The brief summary that Professor Diesen has attached to this 35-minute interview reads:

“The US seeks to readjust to a multipolar world, and Europe’s relevance and priority have declined. Beyond Europe’s efforts to sabotage Trump’s peace initiative in Ukraine and the tariff wars, there is a deeper contempt for Europe that is no longer concealed.”

Why does Washington show its contempt for Europe?  Simply put, because the European leaders, especially those in charge of the largest and most powerful European states are…contemptible.  They may have solid post graduate degrees, but they are superficial thinkers. Macron, like former British Prime Minister Sunak, put his service within U.S. brokerage houses on his CV but he has no analytical skills in the political sphere and changes his foreign policy posture with the kind of volatility that we associate with Donald Trump, while lacking a broad vision that Team Trump has of the future Great Power driven world order.

 A whole succession of capable French candidate presidents going back to Dominique Strauss-Kahn (2012), to Francois Fillon (2017) were sidelined, no doubt with CIA assistance, to bring to power the dimwit Francois Hollande, followed by the chameleon, Emmanuel Macron. Neither has been up to the challenges of the day both domestically and in international affairs, so that France as a country has sunk under them. What we have seen a week ago in the court-ruling barring the leading French candidate Marine Le Pen from participating in the next presidential elections is a further confirmation that French democracy is completely degraded.

Germany, the other ‘locomotive’ in the European Union tandem, is doing no better.  Chancellor Olaf Scholz was an empty vessel who oversaw the deindustrialization of his country.  The incoming chancellor Friedrich Merz is a vessel half filled with war mania and not much else.

Of course, the interview covered the waterfront of issues relating to the American-EU frictions or confrontations about how/whether the Ukraine war should end soon with Russia as the clear victor.

Transcript submitted by a reader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYtbF28aIFY

Napolitano: 0:32
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for “Judging Freedom”. Today is Wednesday, April 9th, 2025. Professor Gilbert Doctorow joins us now. Professor Doctorow, always a pleasure, my dear friend, and thank you for accommodating this schedule. Does the Kremlin trust Donald Trump?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 0:55
With reservations. It’s not a question of his personality, which is volatile, and they’ve known about it for a long, long time. It was his personality that caused the Kremlin to be against his election in 2016. They preferred a known quantity to an unknown, volatile person. And that is his situation which concerns them.

And I’ve seen on Russian television the last five, six days, a change in the way they treat Trump. That is to say less respectful, calling out the contradictions that undermine his credibility as a negotiating partner. For example, going from three weeks ago to speaking of reducing the Pentagon budget by 8% a year, and a couple of days ago, talking to Netanyahu, boasting that it’s now going to a trillion dollars, which is 150 billion above the last budget amount.

These contradictions are now coming in for criticism. And the reason, the underlying reason for criticism, is they fear that his weakness, after his having unleashed this tsunami of tariffs, that his domestic weakness jeopardizes his ability to bring through a rapprochement with their country.

Napolitano: 2:26
Very interesting. You mentioned that the Kremlin was rooting for Mrs. Clinton in 2016 on the theory that she was a known quantity. I understand that. Was the Kremlin rooting for Kamala Harris six months ago?

Well, President Putin said clearly that he was rooting for Biden. And then by– one could assume, that he passed that along to Kamala Harris. Even more so, the reason for the rooting was discussed on television a night ago. This was in “The Great Game” that is moderated by a couple of people, but the principal moderator is Vyacheslav Nikonov, who is a Duma member, a very senior person, very close to the Kremlin. And Nikonov is saying that Trump is unforeseeable, that he could do as much damage and create as much chaos as he’s doing now.

3:40
They were rooting for Biden, you could say most likely for Harris, because they thought that their election would bring about the self-destruction of the United States. And now to their amazement, Trump seems to be doing a still better job of it.

But I’d like to put this in brackets. Russians are enjoying the situation, whichever way it goes, because they’re ready for whichever way it goes. And despite their critical remarks about Trump, last night’s talk show also brought out the remark that the forthcoming meeting, the direct or indirect, whichever it actually is, between the United States and Iran at the level of foreign minister on the Ukrainian side, sorry, on the Iranian side, at the level of Witkoff on the American side, that would take place in Oman, was brokered by Russia.

4:38
So Russia is doing its best to prevent the situation in the Middle East from escalating to an all-out war between the United States, Israel, and Iran.

Napolitano:
But how do you, how do the elites view Trump? I mean, he’s caused a six-trillion-dollar loss in shareholder value. He’s professed, all this in the past week, he’s professed impatience with President Putin, even using a barnyard phrase, he’s pissed off at him. And he keeps threatening to bomb Tehran. How do the elites in Moscow take that?

Doctorow: 5:21
They’re not happy with these contradictions and with these excesses in his behavior and his bullying. At the same time, they don’t walk away from him, because he’s the best hope that they’ve had in 50 years or 80 years and coming to something– well, let’s go back to Nixon, the best hope since Nixon of having a detente between the two countries. And so they are not, they were enjoying the oddities about his behavior and the damage that he’s doing to American credibility globally. But there are, and I hear on Russian television, statements about his tariff policy, which are far more calm, restrained, and reasonable than most things you hear on major American media.

6:07
They are viewing this as something which was sold under a false name, because if it had been sold under its proper name, it would have caused even more damage to the American economy than the tariffs. Namely, the real cause is the imminent financial collapse of the United States, if it had continued on its merry way of unlimited borrowing by raising the federal budget limits regularly as Biden did and suffering the continuing one-trillion-dollar-plus current account deficits which are finally financed by borrowing.

So from the standpoint of the Russians, even the negative side, that the market, “Oh, the market will go down, oh, there’ll be a recession.” When the Russians are saying something, you don’t hear an American commentary, but there’s a lot of logic to it. Trump will not be bothered if there is a recession, because that will drastically cut the imports.

Napolitano: 7:09
This presumes that the 100-percent tariffs on Chinese goods will be paid, that is, that will not result in a diminution of the demand for Chinese goods. I mean, is Joe six-pack with his MAGA hat going to pay 60 dollars for a toaster that normally costs 30?

Doctorow:
Maybe 30 was too little. Look, I look around me at [sound glitch] white Coutts, and particularly at these small household items that are on sale here in Belgium, and which are almost all coming from China. And the prices are ridiculous.

Napolitano:
Ridiculously high, or low?

Doctorow:
Low. When I paid $50 for a microwave, that’s ridiculous. When I paid $50 for a Canon printer, that’s ridiculous. These are half of, maybe four times less than the price could or should be if they were to be at levels competitive with European or other global supplies.

Napolitano:
I would imagine you’re in a minority view there. I would imagine most consumers are happy to pay $50 for a printer.

