuzwingen, um sicherzustellen, dass der Geist des Nationalsozialismus wieder in seine Flasche zurückgedrängt wird? Das Mittel, um dies zu erreichen, ist die Neugestaltung der Sicherheitsarchitektur Europas. Damit dies geschehen kann, muss der Sieg über die Ukraine von allen Teilnehmern des Stellvertreterkrieges auf ukrainischer Seite anerkannt werden.

Transcript submitted by a reader

https://www.urmedium.net/c/presstv/133323

PressTV: 0:00
Let us go to Brussels and talk to Gilbert Doctorow, independent international affairs analyst, who is joining us, as I said, from Brussels. Very good to have you on the program, Gilbert. What do you think are the potential scenarios that we are going to witness in this conflict? Is it going to be de-escalation, or further escalation?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 0:18
It’s impossible to say with any confidence where this is headed, but I am an optimist with respect to the initiatives of Donald Trump, because there is some deep understanding that is being achieved between the United States and Russia, to which we are not privy.

But there are little signs that come out, signs that I was reading with respect to Steve Witkoff’s visit to Petersburg on Friday, which was a stop on his way to those meetings in Oman that you have just described. The Russians were, as I believe, important brokers in arranging the meeting in Oman. And I believe that Witkoff stopped over to get final recommendations, advice from President Putin on how to proceed in his dealings with Iran. The Russians–

If that is correct, and the Russians were demonstrating to Donald Trump how useful they can be, how constructive the relations with the United States can be, if there is a return to a normal relationship between the two countries, and looking past the ongoing fighting in Ukraine.

1:45
Now, what does that mean for the end of the fighting?It means that the Russian positions are taken in all seriousness by Washington, which will seek to accommodate Russia’s security concerns. We’ve already heard from Witkoff that essentially America agrees to Russia’s keeping the four oblasts that it now largely occupies and has annexed by, according to constitutional procedures. I’m speaking now of Donbas oblasts and what used to be called Novorossiya, which is Kherson and Zaporozhzhye. These provinces are acknowledged by the United States as being future Russian-recognized territory.

2:37
Now what happens to the rest of Ukraine is really an open question. Mr. Kellogg, who was named originally as Trump’s envoy to the Ukrainian talks, made a peculiar statement over the weekend that Ukraine would be divided. And he later modified that. This was in interviews to British newspapers, that Ukraine would become subject to spheres of influence and that this would be resolved similarly to Berlin after the end of World War II.

The problem with that notion is really that Mr. Kellogg is missing the overview of the situation, which is well in hand between Witkoff and Trump. What I mean by that is that the Russians refuse to recognize Western arms and Western military in Ukraine under any circumstances when this war ends. The war was started to ensure that Ukraine would be neutral, and Russia will not end the war until it is satisfied that the participants, stakeholders in the war in the West agree in writing that Ukraine is neutral and that their arms and their military will not be in Ukraine, whether it’s called a sphere of influence or whatever.

4:09
So these are possibilities, but not necessarily going to evolve. The West is doing its best– Britain is the ringleader, France is the second ringleader, in trying to sabotage the peace talks by speaking of a coalition of the willing, which didn’t work very well, to have men on the ground to resist Russians in case there is a further Russian aggression, as they say, in Ukraine after a peace treaty is signed. The issue that the Russians made, Mr. Lavrov made, in Turkey this past weekend is very relevant here: that the, whatever peace is concluded, has to look after the security interests of all the parties.

4:57
And to speak about providing security to Ukraine alone is to miss the point entirely. The Russians also need security guarantees. And therefore the outcome of these negotiations is very much dependent on how well Mr. Trump can control these European former allies of Britain and France in particular.

PressTV: 5:24
Very interesting to get your perspective on the matter Mr. Gilbert Doctorow, independent international affairs analyst joining us from Brussels.

This five-minute interview focuses on the latest prospects for Trump’s peace initiative to succeed given the apparent American acceptance of Russian possession of the Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporozhia oblasts that it now largely occupies.

https://www.urmedium.net/c/presstv/133323

This brief essay presents two ‘straws in the wind.’ The title above is the first.  The second is: why does Helsinki have a new mayor with the very un-Finnish sounding family name of Sazonov?

I offer this material, because you will not find it anywhere in US and European mainstream media, and yet it all bears directly on where we may be heading: towards peace or global war?

                                                                *****

Russia’s ballistic missile attack yesterday, Palm Sunday, on the Ukrainian provincial capital of Sumy in the northeast of the country was the number one news item on this morning’s BBC News. They spoke about the 34 reported deaths, including women and children. They showed video images of severely damaged residential buildings and rubble-strewn streets. They told us about President Zelensky’s appeal to Donald Trump to come to Ukraine and see for himself the wanton destruction that Russia continues to inflict on his country even now when talks of a cease-fire are under way.

In short, Kiev is once again attempting a PR blitz in the West as it has done repeatedly since the start of the war.

For their part, the Russians have put out some very specific information about what were their objectives in the latest attack on Sumy and what they actually achieved.  They tell us that they used two Iskander-M hypersonic missiles to obliterate the command staff of the Ukrainian army group called ‘Seversk’ which was holding a meeting at the time. They claim to have killed 60 soldiers and officers of the Ukrainian armed forces including a certain Colonel Yula.

Moreover, they point out that their missile strikes were successful in evading Ukraine’s local electronic warfare gear and Western supplied air defenses.