Doctorow:
How many printers do you buy a year? How many microwaves you buy? That will not be reflected in the consumer shopping basket.

Here in the, let’s say in the States, yes, of course, the avocados are coming from Mexico. Yes, the February strawberries are coming from Mexico. Excuse me, who buys avocados? Is it the poor people who can barely make ends meet, or is it your upper middle class and the food fashionists? This is– who is the criticism coming from?

It’s coming from wealthy people. The media are not poor folks. And they are making the hullabaloo about all this. But when I ask where is the– who’s gonna be paying for all this? Poor people or rich people? I put my money on the rich people paying. If you buy a French bottle of cognac for 80 euros, and it goes up to 160, what difference does it make? Because if you’re buying that bottle–

Napolitano: 9:13
I don’t drink cognac, but if I were into it, I wouldn’t pay double the price. It would sit on a dock at Port Newark where there still are 100,000 bottles of Stolichnaya vodka waiting to be distributed.

But that goes back to the Joe Biden era. How do we know that the Russians played this careful and delicate role of putting the Americans and the Iranians together? And I wonder how Bibi Netanyahu reacted to that. I know you read “The Economist” as I do. “The Economist” Has a great piece out last night– I don’t know how they know this unless somebody was in the room –reporting that Netanyahu’s trip to the United States on Monday was a dismal failure from his perspective.

He thought he was going to talk Trump into saying something antagonistic about President Erdogan of Turkey, and Trump said, “Oh no, he’s my friend.” He thought he could talk Trump into preparing for war against Iran, and Trump says, “Oh no, we’re going to negotiate.” And Bibi said, “Negotiate with whom?” And Trump said, “Directly with them.”

Doctorow:
Well, what you’re calling up is precisely what I heard on the BBC of all people yesterday morning.

Napolitano:
Wow.

Doctorow:
So “The Economist” may be a little bit exceptional. The BBC is the British government speaking. And they said exactly what you said, that there was shock on the face of Netanyahu, and that his visit was a loss.

Napolitano: 10:46
So this is a side of Trump which libertarians and small-government people and pro-peace people cheer on, that he could say to somebody like Netanyahu whose slaughter in Gaza he’s financing, “No, no, no. Hold off, Bibi. We’re going to try and talk first.”

That old Winston Churchill line of “Jaw Jaw is better than war war”, meaning it’s better to talk than to fight, and you don’t fight until after you’ve exhausted all the talking. This is the anti-Joe Biden and the anti-Tony Blinken style of diplomacy. Does the Kremlin respect its US counterparts? I mean, can you put Marco Rubio and Sergey Lavrov in the same category as diplomats?

Doctorow: 11:44
No, you can’t. But Rubio is, first of all, he’s not really controlling the foreign policy. That’s coming out of Donald Trump directly with Witkoff. He has a more decorative function than an actual controlling function. So his– and the Russians appreciate that fully, they want to deal with Witkoff.

Not because Rubio has no experience, but simply they want to deal with the person who has the ear of the president, and that person is Wilkoff.

Napolitano:
Right. What do you expect will happen on May 9th? Has the Kremlin announced if Trump is going to come, or– they haven’t announced it, or we would know it. I know President Xi is going to be there. This is the 80th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany in Russia.

It’s effectively the end of World War II. It’s a grand event as I understand it. I mean, I’m very low on the totem pole; I’ve been invited to it. And I know the President of the United States has been invited. I would imagine the Kremlin would love to have him there.

Doctorow:
Well, it depends on whether there’s some success in reaching a final agreement between the United States and Russia over the end game of the war. Not about the ceasefire. The ceasefire is almost irrelevant. It’s the end game. I think they’re close to that.

13:10
And then indeed they might invite him. But I think that for timing’s purposes, it probably is better if this take place in June, when he will not be under the shadow of Xi. Something was said in passing by Trump during his meeting with Wang Yi the other day, at least this last week, the Chinese foreign minister, And he said that Mr. Xi would be the highest guest at the May 9th.

Now just a moment, Modi is also coming. That was not an offhand remark. That was a signal. I think that Russians are telling the Indians, hey, look, the Chinese are doing a lot more for us than you are. And so Mr. Xi will be the most important guest at the May 9 celebrations.

14:06
Under those circumstances, I think Trump could reasonably decide it’s not the moment to be there.

Napolitano:
But you have either told me or agreed with the concept that Trump and Putin are looking for another Yalta. They’re all looking for a grand reset. What better time? China, India, Russia, the United States, all you need is Brazil and you have your Yalta.

Yes, but I think it has to be eased into, because right now frictions in China are so high that it would be– they don’t want fireworks at the 9th of May celebration. Or at least they don’t want them to be taking place before midnight There’s another opportunity, and that is the June 18th- 21st when there will be the International Economic Forum in St. Petersburg. The Russians are already expecting a very large business delegation. I think they would be very happy to prepare for a very large US government delegation.

15:10
Indeed, that would not be a Yalta of the four powers sitting together, but it could prepare for that Yalta. I would just add, parenthetically, that I hope to see that, I expect to see that firsthand because I signed up to be present of the Forum.

Napolitano:
Oh, that’s terrific. Does the Kremlin believe that the US is preparing for war with Iran. So in other words, stated differently, when Trump says “We will bomb Tehran worse than they can imagine”, I’m paraphrasing, how does the Kremlin react to that?

Doctorow: 15:48
They take it very seriously. And this is precisely because as we’ve discussed in the past, Russia is not ready to intervene in the war directly. They’re too busy with their cleanup operations in Ukraine. But for that reason, they placed all emphasis on prevention rather than reaction. And this brokerage of the meeting that will take place in Oman this coming weekend is an example of that.

The Chinese of course are really hopping mad at the States. And they are certainly ready to, not just to help prevent, but to react to anything that the United States should do by way of attacking Iran. And that is a hundred percent.

Napolitano: 16:35
What about the Kremlin’s reaction to Hegseth’s saber rattling in Japan, basically saying to the Chinese, don’t even think about Taiwan. I mean, it’s almost inconceivable.

It is inconceivable that the United States could repel a Chinese military effort to take over Taiwan. It would result in the destruction of Taiwan, I would think. But what do the Russians think when Hegseth makes those, what I would say are thoughtless and needlessly provocative, even absurd statements?

Doctorow: 17:13
I agree entirely with your characterization of the statements. At the same time, we’re all operating under a set of limitations because of the way the United States and the other major players are conducting themselves today.

That’s to say, there’s a lot going on, Judge, that we are not privy to, and we have no right to be privy to, and that contradicts what we read in the papers and we hear from our colleagues every day. There is something going on, as we just learned with respect to the revival of talks between Iran and the United States. There are things going on behind our backs. And as I said, we have no right to that information, but it puts us in an embarrassing situation, since we are making our judgments with only partial information.

Napolitano: 18:07
What is the Kremlin’s position on Trump’s avaricious attitude toward Greenland?

Doctorow:
They’re amused. This is a subject of discussion on the talk shows, showing how Trump is keen on destroying capitalism and in reverting to kind of predator practices of the United States that arose early in its history. They’re not shocked. They are mildly surprised that this is going on. Of course, they condemn it.

But they find amusement in looking at this kind of behavior from the perspective of Marxist ideology, Marxist critiques. Remember the people who are now the presenters and hosts on the Russian state television are of a certain age. And went to school, they all had to go through these courses of Marxism-Leninism. So now with a certain sense of humor, they see what justification there was in that Marxism and Leninism for the present conduct of the United States of America.

Napolitano: 19:24
Unbelievable. I shouldn’t say unbelievable, but it’s a remarkable bit of bitter irony. How much longer does the Kremlin expect the special military operation to continue and is President Putin under any public pressure, there is public pressure in Russia, you’ve told us that, is President Putin under any public pressure to get this over with?

Doctorow:
Surely he is. Of course, this would not be in the newspapers, very rarely would be in some social media critical of the way things are being conducted. You hear reference to this in Putin’s own speeches when he speaks, when he does mention it occasionally, that there is a restlessness, and he tries to explain himself why he’s proceeding prudently and not waging an all-out offensive in any one place.

As you– this is proper, because after all, as I’ve said several times, and which runs against the general understanding of the way the war is running, that the imminent collapse of the Ukrainian army is an incorrect evaluation. When you listen day by day to what the Russian reporters are saying from the front, there is a very active Ukrainian electronic warfare, drone warfare, which inhibits big movements by the Russian army. And they are moving forward incrementally. They’re taking chunks of Kursk back. They’re only less than 50 square kilometers of Kursk.

21:02
At the same time, they’re now fighting offensives, attacks in the neighboring oblast where the Ukrainians have brought in fresh troops and have been rampaging at border towns. So the war is not over. The war is proceeding even if the Russians are making very serious advances. We’ve heard about several places, Chasov Yar was one of them. This is a town which is partly taken by the Russians.

This is a major juncture of transportation, but hasn’t been taken yet completely. And so it is with one or two other of these nexus towns that are key to supplying the Ukrainian front. They are still under attack and not taken. So we have to, we can’t get ahead of ourselves that Mr. Zelensky is, or his generals, are fighting back.

They aren’t just raising their hands and running away. This, of course, has to shape our understanding of where things are going. But it would change dramatically if Trump simply stopped supplying anything to Ukraine That would shorten the period to the end of this war dramatically.

Napolitano:
Is that a card that Donald Trump has to play in his negotiations with President Putin, whether it’s over grand reset or peace in Ukraine?

Doctorow: 22:35
Well, I think so. I think that both sides are aware of that. But if they reach an agreement on how they should look at the end of the day when the papers are to be signed by someone rather on behalf of Ukraine, then they can agree on when Trump will stop warfare aid.

Napolitano: 22:54
Professor Gilbert Doctorow, a pleasure, my dear friend. We’ve been all over the place, but I deeply appreciate you letting me do that and pick your brain on all these topics.

And keep sending me your writings. They’re very instructive to me as to what your thinking is and what information you’re getting to us. So I look forward to seeing you next week, my friend.

Doctorow:
Thanks so much.

Napolitano:
Of course. Coming up later today at 1 30 this afternoon, Pepe Escobar; at three o’clock, Phil Giraldi; at four o’clock, the always worth waiting for Max Blumenthal.

23:30
Judge Napolitano for “Judging Freedom”.

In every human endeavor that goes on for years there are those bold folks who come in early and there are those fools who come in at close to the bitter end, unaware of how others will see the futility of their arrival as late-comers.

Our Belgians are clearly in the second category.

In the last two days, Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever took a government and business delegation to Kiev to show solidarity with a regime that is living its last days and to offer a billion euros of military assistance to Ukraine. This billion can only come at the expense of the overtaxed working-class Belgians who are now engaged in national strike actions against the radical hike in retirement age that De Wever is imposing on metro drivers and other transport personnel. Do you really want your bus or tram to be driven by a 67-year-old? I don’t. And his cost cutting will extend to health and other social services, though the particulars are not yet spelled out.

But back to Kiev.

If you consult yesterday or today’s French speaking national newspapers you will only find a very small article on the Belgian official visit to Kiev. Given the political situation here, I don’t think De Wever wants his visit to be widely discussed in Brussels. I learned about it from yesterday’s Russian state television, which showed video clips of the prime minister, defense and foreign affairs ministers in Kiev shaking hands with Zelensky and his boys, smiling broadly and looking very pleased with themselves. They were joined by top representatives of Belgium’s arms industry.

All of which brings us to the question of the one billion euros per year that De Wever pledged to provide to Kiev. Will that be cash? Very unlikely. What it is almost certain to be is arms of one kind or another manufactured in Belgium. It will be a handsome gift to the Belgian industry at the moment when it is poised to expand in keeping with the European directives preparing the continent for war with Russia by 2030 or before.

Without further comment, I say to Team De Wever: ‘have a nice day’!

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

9. April 2025

Der belgische Premierminister Bart De Wever reist mit seiner Delegation nach Kiew

Bei jedem menschlichen Unterfangen, das sich über Jahre hinzieht, gibt es die mutigen Leute, die früh kommen, und es gibt die Narren, die erst kurz vor knapp kommen, ohne zu wissen, wie andere die Sinnlosigkeit ihres Zuspätkommens sehen werden.

Unsere Belgier gehören eindeutig zur zweiten Kategorie.

In den letzten beiden Tagen reiste der belgische Premierminister Bart De Wever mit einer Regierungs- und Wirtschaftsdelegation nach Kiew, um Solidarität mit einem Regime zu zeigen, das seine letzten Tage erlebt, und um der Ukraine eine Milliarde Euro Militärhilfe anzubieten. Diese Milliarde kann nur auf Kosten der überbeanspruchten belgischen Arbeiterklasse gehen, die sich derzeit in landesweiten Streikaktionen gegen die radikale Erhöhung des Rentenalters engagiert, die De Wever U-Bahn-Fahrern und anderem Transportpersonal aufzwingt. Wollen Sie wirklich, dass Ihr Bus oder Ihre Straßenbahn von einem 67-Jährigen gefahren wird? Ich nicht. Und seine Kosteneinsparungen werden sich auch auf das Gesundheitswesen und andere soziale Dienste erstrecken, auch wenn die Einzelheiten noch nicht bekannt sind.

Aber zurück nach Kiew.