As regards possible civilian casualties, Moscow blames Kiev for continuing to violate international humanitarian law and placing military personnel and equipment in civilian properties.

But let us go beyond this narrow technical explanation of the attack. The proper context to understand what is going on is the following:  Sumy was the planning and staging center for the Ukrainian invasion of Russia’s Kursk oblast just across the border last August. It is still active supporting what remains of Ukrainian troops inside Kursk and it is the staging point for new attacks on the neighboring Belgorod oblast of the RF.  Moscow has set the objective of taking Sumy and the surrounding territory of Ukraine to create a buffer zone, thereby pushing back the Ukrainian armed forces beyond the range of their artillery and local drones.

                                                                        *****

Finland has been putting out signals of a possible forthcoming relaxation of its hostile measures against Russia.  Following his day of golf with Donald Trump in Mar-a-Lago two weeks ago, their president unexpectedly told his nation and EU Member States that they should prepare for an eventual normalization of relations with Russia.  There has also been talk now of Finland possibly reopening its border crossings with Russia which were closed more than a year ago.

Now today there comes the news that in the weekend’s municipal and local elections in Finland the nation’s capital has just voted in as mayor a certain Daniel Sazonov.  There would be nothing surprising in the fact that this deputy mayor responsible for social issues and health since 2021 has been moved up to mayor.  But there is the little detail of his very Russian family name and the fact that his parents moved to Finland from St Petersburg in the early 1990s.

Sazonov himself was born in Helsinki in 1993.  However, given the almost racist nature of the Russophobia that has swept through Europe since the start of the Special Military Operation, it is certainly noteworthy that the Finnish electorate has overlooked his family heritage and installed him as mayor.

We speak about the Baltic States as the most viciously anti-Russian members of the EU. They alone chose to join Britain and France in the last gathering of the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ that UK Prime Minister called for the purpose of sabotaging the ongoing Trump peace initiative.

Finland, which might also be properly called a ‘Baltic state,’ given its geography, has no big Russian minority in its population dating from Soviet times. To be sure, in recent months we have seen and heard a lot from the Finnish revanchists who curse the Soviets for taking their land during the Finnish-Russian war that just preceded the outbreak of WWII and for the further territorial losses that followed the world war in compensation for Finland’s close cooperation with the Nazis siege of Leningrad.  Yet in the same national elections this weekend, the ‘True Finns’ party, whom we may assume represent those diehards, polled only 7.8% of the vote, 3.3% less than in the last national elections.

Conclusion:  there is some shred of sanity in the Finnish electorate and maybe even some decency.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Warum hat Russland Sumy angegriffen und mit welchen Ergebnissen?

Dieser kurze Aufsatz präsentiert zwei „Strohhalme im Wind“. Der Titel oben ist der erste. Der zweite lautet: Warum hat Helsinki einen neuen Bürgermeister mit dem sehr un-finnisch klingenden Familiennamen Sazonov?

Ich biete dieses Material an, weil Sie es nirgendwo in den Mainstream-Medien der USA und Europas finden werden, und doch hat es alles einen direkten Einfluss darauf, wohin wir uns bewegen könnten: in Richtung Frieden oder globaler Krieg?

                                                                *****

Der gestrige Angriff Russlands mit ballistischen Raketen auf die ukrainische Provinzhauptstadt Sumy im Nordosten des Landes war heute Morgen das Topthema in den BBC News. Sie berichteten über die 34 gemeldeten Todesfälle, darunter Frauen und Kinder. Sie zeigten Videobilder von schwer beschädigten Wohngebäuden und von Trümmern übersäten Straßen. Sie berichteten uns von Präsident Zelenskys Appell an Donald Trump, in die Ukraine zu kommen und sich selbst ein Bild von der mutwilligen Zerstörung zu machen, die Russland seinem Land auch jetzt noch zufügt, wo Gespräche über einen Waffenstillstand im Gange sind.

Kurz gesagt, Kiew versucht erneut, im Westen einen PR-Coup zu landen, wie es seit Beginn des Krieges wiederholt der Fall war.

Die Russen haben ihrerseits einige sehr spezifische Informationen darüber veröffentlicht, was ihre Ziele beim jüngsten Angriff auf Sumy waren und was sie tatsächlich erreicht haben. Sie berichten, dass sie zwei Iskander-M-Hyperschallraketen eingesetzt haben, um den Kommandostab der ukrainischen Heeresgruppe „Seversk“, der zu diesem Zeitpunkt eine Sitzung abhielt, auszulöschen. Sie behaupten, 60 Soldaten und Offiziere der ukrainischen Streitkräfte getötet zu haben, darunter einen gewissen Oberst Yula.

Außerdem weisen sie darauf hin, dass es ihnen mit ihren Raketenangriffen gelungen sei, die lokale elektronische Kriegsführung der Ukraine und die von westlichen Ländern gelieferten Luftverteidigungssysteme zu umgehen.

Was mögliche Opfer unter der Zivilbevölkerung betrifft, so beschuldigt Moskau Kiew, weiterhin gegen das humanitäre Völkerrecht zu verstoßen und Militärpersonal und -ausrüstung in zivilen Gebäuden unterzubringen.

Aber lassen Sie uns über diese eng gefasste technische Erklärung des Angriffs hinausgehen. Der richtige Kontext, um zu verstehen, was vor sich geht, ist der folgende: Sumy war im vergangenen August das Planungs- und Einsatzzentrum für die ukrainische Invasion in der russischen Oblast Kursk direkt hinter der Grenze. Die Stadt unterstützt nach wie vor die verbliebenen ukrainischen Truppen in Kursk und ist Ausgangspunkt für neue Angriffe auf das benachbarte Oblast Belgorod der Russischen Föderation. Moskau hat sich zum Ziel gesetzt, Sumy und das umliegende Gebiet der Ukraine einzunehmen, um eine Pufferzone zu schaffen und so die ukrainischen Streitkräfte außerhalb der Reichweite ihrer Artillerie und lokalen Drohnen zurückzudrängen.

                                                                        *****

Finnland hat Signale für eine mögliche bevorstehende Lockerung seiner feindlichen Maßnahmen gegen Russland ausgesendet. Nach seinem Golftag mit Donald Trump in Mar-a-Lago vor zwei Wochen erklärte der US-Präsident unerwartet seiner Nation und den EU-Mitgliedstaaten, dass sie sich auf eine mögliche Normalisierung der Beziehungen zu Russland vorbereiten sollten. Es wurde auch darüber gesprochen, dass Finnland möglicherweise seine vor mehr als einem Jahr geschlossenen Grenzübergänge zu Russland wieder öffnen könnte.

Heute nun kommt die Nachricht, dass bei den Kommunal- und Lokalwahlen am Wochenende in Finnland die Hauptstadt des Landes gerade einen gewissen Daniel Sazonov zum Bürgermeister gewählt hat. Es wäre nicht überraschend, wenn dieser stellvertretende Bürgermeister, der seit 2021 für soziale Fragen und Gesundheit zuständig ist, zum Bürgermeister aufsteigen würde. Aber es gibt da dieses kleine Detail seines sehr russischen Familiennamens und die Tatsache, dass seine Eltern Anfang der 1990er Jahre von St. Petersburg nach Finnland gezogen sind.

Sazonov selbst wurde 1993 in Helsinki geboren. Angesichts der fast rassistischen Natur der Russophobie, die seit Beginn der militärischen Spezialoperation durch Europa fegt, ist es jedoch sicherlich bemerkenswert, dass die finnischen Wähler sein familiäres Erbe übersehen und ihn zum Bürgermeister gewählt haben.

Wir sprechen von den baltischen Staaten als den bösartigsten antirussischen Mitgliedern der EU. Sie allein haben sich dafür entschieden, sich Großbritannien und Frankreich bei der letzten Versammlung der „Koalition der Willigen“ anzuschließen, die der britische Premierminister einberufen hat, um die laufende Friedensinitiative von Trump zu sabotieren.

Finnland, das aufgrund seiner geografischen Lage auch als „baltischer Staat“ bezeichnet werden könnte, hat keine große russische Minderheit in seiner Bevölkerung, die aus der Sowjetzeit stammt. In den letzten Monaten haben wir allerdings viel von finnischen Revanchisten gehört und gesehen, die die Sowjets verfluchen, weil sie ihnen während des finnisch-russischen Krieges, der dem Ausbruch des Zweiten Weltkriegs unmittelbar vorausging, ihr Land weggenommen haben und weil sie nach dem Weltkrieg weitere Gebietsverluste hinnehmen mussten, als Ausgleich für die enge Zusammenarbeit Finnlands mit den Nazis bei der Belagerung Leningrads. Bei den gleichen landesweiten Wahlen an diesem Wochenende erhielt die Partei „Wahre Finnen“, die vermutlich diese Ewiggestrigen vertritt, nur 7,8 % der Stimmen, 3,3 % weniger als bei den letzten landesweiten Wahlen.

Schlussfolgerung: Die finnischen Wähler sind nicht völlig verrückt und vielleicht sogar noch anständig.

Transcript submitted by a reader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBgTqSZe7lM


NewsX World:

0:05
Moving on, US envoy Steve Witkoff met the Russian president Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg, as Donald Trump urged the Russian president to get moving on a ceasefire in Ukraine. The Kremlin said that the meeting lasted over four hours and focused on finding solutions for Ukraine. This was Witkoff’s third meeting with Putin this year, and the special envoy from Russia, Kirill Dmitriev, called the meeting productive. After the meeting, Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov said that the meeting emphasized the Ukrainian settlement.

And however, the talks come at a time when US-Russia talks aimed at agreeing on a ceasefire ahead of a possible peace deal to end the war in Ukraine appear to have stalled due to disagreements over the terms for a complete halt in hostilities.

0:52
In recent days, Ukrainian officials have sent Washington a list of targets they believe Russia has struck in violation of the energy infrastructure ceasefire agreed upon by the two countries last month. Trump has further expressed frustration with Putin over the state of talks with respect to the ceasefire. The US president also wrote on social media, “Russia has to get moving. Too many people are dying, thousands a week, in a terrible and senseless war.” Earlier, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov also said that Putin and Witkoff might discuss the possibility of the Russian leader meeting Trump face to face.