Wenn Sie die französischsprachigen Zeitungen von gestern oder heute lesen, werden Sie nur einen sehr kleinen Artikel über den offiziellen Besuch Belgiens in Kiew finden. Angesichts der politischen Lage hier glaube ich nicht, dass De Wever möchte, dass sein Besuch in Brüssel breit diskutiert wird. Ich habe davon aus dem gestrigen russischen Staatsfernsehen erfahren, das Videoclips des Premierministers und der Verteidigungs- und Außenminister in Kiew zeigte, wie sie Selensky und seinen Jungs die Hand schütteln, breit lächeln und sehr zufrieden mit sich selbst aussehen. Zu ihnen gesellten sich führende Vertreter der belgischen Rüstungsindustrie.

All dies bringt uns zu der Frage nach der 1 Milliarde Euro pro Jahr, die De Wever Kiew versprochen hat. Wird das Bargeld sein? Sehr unwahrscheinlich. Was es mit ziemlicher Sicherheit sein wird, sind Waffen der einen oder anderen Art, die in Belgien hergestellt werden. Es wird ein schönes Geschenk für die belgische Industrie sein, die sich gerade anschickt, im Einklang mit den europäischen Richtlinien, die den Kontinent auf einen Krieg mit Russland bis 2030 oder früher vorbereiten, zu expandieren.

Ohne weitere Kommentare sage ich dem Team De Wever: „Ich wünsche Ihnen einen schönen Tag!“

‘Judging Freedom’ edition of 9 April: Did the Kremlin Underestimate Trump?

Our chat went off in many directions.  I was given every opportunity to pepper the discussion with a perspective on who will pay for the tariffs that runs against what you hear not only on mainstream but largely on alternative media as well, namely that the tariffs will hit the wealthy Americans more than it will the poor folks, and that the shopping basket measures of inflation will be little affected.   You may disagree, but do hear me out

Transcript submitted by a reader

https://www.urmedium.net/c/presstv/133259

PressTV: 0:00
China and the European Union have promised retaliation against the US trade war, following President Donald Trump’s threat of additional tariffs.

Lin Jian: 0:11
China will take the necessary measures to firmly safeguard its legitimate and lawful rights and interests. If the US side ignores the interests of the two countries in the international community and insists on fighting a tariff war or a trade war, China will fight to the end.

Olof Gill, EC:
Two things are happening. The first is our proposed response to the US steel and aluminium tariffs. That is being voted on by member states tomorrow. If they give us a mandate to move forward with those countermeasures, I expect that will happen early next week.

Also early next week, as the second phase of our response to US tariffs, this time on cars and reciprocal tariffs, we will basically be presenting our plan in the same way as we did with with steel and aluminium.

Press TV: 1:07
This after Trump’s threat of an additional 50 percent tariff on Chinese imports. Trump also rejected the EU zero for zero tariff offer by demanding that the block buy 350 billion dollars worth of energy from Washington to get tariff relief. Trump’s sweeping tariffs have shaken markets globally, with many major indexes experiencing the sharpest decline in years.

1:37
We’re going to take a look at the global effects of these tariffs in this part of our news program. I’d like to welcome a couple of guests to discuss this topic. Daniel Patrick Welch, political commentator out of Boston, and Gilbert Doctorow, independent international affairs analyst out of Brussels. Thank you both for being with me. I’m going to start it off in Boston and Daniel. Your thoughts that– tell me, what do you think the actual goal is? What is Trump trying to accomplish by doing what he is doing?

DP Welch: 2:15
Well, I think it’s important to distinguish between what he’s trying to accomplish and what he’s trying to pretend to accomplish. The idea of restructuring manufacturing and having, as Lutnick says, the Commerce Secretary, millions of Americans back screwing iPhones together is a pipe dream and a fantasy aimed at shoring up the base of the American working class to make them support it when it is purely against their interests.

The real goal is to shift more money to the ruling class, as always, and to kind of reimagine some Smoot-Hawley nightmare where they will control, again, the bulk of international trade, and with these fake ideas of tariffs versus simple math. “Well, we’re gonna reciprocate, we’re gonna give these–“

That’s not how it works. It works with trade imbalances. And there’s a formula for that, and there always has been. There’s not– and so he’s using muscle, again, like the Don. They should not call him the Donald. They should call him the Don. He is a mafioso and trying to bully the rest of the world into doing the US bidding. And it is bound to fail late in the game, and it will incite more retaliation than ever before.

PressTV: 3:54
Gilbert, your thoughts on this; where do you see this going? I mean, I’m sure that Donald Trump, obviously he has economists that he has talked to that he’s consulted.

We have seen the stock markets around the world taking a hit. Of course, Trump says that that’s good and that’s what needs to happen right now. I mean, your thoughts, is he getting expert opinion? Is there a possibility that this would work to benefit Americans, as Trump says?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 4:31
The rollout of these tariffs was given one explanation. This is reindustrialization, bringing jobs back to the States. That is a convenient cover for what he’s doing. Of course, many economists have explained, just as my fellow panelist said, that to bring back industry is not such a simple matter, and it doesn’t happen overnight, even if Mr. Trump is talking about several trillion dollars of investments in the States that various companies have promised to make.

The reality is different, and it’s much more dangerous than Mr. Trump wanted to make public. This was introduced to avoid the financial collapse of the United States. That is the reason. The United States has these enormous trade deficits which have to be financed. The United States has an immense federal deficit, which has been extended, increased, each year of the Biden administration to gargantuan proportions that are an enormous burden on future generations. The United States has taken this action to cut its losses.

PressTV: 5:56
OK, explain that. You’ve mentioned that a couple of times. Explain what you mean, because what people are seeing right now is actually that the US is going to take a hit as well as many countries around the world. So what do you mean when you say that the US is doing this to cut its losses?

Doctorow: 6:15
If the United States take a hit and if there is a recession, that also plays into Donald Trump’s game. The point is, if there’s a recession, the imports, the consumption will go down sharply. And that is the essential problem. The United States has been living way above its means because of the cheap supplies coming in from Asia in particular. If he’s right and if his tariffs work, then there will be pain to pay, but not by the poor people. The main consumers who will be affected will be the ones who are buying 70,000- and 100,000-euro cars from Germany.

7:07
That’s not your average worker. They will be the ones who are buying the 30-, 40-, 50-euro bottles of French wine or of cognac. They can afford if it goes up to 70 and 100 and 150 euros. It doesn’t make any difference to them. For the average working person who now buys a microwave oven for 50 dollars– which is a ridiculously low price, thanks to Chinese dumping in the States– so if he pays 100 after Trump’s tariffs, it’s still less than half the price of a microwave made in the States or in Western Europe and sold.