1:33
All right, Mr. Gilbert Doctorow, Russian affairs expert, is joining us on the program. Sir, appreciate you taking out the time and speaking with us. Well, when the conversations actually imply that they were productive, what do you make out of it? Does this mean that this four-hour conversation between Mr. Witkoff and Vladimir Putin is going to be, you know, a step in the direction of peace, or do you think that probably unless you get Ukraine to be on the same page, it’s not possible?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 2:06
It’s very difficult to make sense out of these talks that are going on between the Trump administration and Mr. Putin and his team. The first thing I’ll say is that from the Russian perspective, the visit by Witkoff was not expected. He was added to Mr. Putin’s otherwise very full agenda in St. Petersburg because he was there for a conference with his senior naval officers, finance minister, and primary manager of Russia’s commercial and military shipbuilding. And they were talking about plans for adding to the Russian fleet in the coming years. That took most of his day.

2:52
Mr. Witkoff probably added St. Petersburg to his travel plans because he is in Oman today. And he’s in Oman largely because it was set up for him by the Russians. So it was appropriate that he would look for a meeting with Mr. Putin before he goes into the meeting with the Iranian foreign minister today.

Otherwise, I see in the meeting and the visit by Witkoff yesterday, very promising [glitch] we’re reading tea leaves. What do I mean by tea leaves? First fact, he didn’t come by himself this time. He came with his wife. That added a personal note, which suggests a growing warmth in the relationship and gives us reason for optimism that whatever Mr. Trump is saying publicly, there is something serious going on, hinting at a Russian-American agreement on how [glitch] the ceasefire. The ceasefire is the least of it. The Russians are only interested in the end game. How will this war end? Does America agree to Russia’s acquiring permanently and legally the territories of the Donbass, the four oblasts that it has recaptured largely? Is America keen on establishing fully normal relations with Russia and lifting sanctions?

4:24
These are the questions that move the Russians. And I have reason to believe, not just because he took his wife and they did a little bit of high-level sightseeing. They went to see the most important synagogue in St. Petersburg and most important synagogue in the Tsarist Empire when it was built. And they visited the most important Russian Orthodox church in St. Petersburg, the St. Isaac’s Cathedral. He spent three hours in conversations with Dmitriev at the Grand Hotel Europe. That is not a normal venue for high-level talks. And it persuades me that this was a last-minute decision to come and visit Petersburg.

The Russians did not have much time, because Witkoff would be on a very tight schedule ahead of his flight to Oman. Therefore the meetings they had were all in downtown Petersburg in unusual venues. The meeting that was four and a half hours with Vladimir Putin was in what’s called the Presidential Library, a building about which none of us has heard much. It was opened in 2009 and dedicated to Boris Yeltsin, who had died a couple of years earlier. But you never see it. It wasn’t mentioned in any government meetings. So it was chosen precisely to keep Mr. Witkoff’s stay in Petersburg tightly controlled within a few downtown city blocks of Petersburg.

5:55
All of this means, suggests to me, that the visit to discuss the situation in Iran was very important to Trump and Witkoff. They take the Russian efforts very seriously. And that is an example of why Mr. Trump is keen on reestablishing normal relations with Russia, because there are things which the countries can cooperate on.

NewsX: 6:21
Right. So one last question before we let you go. Do you think that America has gone out on a limb and Donald Trump is also staking his reputation when it comes to, in fact, striking a deal– which Donald Trump is good at– between Ukraine and Russia that eventually will bring peace in this part of the world? But so far, there hasn’t been a credible overture, if we can call it that, from President Putin towards peace.

Doctorow: 6:52
Well, he has stated specifically the conditions under which Russia would implement in full [edit] partial ceasefires. And they have been stymied by opposition from the [glitch] this free navigation in the Black Sea. One of the conditions is the lifting of bank sanctions on the bank that handles all Russian agricultural exports.

The EU refuses to do that. So there are obstacles that are created to the conclusion of even a partial ceasefire, which Russia has nothing to do with. It’s the EU’s attempt to sabotage the whole business. Nonetheless, I think it’s a big mistake to focus all attention on a partial ceasefire, full ceasefire. That’s not it.

7:45
The question is, where does this war end? Europe doesn’t want it to end. And we are all aware of that. So the question for the Russians is what is Mr. Trump going to do to Europe to get them to back off and let a peace be made?

That is the real question, Not Mr. Putin’s willingness, non-willingness to end the war. That’s a phony question that is put up by England and by France, who want desperately for this war to continue.

NewsX: 8:12
So always a pleasure having you. Thank you so much for speaking to News X World.

Moving on. Well, Hamas says it is hope–

This five-minute interview yesterday morning is interesting for the opportunity I was given to explain why the visit on Friday of Donald Trump’s personal emissary Steve Witkoff to Petersburg for a meeting with President Putin was likely taken on short notice.  It was less for purposes of continuing talks on ending the Ukraine war that it was for consultations on how to proceed Saturday in talks with the Iranian Foreign Minister in Oman which Putin had arranged.  Judging by the comments from the White House today that the Iranian talks were constructive and that a further meeting is planned in one week’s time, we may conclude that Vladimir Putin has helped to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for Trump on Iran just as he did for Barack Obama in September 2013 by agreeing with Bashar Assad on the destruction of Syria’s stock of chemical weapons.

If so, then this augurs well for a ‘U.S. brokered’ peace in Ukraine.  Not a cease-fire but a genuine peace, essentially on Russian terms.  Putin will have demonstrated what benefits can accrue to the U.S. from normal, cooperative relations with Russia.

Transcript submitted by a reader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxPFg8uatqs

Prof. Glenn Diesen: 0:00
Hi everyone and welcome. I am joined today by Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, an international affairs analyst and historian. And I wanted to speak with you today about what is happening to the political West, that is the United States and Europe, which has been more or less joined by the HIP since the Second World War. And I guess much of the world now is looking towards Europe with some bewilderment.

That is, Europe doesn’t want to negotiate a war that has effectively already been lost. Europe doesn’t want to reconsider sanctions that don’t work. They’re happy to steal sovereign funds. They want to spend money now on weapons they can’t afford. We see the US leaving Europe, yet there’s no real outreach to the rest of the world.

0:47
Indeed, I just saw Kaja Kallas, the foreign policy chief of the EU, blaming China for being the main enabler of Russia in Ukraine. So it’s again, not clear to me what scolding China is meant to achieve, especially in public. The media is still all about the warmongering, war with Russia, the world’s largest nuclear power. Well, again, one could go on, but how do you explain this posture? I’ve attempted to challenge some of these lack of ideas, but usually the main knee-jerk reaction is some Hitler analogy and reference to Russian propaganda.

So how do you explain what is happening in Europe at the moment? Because we’re not really discussing course correction, which should be the main issue, I guess.

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 1:41
Well, just how bizarre, or simply speaking stupid, these developments in Europe are, hit home to me yesterday, or the day before yesterday, when I saw on Russian television the visiting delegation from Belgium, led by the Prime Minister, Bart De Wever, and his Minister of Defense, Minister of Commerce and Foreign Affairs. They had in their group the leaders of some of Belgium’s most important arms manufacturers.

And although Belgium is very well known for its superb chocolates. It also has a pretty good arms industry, always did. These were light arms for the most part, but nonetheless, the technologies were there. And there was Mr. De Wever shaking the hand warmly of Wilensky, and of his whole crew, and they all looked very satisfied with themselves.

2:36
And this brought to mind my own experiences going back to the 1970s when detente had its moment of bloom and detente had its moment of wilt. And I entered the field more or less in the wilting period when some very conservative American companies decided to go into the Soviet Union and to show that they also were highly competent in international affairs.

Well, they went in, of course, in the waning days. What I’m seeing now strikes me [as] the utter stupidity of coming into Kiev when the regime is on its last legs, and everybody knows that, and coming in and offering a billion euros in military assistance this year and every year, at the very moment when the Prime Minister is in very tough conflict with the labor unions in Belgium and with the broader public for the measures of austerity he’s introduced domestically. We’ve had rail strikes, we’ll have many more of them, because he just raised the retirement age for tram drivers and bus drivers from 55 to 67.

3:46
Now that’s a hell of an increase in one year. And of course the people are indignant. And of course they’re afraid of cuts in social welfare, healthcare, and so forth. And here this guy is speaking of giving away a billion euros to a regime that’s about to collapse. Where are their brains? I have to wonder.

But I don’t want to suggest that the problem of Europe is a lack of brains, not at all. The problem of Europe has been very heated brains. The notion that Europe has borrowed ideology and followed in the footsteps of Washington is rubbish. Europe has had– they have a lot of thinkers here; there are a lot of well-educated people. And whether they’re using their education properly or not is a separate question.

4:39
But it’s not for lack of training and will to enter into political dialogue that Europeans have suffered. On the contrary, here in Europe we’ve had thinkers of neocon principles. They didn’t all have to read Robert Kagan. They didn’t all have to read Fukuyama. We had our own here in Europe. You are living very close to the home of one of the biggest thinkers in Europe and actors, Carl Bildt. Carl Bildt was never at a loss for words in spreading the theories of the neocon movement.

So there has been an indigenous neoconservatism in Europe of considerable proportions. There also has been the co-optation of many of Europe’s leaders going back to when they were still relatively young and formative by American agencies. These future leader programs that they had been brought into, whether it was the absolute nitwit Baerbock or Kaja Kallas. Well, you can go to a whole list– or Leo or Macron– a whole list of personalities who in one way or another, at various early stages in their career, were co-opted by American propaganda organizations. And so they were instilled. They had their hotdogs on the White House lawn. They saw the glory of being part of the rulers of the human race.

6:07
And these people have been very deeply embedded in the American unipolar ideology. And it is shocking to them and dismaying to them and unacceptable to them that one Donald Trump, who was known to be a rather shallow thinker, would disrupt the game, would overturn the chessboard, and would make everything that they had believed in since they were wearing short trousers … history. That’s where we are today. That’s why they dig in. And that’s why they refuse to follow what their eyes tell them: that the United States will in response to, well, I’ve got this book, the United States is ready to drop its support of Europe. So Europe goes in and runs against the American policy of concluding a peace.

7:05
Well, the ideology you refer to is best, I guess, described as liberal hegemony, the idea that the great power rival of the past can be overcome if the West sustains its collective hegemony, because this would allow us to elevate the role of liberal democratic values. Because there seems to be– well again, the whole political class over the past few decades have been raised to a large extent on this idea that we, as you mentioned Fukuyama, we can transcend that history now, that as long as the West dominates, has its hegemony, then this is a victory for liberalism and again perpetual peace to delve into Kant. Is this where the–

7:52
Well, I guess if you want to move away from this, you have to then argue that, well, perhaps we did something wrong the past 30 years when instead of mitigating the security competition with great powers, we would just make sure that we would transcend history by simply having perpetual liberal hegemony. Is this the main problem or do you see the ideologies differently?

Doctorow:
The ideology is very deep. It runs very deep. And it starts with things, little simple notions, which seem self-evident, but are absolutely based on nothing: the notion that democratic countries are peace-loving because they are strongly supported by the populations, and therefore they do not have to go and solve their political problems by fighting wars abroad.