The point is, it is not– people who are buying their groceries in the supermarkets will not see the inflation that Mr. Trump’s tariffs are creating. The wealthy people will, and they can afford it. Therefore, the pain in the States is vastly exaggerated, because the people who are writing about it are the ones who will be paying for it all, not you and me. It’s a very, this is a very difficult thing to get your arms around.

8:18
I don’t agree at all with the fellow panelist that the poor people and the folks will be paying for the rich people. Not at all. For once, it’ll be the other way around.

PressTV: 8:27
So are you saying, Gilbert, that this is good for Americans at the end of the day?

Doctorow:
It’s good for America. The country will go under financially if it doesn’t do something drastic. Nobody expected Trump to be revolutionary, but he is. None of the preceding presidents had the guts to do what he has done.

PressTV: 8:50
OK. Daniel, your thoughts. So Gilbert is saying that actually this is something very positive, and it’s good for America. You’re in the United States. Tell me overall the general perspective in the United States right now regarding these tariffs.

Welch:
Well, I think that my fellow guest has made good points about the difference between perception and reality. The Democratic Party wants to launch an attack against this as simply evil, and it does have specific economic tailwind that has followed it through the ages.

Of course, protectionism has been a major part of industry since the Industrial Revolution. But if you look at that history, you have what happened when you incite what is called the Kinderberger spiral, where you have tariffs leading to reciprocation, reciprocation leading to more tariffs, et cetera. And between 1929 and 1933, you had a 67-percent drop in international trade. The idea that this doesn’t affect people at the bottom, I think, is not correct.

10:18
And he said the idea that it will take years. That is the whole point. Billionaires don’t give a damn about how long it takes or even rich people. They don’t care as long as they don’t want to buy an $80,000 car next year. But you can have a supply shock that is like the pandemic that comes from this kind of upheaval that hurts the bottom for the time being.

And the time being for most of us is all we have. We don’t have 10 years to rebuild the infrastructure that has been outsourced since 1980. There’s no way that you can have these factories up and running and recreate manufacturing in this country overnight. That can’t and won’t happen. It’s not their goal for it to happen. And it will, yes indeed, the same way all changes hurt people at the bottom, without any acknowledgement from the people in the middle and at the top. This is dangerous, and–

PressTV: 11:25
Well, Daniel, let me just jump in here. I mean, Gilbert said that actually what Trump is doing is courageous, that no one else has tried to deal with this, because we’re talking about a thirt-six trillion dollar US debt right now. He’s saying that something has to be done. I mean, your thoughts about that side of things?

Welch: 11:44
Well, I think that what he’s doing in effect is accelerating the trend toward de-dollarization and systemic staving off of American hegemony. What these economies are doing is finally responding, finally responding to the system that has shut them out or kept them in check. And now they have no reason not to, because the push is coming from the other side.

PressTV:
OK.

Welch:
It’s trade imbalances that matter. If trade from China goes down by 20 percent, then that could be more than they’re actually exporting now. They’re at $510 billion. If this costs $506 billion, then you’re already out of whack It’s not the simple math of “He had a 20-percent tariff, therefore. I’m going to put a 20-percent tariff.” It depends on the difference in your trade.

Yes. Yes, Gilbert is right about the the debt, but that has been the swan song of these Milton Friedman economists for a generation: that “we have to get the national debt under control and pay for it now, and therefore we’re going to make all these changes that are going to hurt the average worker.” Moving a microwave from 50 to 100 dollars is death to a lot–

PressTV: 13:21
All right, I would love to continue this conversation. It’s been interesting, but unfortunately we’re out of time. I appreciate both of you being with me; David Patrick Welch, political commentator out of Boston; and Gilbert Doctorow, independent international affairs analyst out of Brussels.

Transcript submitted by a reader

https://odysee.com/@RT:fd/doctorow-interview-2025:3

RT: 0:00
Well, as Humayun says, we can wait and see, but we can also get a lot of forecasts right now with Gilbert Doctorow joining us here on RT International, live to an independent international affairs analyst. Mr. Doctorow, a big fan of your work. I’ve been seeing you on all these different YouTube channels and news channels around the world for such a long time now. You really are very much on the front line of today’s worldwide information wars.

It’s so good, the information wars I should say, it’s so good to get you here on RT International. So in advance, I thank you for your time. And I know you just heard the report between myself and Umamayyem Eshara as we’re waiting to go live on air. Netanyahu, back in DC, not the first time he’s gone there to an administration in the White House suggesting some kind of operation against Iran. But what’s striking is he proposed a so-called Libya scenario for Iran.

We all know what happened to Libya, Mr. Doctorow. Could you give us your thought? What kind of lessons should Tehran take away from the rhetoric we’re hearing right now?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 1:00
Well, I think they’ve done a very good job of interpreting the foreign policy actions of Mr. Trump. They understood that he works by bullying. And they– the supreme leader called that out, said that Iran would not submit to American bullying and that discussion of taking down its missile program or its support for the axis of resistance would not be subjects for discussion. They were non-negotiable. But they would talk precisely about their nuclear program, because they know very well that Mr. Trump has in his back pocket the reports of American intelligence community, which has said since 2007, year after year, that Iran– most recently reconfirmed by the outgoing head of the CIA, Mr. Burns– that Iran does not have an active nuclear weapon program. So under these conditions, it is conceivable that Mr. Trump will claim victory if essentially he succeeds in declaring the Iranians are doing what they otherwise had been doing, not building a nuclear weapon.

RT: 2:16
Yeah, yeah, I think you make a really good point there. In the meantime, you know, as you say, the US intel community is saying Iran for a number of years now has not been trying to develop a nuclear weapon. Netanyahu still calls Iran a nuclear threat, Mr. Doctorow. But isn’t Israel itself in possession already of nuclear weapons as it is?

Doctorow: 2:34
Well, of course, it’s the height of hypocrisy. It’s a very poorly guarded secret that Israel is a nuclear power. I think that even the BBC this morning in remarking on the visit of Netanyahu to the Oval Office said that he was disappointed and slightly surprised by what Donald Trump had to tell him, namely that the United States is expecting this Saturday to have, well, direct talks with Iran in Oman. The Iranians deny that they would be direct, but that’s a subtlety. The main point is that they’re talking, and they are not about to bomb Iran. So there’s been a lot of bluster, but that is nature, Mr. Trump.

RT:
Yeah, yeah. Meantime though, Mr. Doctorow, meantime, in the past week or two, we’ve seen the US move a whole bunch of Spirit stealth bombers to the Chagos Islands. These are big bunker buster bomb carrying aircraft.

The Chagos Islands not that far away from Iran. Meantime, we understand Tehran saying that their deep mountain missile silos are all activated on alert. I mean, some people saying we do seem to be on the cusp of a conflict. Mr. Doctorow, what is the possibility team Trump will walk away from the brink and allow diplomacy to play out?