8:45
Whereas autocratic, authoritarian countries are necessarily warlike. And since Europe is a project of peace, we have to be against those countries. They are warlike because they are fragile, because they do not enjoy the support of the population, and so they tend to look for foreign wars to to maintain their hold over their populations.

That’s a very simple notion, dead wrong of course, but try to find people in the European political classes who would disagree with that. This is the whole European-values story that is the whole of the institutions that are three kilometers away from me, the European institutions, they are all infected with these ideas. And to shake their heads and to bring them back to common sense is a vast task.

Diesen:
Well, we keep still referring to Europe often as some kind of a cohesive, united entity; but we kind of bet everything on this alliance with the United States. We even agreed in the 90s to redivide the continent by expanding NATO, even though we knew from the 90s that this would likely cause conflicts with the Russians, and many pushed back against this and warned. But nonetheless, the American pacifier in Europe was seen as a central component of the collective hegemony or liberal hegemony.

10:20
But what happens now that Americans will most likely depart, at least to some extent, as it’s shifting its priorities around the world? Do you see already cracks in the European unity or what direction do you predict?

Doctorow:
The cracks are there, but they’re not running deep enough to provide you and me with much satisfaction. There are two countries that stand out where the leaders have been remarkably bold, in the same way that Trump was bold, to run up against the united opposition of everybody around. I’m speaking of course of Hungary and Slovakia.

11:02
The others are whispering among themselves. We know that there are some unreported approaches to Putin that one or another leader has made. But from my experience in politics, people who tell you that, “Oh, well, when they speak among themselves, off the record, they understand, European leaders understand that Ukraine has lost the war” and so on and so forth. But in politics, what people say among themselves behind closed doors is irrelevant. The only thing that counts is what they say when they’re given a microphone in public space.

And in public space, they’re all nominally united. How long that will go on when the moment of truth comes and Donald Trump says, “Are you with me or are you against me on accommodating the Russian requirements for entering into a ceasefire?” And that will be the moment of truth, which will likely end in the United States pulling the plug on Ukraine and it’s going down in flames. There Europe will have to scramble, the European leaders will have to scramble, to find an explanation that does not take them down with Ukrainian flames.

Diesen: 12:20
That moment of truth might come sooner rather than later. Indeed, Trump has always made the point that either the conflict has to be solved soon or it might not be solved at all. Why do you see him as being in such a rush to finish this war off now, or either negotiating now or just walking away? What is the time pressure here?

Doctorow:
Well, we had a good reminder of why he’s moving fast in the last week when we saw very big opposition, widespread opposition to his chaotically introduced new tariffs and attempt to extricate the United States from its unsustainable annual trade imbalance or trading deficits that are no longer able to be financed.

13:20
There were widespread demonstrations. I think Russian television put up on screen some of these which they said spread to 1,400 cities and towns across the United States. I’d like to stop for a moment and say something that I don’t see, I think I’ve seen anywhere else but was on Russian television. They had their interviews, they had their journalists go into the crowd. Probably was in Washington. And they interviewed a few kids, I mean, guys in their young twenties, early twenties, who were carrying these signs about how horrible the tariffs are and so forth.

And they had some brochures, leaflets to hand out. And the Russian reporters went up to them and they asked, can you tell me why you’re opposing this? Well, it was a sputter. The fellow couldn’t say a word. He didn’t understand what the tariff business was all about. He had been handed this very nicely produced sign, and he was handed the printed leaflets denouncing Trump.

And the conclusion of the journalists was, “Hey, this was a color-revolution operation. This was just like Maidan. These guys have been paid to party on the street against Trump. And for them, it’s a big party and they don’t really know what it’s about.”

Well, USAID obviously didn’t finance this. That question is: who did? The Russians didn’t ask it. I’ll ask it. Now I give the answer: certainly the likes of George Soros.

This would be– his fingerprints have to be all over this type of operation. So somebody is paying for that, and they were paid demonstrations. They weren’t just enthusiasts for the Democratic Party coming out on the streets. No, no. So that will have to be investigated.

15:13
But the main point I wanted to make is: the Russians saw a surprising weakness in Trump’s domestic situation. And they were right, as we know, because he reversed path yesterday. And he’s postponed for 90 days implementation of the really serious tariffs that are supposed to be directed against offenders, big offenders, except for China, which is singled out for continuing very heavy tariffs [that] amount to a blockade. Well, the Russians are concerned about Mr. Trump and his standing domestically, because they understand that he is the best hope they’ve had for detente since Richard Nixon.

16:00
And they don’t want to see his policies eviscerated, they don’t want to see him lose his present standing. But even before this crisis arose, everyone was looking at the dates. April 20th is when he wants to have a final solution to the dispute with Iran over its nuclear program and its general military capabilities. April 20th was the final date that he said he wants to have for conclusion of a ceasefire at least between Russia and Ukraine. And why [this date]?

16:39
Well, it’s the hundred days. It’s the period in the start of a new administration when they get a free pass, when the opposition, and particularly it was true in this case, when the opposition is still in a state of licking its wounds and disorganized, and he wanted to rush through as much of his domestic and foreign policy as he could, while he has absolute control on Capitol Hill.

So that’s what the rush was all about. The question is, of course, what is the relevance of his personal needs to solving the Ukraine war? That is a really American perspective that the whole world will dance around the tune that Donald Trump is playing on his flute. The conclusion of the war is a very complex issue and cannot be resolved just because Donald Trump says, “Hey, this is my deadline.”

Diesen: 17:36
Well, when the deadline is reached and there’s still no peace, where does it go from here? Because there’s different pathways. He can escalate pressure on the Russians, more weapons effectively getting pulled into owning the Ukraine war. He can put pressure on the Europeans [by] various means. He can again challenge the legitimacy of Zelensky and cut weapons supplies, intelligence, the logistics to pressure the Ukrainians. But … or he can just wash his hands of it and walk away. What do you see as the most likely path forward for Trump, just to abandon this?

Doctorow: 18:21
Well, a lot will depend on the depth of the political damage he has done to himself by this whole affair with the tariffs. If he has solved the problem for the coming 90 days by giving this pause so that all 70 countries can come and as he said in a remarkably foolish statement last today to the Republicans, “come and kiss my ass”.

Trump:
Because I’m telling you, these countries are calling us up, kissing my ass. They are dying to make a deal. Please, please, sir, make a deal. I’ll do anything. I’ll do anything, sir.

Doctorow: 19:05
If that goes as he hopes and he does strike separate deals, then he will remain strong politically, domestically, and he can pursue what is essentially an unpopular policy of reconciliation with Russia, unpopular in the States, I mean. So the Russians are watching this very attentively because, as I said, it really is for them of decisive importance. Do they have a talking partner who can take to conclusion his proposals for detente or don’t they have such a partner?

19:44
Well, obviously the Europeans are attempting to sabotage his peace agreement, which is a reason for contempt, but there seems to be a wider contempt for Europe. And Indeed, this has been shown in the different messages which have been released, for example, the Signal messages, but very openly the way JD Vance has spoken. But I don’t think it’s only with the Trump administration. You can go back to 2014 with Victoria Nuland’s “F the EU” comments. It’s something when you speak to American leaders or diplomats and all, they confirm that there is some contempt for Europe, but also that this has been increasing. How do you explain this given that this was the main partnership of the United States for decades? Where does this contempt come from?

Doctorow: 20:41
Well, Europeans in leadership positions today are contemptible. Objectively speaking, this is the weakest set of leaders of major European countries that we’ve seen since the beginning of the European Union. There were intellectuals, there were high-level, well-educated people who, for one reason or another, occupied positions of power. There were people who were of extraordinary personal quality and courage, who headed major European states, not minor European states like Slovakia and Hungary.

21:23
They’re gone. The leaders of the main European countries are one-by-one weak, inexperienced, they are cut off from the world at large, and they never were deeply engaged. Or they’re highly educated, enormously superficial people like Macron. Macron was the French equivalent of Sunak. Same background and same utter superficiality. They are– they were hyped. They were sold to the public by parties on the side, not least of them being the CIA.

22:06
And we’ve gotten– well, there’s a whole sequence of leaders in France who were installed essentially by the CIA by sidelining and destroying the political careers of the intelligent, effective, normal political candidates who otherwise should have won. And this is, France is the most egregious case, the most obvious case, but other countries as well.

The– Merz does not enjoy popularity as he’s about to assume the chancellorship. And how and why would he? The man is cold as can be. His program is built on war. And it’s– many Germans may want to revisit World War II out of the never-ending revanchism that has never been burned out of the country.

23:07
But nonetheless, the majority of Germans don’t want to revisit World War II and to go in a face-to-face with the Russians. So Germany has a serious problem. Now, it’s not– maybe we’ll be lucky and Baerbock will be sent off to the UN. But that such a person ever could occupy that position, tells you why Americans, particularly sophisticated Americans, whether they speak with hillbilly accent or not, would look upon Europe with contempt.

Diesen: 23:43
When you see the German military leaders, all the way up to generals, the way they spoke during the invasion of Kursk, where they almost celebrated, well, not almost, they did celebrate, saying that this is a humiliation of Russia.

They haven’t seen this since World War II. This is quite extraordinary. It’s hard to believe that it’s real that this kind of comments are still made. But on the topic of, I guess, political immaturity, what do you make of the European war plans at the moment? I don’t think people appreciate how dangerous the situation is.

Europe with its supply weapons, America as well, of course, has been contributing to the deaths of tens of thousands of Russians. We have the foreign policy chief openly threatening to destroy Russia, break it into smaller pieces. They casually speak about war against Russia, again, the world’s largest nuclear power. And all of this at a time when the Europeans do not have a proper army and they no longer have the clear backing of the United States any more. So Europe could face a very angry Russia soon, which it sees as an absolute necessity to restore its deterrent.

25:02
As we learn now from the “New York Times” article that this has been mostly a NATO war against Russia since the invasion. I mean, this is on black and white. So again, it’s very hard to believe that this is real, this rhetoric coming out. Do you see this as merely a bluff or do you see evidence of them effectively losing their minds here? There seems to be some collective irrationality here.

25:37
Not entirely. I think the Russians are partly to blame for this delusionary thinking in Western Europe. They have not struck back. Their red lines have been crossed repeatedly. They did not strike back. Having a lawyer as your head of state has advantages and disadvantages. Mr. Putin did not use the moments that were before him to punish Europe directly for its crossing red lines. And the result was the widespread thinking in the West that they didn’t respond because they’re weak.