Doctorow: 3:52
Well, those those weapons systems that are now in the Indian Ocean, with an easier striking distance of Iran, they otherwise would be in striking distance of Iran if they flew directly from the United States. So this is a matter of show and plumage by Mr. Trump and his group, which doesn’t change the fact the United States can at any time unleash devastating bombing attacks on a country like Iran.

Nonetheless, it’s also possible to consider, I think more likely the intention is to use these weapons systems against the Houthis. It’s much easier to attack a small group that is not backed by major powers.

This is a distinction that we have to make when speaking about Iran, unlike Libya, which had the whole Western world against it. Iran has two major colleagues and close cooperation partners. They are Russia and China. That is a vast difference. The terms of the Russian Comprehensive Cooperation Agreement concluded with Iran signed in January does not contain within it provisions for mutual defense.

5:21
But nonetheless, close cooperation, the mutual drills, naval drills that they’ve had together with the Chinese as well, these are ongoing, and they cannot be ignored by Washington, particularly under the conditions of a very combative China. How China has responded to these, to the tariffs is indicative of how China will respond to any bullying that is implemented, not just juggled, by Washington with respect to Iran.

RT: 5:56
Yeah, that is a very intriguing comment there, Mr. Doctorow. What about your recent interview on Press TV? Gilbert, you said “The US may have plans to fight several wars at once, but I don’t think they’re ready to fight on three fronts.” You did say “If the United States goes rogue and attacks Iran, then I think all bets are off.” You said “We will see a response, definitely a military response from China and something significant from Russia.” Can you expand on that, please?

Doctorow: 6:24
Well, let’s concentrate on China, because they are not in another war as Russia is. Russia’s attention is focused for good reason on its dealings with Ukraine, where they’re very close to victory and they’re not going to pull back, be distracted, and lose the concentration that they’ve enjoyed up till now. But China’s a different case. China has already demonstrated a week ago by its exercises off the coast of Taiwan that it is prepared to introduce a complete blockade of Taiwan. They don’t have to fire missiles. They can strangle Taiwan by imposing a no-fly zone over Taiwan and by interdiction of any naval vessels that are headed towards Taiwan.

7:21
And very quickly, that would bring Taiwan to its knees. And so, if the– this is also a threat, a deterrent, this message that was made by the Chinese a week ago in these naval exercises. But unlike Russia, I think the Chinese are ready, if not just to take measures to forestall an American attack on Iran, but to take measures after such an attack takes place. As I say, they can bring Taiwan to its knees and end the question that has, the United States has made foremost in its relations with China: what happens to Taiwan?

RT: 8:02
Yeah, that’s a good point there. Well, let’s go from China and Taiwan back to China and Iran, if possible. Some people say, Mr. Doctorow, that the sanctions on Iran are also sanctions on China. China buys so much energy from Iran. It’s heavily invested in the Iranian economy. Meantime, if something breaks out in that part of the world, talk to me about an oil crisis, the US dollar, the primary currency in oil trade, Iran being a massive oil producer, the whole region. Can you give me a brief overspective on that?

Doctorow: 8:33
Well, if I understand properly, about 75 percent of Iran’s oil exports are going to one country, China. As regards China, it is importing 30 percent of its oil needs from Iran. So the cooperation there in hydrocarbons is very, very tight.

If the United States were to attack, Tehran has made it clear that they will close the Straits of Hormuz, and that will cut off the supply of Arab Gulf oil to the world. There will be an enormous crisis. There will be a devastating impact on the global economy. And that is a price to pay that I think Mr. Trump cannot consider now, when he’s already in the middle of dealing with the consequences of his tsunami of tariffs.

RT: 9:29
Yeah, yeah, indeed. That’s a great comment to wrap up our conversation here with Gilbert Doctorow, an independent international affairs analyst who’s really doing a true service to the world with your commentary, I’m a big fan of your work, Gilbert. You are going on so many channels. You’re pushing back on the narratives. You’re telling the other sides of the stories. I love your work. I hope to see you again soon. Thank you very much for your time.

Doctorow:
Very kind of you. Very kind.

RT: 9:53
Thank you. Thank you. Bye-bye.

Press TV (Iran):  Standing against Trump trade war

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this panel discussion is the way that my fellow panelist in Boston, who by his opening remarks clearly identifies himself as being Left-leaning, is espousing globalist, mainstream arguments to criticize Trump and his tariffs. The tariffs will hit hardest against poor people and are just another case of stealing from the poor to pay the rich, he tells us. The tariffs will damage U.S. global hegemony, he says, ignoring the reality that Trump is ready to overthrow global hegemony which the country can no longer afford (the unbalanced trade with ‘allies’ being a major component of this) for the sake of a tighter hegemony in its own hemisphere.

This discussion shows just how effectively Donald Trump has stirred the pot and confused experts of all stripes

https://www.urmedium.net/c/presstv/133259

It was a curious experience to be back on RT after wandering the globe and talking regularly to the likes of Press TV (Iran) or WION and News X World (India).

RT remain at the top of their game as this video illustrates.

The complete quotation from today’s edition of The Great Game, part one, was:

“We underestimated Trump! We had wanted Biden to win because it would have meant the self-destruction of the USA. But now we are watching the tsunami that Trump has created… This is a revolution…”

Indeed, Russian elites have been watching developments in the United States very closely ever since ‘Independence Day’ last week when Trump unveiled his plans for a universal tariff on all goods from all nations and targeted tariffs against the greatest offenders in bilateral trade as evidenced by whopping trade deficits for the United States.

Since Russia is not on the list of countries about to be hit by tariffs, because sanctions against it are already so far-reaching, the Russian commentators can take a disinterested view in what is going on and why. Well not entirely disinterested, because they are concerned that the popular wave of protest that swept the United States this past weekend, with a vast outpouring of citizens bearing signs denouncing Trump in more than 1400 cities and towns across the land, egged on by the Democrats, who were revived from their stupor by the collapse of stock markets in the closing days of last week, may seriously weaken Trump and render him unable to continue his rapprochement with Russia, a policy that also does not enjoy popular support according to latest poll figures.

As for the tariffs themselves, last week’s Evening with Vladimir Solovyov talk show revealed far more acceptance of their necessity and correctness than you hear or read in American mainstream media. I heard a very cogent defense of the tariffs based not on their value in bringing industrial production back to the United States but in their stopping further rises in the federal debt which was reaching unsustainable levels. Indeed, the panelist who advanced this explanation said that Trump intentionally diverted attention to reindustrialization to avoid creating panic by divulging the dangerously weak state of American finances.

In these past few days, analysts in the U.S. have deciphered the formula that Trump pointed to as the determinant of the de facto level of tariffs practiced by America’s trading partners. As they make clear, the percentages in his table are in effect just the ratio of trade deficit to bilateral trade. The intent of the tariffs is to cut off imports as much as possible and so to reduce the trade deficit to zero over time. Moreover, if the trade wars lead to recession that is also all to the good, since imports of all kinds will fall precipitously and domestic energy costs in the United States will fall, as they have already begun to do these past several days. These deflationary trends will offset the supposed inflationary tends coming directly from the tariffs.

Note that Russian state television news programs have had massive coverage of the tariffs issue drawing on all major mainstream electronic and print media in the West.

****

One other fear that has been expressed on the Russian talk shows including on The Great Game today is that the way out of domestic political crises is often war. Trump is in growing trouble. Today he is meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington, and Netanyahu is in even greater trouble back home in Israel. Surely, they will be conferring on a military solution to their problems, namely a joint attack on Iran.

The risk of such an attack is considered to be quite high if you listen to the panelists on the leading Russian talk shows.

As we know, tomorrow officials from Iran and China will be meeting in Moscow with their counterparts to discuss the Iranian nuclear program.

The talk show panelists are saying nothing about the possibility of Russia and China coming to the defense of Iran should Trump proceed with war plans against Iran. However, somewhat enigmatically Vyacheslav Nikonov, main presenter on The Great Game and a member of the State Duma said that tomorrow he will be introducing into the Duma a discussion of the terms of the Russian-Iranian Comprehensive Cooperation Agreement that was signed in January. What this means we may find out in a day or two.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation into German below (Andreas Mylaeus)

„Wir haben Trump unterschätzt!“ Vyacheslav Nikonov in „Das grosse Spiel“, 7. April

Das vollständige Zitat aus der heutigen Ausgabe von Das grosse Spiel, Teil eins, lautete:

„Wir haben Trump unterschätzt! Wir wollten, dass Biden gewinnt, weil das die Selbstzerstörung der USA bedeutet hätte. Aber jetzt sehen wir den Tsunami, den Trump ausgelöst hat … Das ist eine Revolution …“

Tatsächlich haben die russischen Eliten die Entwicklungen in den Vereinigten Staaten seit dem „Independence Day“ letzte Woche, als Trump seine Pläne für einen universellen Zoll auf alle Waren aus allen Nationen und gezielte Zölle gegen die größten Sünder im bilateralen Handel vorstellte, sehr genau beobachtet, was sich in den enormen Handelsdefiziten der Vereinigten Staaten zeigt.

Da Russland nicht auf der Liste der Länder steht, die von Zöllen betroffen sein werden, weil die Sanktionen gegen das Land bereits so weitreichend sind, können die russischen Kommentatoren die Vorgänge und ihre Gründe unvoreingenommen betrachten. Nun, nicht ganz unvoreingenommen, denn sie sind besorgt, dass die Welle des Protests, die am vergangenen Wochenende durch die Vereinigten Staaten rollte, in der eine große Zahl von Bürgern in mehr als 1.400 Städten und Gemeinden im ganzen Land Schilder mit Trump-kritischen Slogans hochhielten, von den Demokraten angestachelt wurde, die durch den Kurssturz der Aktienmärkte in den letzten Tagen der vergangenen Woche aus ihrer Lethargie gerissen wurden, Trump ernsthaft schwächen und ihn daran hindern könnte, seine Annäherung an Russland fortzusetzen, eine Politik, die laut den neuesten Umfragewerten auch nicht die Unterstützung der Bevölkerung genießt.

Was die Zölle selbst betrifft, so zeigte die Talkshow „Abend mit Vladimir Solovyov“ letzte Woche, dass ihre Notwendigkeit und Richtigkeit weitaus mehr akzeptiert werden, als man in den amerikanischen Mainstream-Medien hört oder liest. Ich hörte eine sehr überzeugende Verteidigung der Zölle, die nicht auf ihrem Wert für die Rückverlagerung der Industrieproduktion in die Vereinigten Staaten beruht, sondern darauf, dass sie einen weiteren Anstieg der Staatsverschuldung verhindern, die ein untragbares Niveau erreicht hat. Tatsächlich sagte der Diskussionsteilnehmer, der diese Erklärung vorbrachte, dass Trump absichtlich die Aufmerksamkeit auf die Reindustrialisierung lenkt, um Panik zu vermeiden, wenn er den gefährlich schwachen Zustand der amerikanischen Finanzen preisgeben würde.

In den letzten Tagen haben Analysten in den USA die Formel entschlüsselt, die Trump als bestimmenden Faktor für die tatsächliche Höhe der von Amerikas Handelspartnern praktizierten Zölle bezeichnet hat. Wie sie klarstellen, sind die Prozentsätze in seiner Tabelle in Wirklichkeit nur das Verhältnis von Handelsdefizit zum bilateralen Handel. Die Absicht der Zölle bestehe darin, die Importe so weit wie möglich zu reduzieren und so das Handelsdefizit im Laufe der Zeit auf Null zu senken. Außerdem wäre es auch gut, wenn die Handelskriege zu einer Rezession führen würden, da die Importe aller Art drastisch sinken und die Energiekosten in den Vereinigten Staaten fallen würden, wie es in den letzten Tagen bereits begonnen hat. Diese deflationären Trends werden die vermeintlichen inflationären Tendenzen, die direkt von den Zöllen ausgehen, ausgleichen.

Beachten Sie, dass die Nachrichtensendungen des russischen Staatsfernsehens die Zollfrage massiv aufgegriffen haben und sich dabei auf alle wichtigen Mainstream-Elektronik- und Printmedien im Westen stützen.

****

Eine weitere Befürchtung, die in russischen Talkshows, darunter auch in Das grosse Spiel, geäußert wurde, ist, dass der Ausweg aus innenpolitischen Krisen oft der Krieg ist. Trump steckt in wachsenden Schwierigkeiten. Heute trifft er sich mit Benjamin Netanjahu in Washington, und Netanjahu steckt in seiner Heimat Israel in noch größeren Schwierigkeiten. Sicherlich werden sie über eine militärische Lösung ihrer Probleme beraten, nämlich einen gemeinsamen Angriff auf den Iran.

Das Risiko eines solchen Angriffs wird als ziemlich hoch eingeschätzt, wenn man den Diskussionsteilnehmern in den führenden russischen Talkshows zuhört.

Wie wir wissen, werden morgen Beamte aus dem Iran und China in Moskau mit ihren Amtskollegen zusammentreffen, um über das iranische Atomprogramm zu sprechen.