26:24
That, unfortunately, has fed into this delusionary thinking that we see around us today. And I cannot say that the Russians did not contribute to that very unfortunate end result. The Chinese are playing a different game. I don’t– if anybody thinks that the Chinese will not use an attack on Iran to take over Taiwan within a matter of days or weeks, they really need to have their head examined. Because the Chinese by their very swift response to Trump’s tariffs, they have shown themselves to be militant. They have stated publicly, they made references publicly to the century of shame, to their having been colonized, and that they will not put up with this type of diktat coming from the likes of Donald Trump or from anybody else.

27:33
Unfortunately, the Russians did not behave in such a manner. And so they encouraged– this is not over one or two cases, but over the last three years– they encouraged a misunderstanding of why they were being reasonable and not hitting back. The Chinese will hit back, whatever the consequence. And that is a different game.

Diesen: 28:01
I think this was always the dilemma for the Russians. If they would retaliate against NATO, on one hand they could risk escalating and triggering World War III. If they do not, then as you said, you will embolden NATO. And indeed it’s what we see in our newspapers as well, that “while Russia doesn’t defend its red lines, they’re weak; we can do what we want”. So this is the usual dilemma, I guess, in terms of response. But that’s what I meant if the United States is pulling a bit back, Russia’s calculations in terms of how hard it can hit back, I would assume that this would change.

28:38
I wanted to ask you also about this limited ceasefire, because I’m not sure what the purpose of it exactly was. If it was trust building or if they were going to add to it to move towards a more comprehensive peace agreement, but it consisted of not hitting energy infrastructure and also resuming the Black Sea grain corridor for commercial vessels. Well, it doesn’t seem like it’s been a great success. I think this would be an understatement. But what is it that went wrong with it? And what are the, why the ramifications of this failed, limited ceasefire?

29:24
It failed because the Europeans grabbed upon it as another means of continuing the war. Until Trump put out his ceasefire proposal and the first meetings were held with regard to it, the Europeans were saying, “No, no ceasefire, The Russians have to pull back, take their troops out of all of Ukraine and so forth, and have to pay reparations” and blah blah blah.

And then suddenly they saw, “Hmm, the Russians are not keen to conclude the ceasefire, and we can use that.” So the Europeans all seized on this ceasefire proposal that was under preliminary discussion between the Russians, United States and the Ukrainians as a means of continuing the war because you see, the Russians don’t want peace.

30:19
So it took on a life of its own. When from the Russian standpoint, the ceasefire agreement was an irrelevancy; it was only to be an appendage to an understanding between the United States and Russia about what the endgame would be. How would the war end? With who getting what? That apparently has been under discussion. I have no doubts that there is far-reaching agreement between the United States and Russia on what the end game looks like.

30:49
But obviously, nobody has signed on a dotted line. Therefore, the Russians cannot consider it as a given. And it has not been dictated by Washington to Kiev on a take it or leave it basis, yet. That may come as we come closer to the date, April 20th. But from the Russians standpoint, the ceasefire by itself had no value at all.

Trust building, yes, but other things had to happen in the same timeframe. And these were identified during the first meeting that Witkoff had with the Russians in Saudi Arabia. It was the reopening of diplomatic channels, the restoration of the rights and capabilities of the respective embassies and restoration of consulates in both countries. That was to go in the same timeframe.

31:52
Not much progress has been made by the way, on the latter point. The Americans have spoken about technical facilities for the proper functioning of the embassy. But they have not spoken about something that the Russians considered rightly very important: restoration of their property rights. The Russian embassy in San Francisco was confiscated. It was sealed. American intelligence agents went through it and sealed it all.

The Russian rest and recreation dachas in Long Island and somewhere around Washington were seized and the Russians say give it back. It’s a diplomatic property, it should be in their hands. So these issues are still under discussion and are quite important.

Diesen: 32:46
Well my last question is just what do you see happening on the battlefield? Because if diplomacy is not moving forward, one can assume that Russia would then lean more into the military option of resolving the war. Do you see any big trends worth noting?

Doctorow:
Well, it’s still unclear when or if the Russians will stage a major offensive to wipe out the Ukrainian army in Donbass. That isn’t clear. There is discussion of it. I believe that the appointment of one General Popov to head the storm operations is indicative that a major assault is being considered, if not planned.

33:41
But otherwise, the Russians are very busy, liberating the last 30, 40 square kilometres of Kursk. They’ve got two settlements on the border within Kursk that are partly held by Ukrainians, and they’re still flushing them out. These are heavily fortified. And then at the same time, to divert attention from that, the Ukrainians stage another border incursion in the next-over oblast. So the rest of that is in slow progress, progress but not with wild speed.

And of course, day by day, the Russians are moving on the Donbass frontline as advancing, but not with overwhelming speed or results. Pokrovsk still has not been taken. It is the single largest logistics hub supplying the front lines of Ukraine and Donbass, and it is still under challenge by the Russians, but being held essentially by the Ukrainians. So this moves, but not with blinding speed.

Diesen: 35:03
Well, I’ve seen some reports about huge movements of Russian equipment and troops. Again, the fog of war, it’s unclear how accurate some of the information is, but it appears to be the case. So as we’re approaching Trump’s deadline or losing his patience with this, I fear all hell could break loose in terms of a military option being intensified.

So anyways, Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, thank you again so much for your time. It’s always excellent to speak with you.

Doctorow: 35:42
It was a pleasure.