Die Diskussionsteilnehmer der Talkshow äußern sich nicht zu der Möglichkeit, dass Russland und China den Iran verteidigen könnten, falls Trump seine Kriegspläne gegen den Iran weiterverfolgen sollte. Vyacheslav Nikonov, Hauptmoderator von Das grosse Spiel und Mitglied der Staatsduma, sagte jedoch etwas rätselhaft, dass er morgen in der Duma eine Diskussion über die Bedingungen des im Januar unterzeichneten russisch-iranischen umfassenden Kooperationsabkommens einleiten werde. Was das bedeutet, werden wir vielleicht in ein oder zwei Tagen erfahren.

Transcript submitted by a reader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7HGxiJBnAI
NewsX: 0:01
Moving on now, the French and the British army chiefs are in Kiev to discuss the developing plans for a peacekeeping force in Ukraine. Amid these talks, Russia launched a barrage of drone strikes in an overnight attack on Ukraine, killing at least four people and injuring 35 people [interruption] In the fourth such strike on the city so far this week, Russian drones hit residential quarters, damaging several multi-storey apartment blocks and causing multiple fires. The French foreign minister and the British foreign secretary chief have both condemned these attacks. Here is what they said.

Barrot: 0:41
Over the past three weeks, Russia has been flip-flopping, continuing its strikes on energy infrastructure, continuing its war crimes. [Putin] owes an answer to the United States that have worked very hard to come up with a mediation effort and a ceasefire proposal.

Lammy:
–is that Putin continues to obfuscate, continues to drag his feet. He could accept [interruption] He continues to bombard Ukraine, its civilian population, its energy supplies. We see you, Vladimir Putin. We know–

NewsX: 1:22
The drone attacks that recorded the death of [xxxx] of the victims was retrieved by the rescuers from the site of the attacks in Kharkiv. The victim is identified as an 11-year-old girl. According to Russia’s Ministry of Defence, Ukrainian forces attacked Russian energy facilities four times in the past 24 hours. [The Ukrainian] military denied the accusations, saying its troops were adhering to the ceasefire, but claimed Russia had violated xxxx numerous times.

1:55
We are joined by Gilbert Doctorow to discuss this further, Russian affairs expert located in Brussels. Gilbert, what can you tell me about the accusations from both sides of constant barrage on energy infrastructure that has been agreed by both parties that has been mediated by the US.

Doctorow:
There is a difference between these claims. The Russians have been showing on television daily the consequences of Ukrainian attacks on their energy infrastructure. Of course, the most serious attack occurred just immediately after the agreement was reached on the 18th of March. This was the destruction of a metering station in Sudzha, which is in the Oblast, the region, of Kursk.

That is critical to the pipeline infrastructure in Ukraine to get Russian gas to Western Europe [if and when that] passage of gas is once again renewed. There have [been xxxxx], particularly that the Ukrainians have destroyed [xxxxxxxx] a coal-oil pumping station, xxxxxxxx some oil exports across Russia to its western markets. These are documented. What you have just quoted from the British and the French are absolutely empty charges. They are pure propaganda.

NewsX:
Gilbert, critics would say that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin’s relationship has the possibility of souring. Is Putin playing his cards right on the battlefield in order to keep these negotiations going [xxx] long-term peace in Ukraine?

Doctorow: 3:47
[xxxx] –on a battlefield is a battle. And there is nothing to prevent it. There is no agreement on cessation of hostilities, either in Donbass or in the Kursk region. So that is all fair game. Is Mr. Putin playing his cards right with Donald Trump? Well, we’ll see shortly. But I would say that he is. There are things going on that are not publicized. But if you look closely, you see that things are going on. For example, a few days ago, the Finnish president, Mr. Stubbe, visited Washington, played golf, and spoke with Donald Trump for seven hours in Mar-a-Lago. And I assumed, as I think many people did, that Donald Trump was leaning towards the European view of maintaining the war essentially, and was cited as saying that he was pissed off with Vladimir Putin.

However, the reality is that two days later, Mr. Stubb was saying publicly in Finland that relations with— we should prepare for restoration of relations with Russia. Then yesterday he was addressing the British and the French, the British prime minister and the French president, saying that they should take the initiative to renew discussions directly with Moscow. That doesn’t sound like the Stubb that we heard before he met with Donald Trump. So somehow Trump was influencing Stubb, and Stubb was not influencing Trump.

There are also these very important discussions between Mr. Dmitriev, the head of the Foreign Direct Investment Institution in Russia, and Steve Witkoff in Washington. This all heralds a start of not reset. Reset was a very flimsy thing in the Obama period. No, it heralds a return to the principle of detente that Mr. Nixon introduced in the 1970s.

NewsX:
Gilbert Doctorow, Thank you very much for joining us. We have run out of time, but we move on to the Middle East. An Israeli airstrike in Saidan, Lebanon has killed Hamas commander Hassan Farhat, along with his adult son and daughter in a targeted strike. This comes amid rising tensions with Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam condemning the attack as a violation of Lebanese sovereignty.

In Gaza, at least 27 Palestinians have been killed in an Israeli airstrike on a school sheltering civilians, including 14 children reportedly. The strike, which also left dozens injured, has drawn widespread condemnation from Hamas, calling it a heinous massacre. This is what Gaza’s civil defence spokesperson had to say.

[from English-language subtitles]
Dar Al-Arqam School in al-Tuffah neighborhood was targeted by a belt of fire and more than one missle at the same time. It was targeted by the Israeli occupation forces. We are talking so far about dozens of martyrs and dozens of wounded who arrived at Al-Ahli Arabi Hospital and the [emergency] crews are still there carrying out rescue operations. More than one building was completely destroyed in the area and the reality there is very different and tragic.

Earlier this week, a mass grave containing 15 humanitarian workers’ bodies was uncovered, escalating international concerns over atrocity crimes. The ongoing conflict has led to severe food shortages in Gaza, compounding the humanitarian crisis.

The United Nations has warned that Israel’s actions in the region risk further atrocity crimes. Meanwhile, the Israeli military claims to have hit over 600 Hamas targets since resuming strikes on March the 18th, further intensifying the violence. Let’s listen in.

[from English-language subtitles]
Since the return to fighting in the Gaza Strip, we have attacked more than 600 terror targets throughout Gaza and eliminated more than 250 terrorists, including 12 senior figures in the Hamas terrorist organisation and its governing wing.

NewsX:
We move over to the African continent now, where a violent incident in Nigeria’s Plateau State claimed the lives of over 40 people.

Local officials have reported that more than 30 victims were buried in a mass grave, with 48 bodies recovered from several attacks that occurred across multiple villages. The violence primarily affected women and children, as confirmed by a Red Cross official. The attacks were described as in-communal, though the specific groups involved have not been detailed. The scale of the violence highlights ongoing security challenges in the region, where tensions between different communities have escalated in recent years. Local authorities are continuing their investigations and recovery efforts.

We move to South Asia now, where Prime Minister Narendra Modi reaffirmed …