Transcript submitted by a reader

Napolitano: 0:33
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for “Judging Freedom”. Today is Wednesday, April 23rd, 2025. Professor Gilbert Doctorow joins us from Brussels. Professor Doctorow, always a pleasure.

Before we get into the Rubio-Zelensky standoff and what General Kellogg is doing and saying, what is the perception in Europe as to whether the passing of Pope Francis is of any geopolitical significance?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
That is an angle that I haven’t seen discussed. Of course there’s discussion of whether or not there’ll be an African cardinal named to succeed him, whether it’ll be a reformer, because he had an understudy who will take over, or whether it’ll be a traditionalist. But that is the dogma side; and the personality of Francis as a pope of the people, that is the line that almost all European media are examining and promoting. I don’t see a geopolitical side, the way you could if you looked at what happened after the death of John Paul II. That was indeed geopolitical. This one isn’t.

Napolitano: 1:56
One wonders why just two months ago, the pope called for an investigation in Gaza as to whether or not there was genocide going on. I mean, talk about too little too late. Couldn’t he have sent Cardinal Perlan, the Secretary of State, to Netanyahu saying “Stop, stop suppressing Christianity, stop slaughtering Palestinians”?

Doctorow:
Well, he took many stands. He was a person who was not afraid to speak against the prevailing wisdom. And as a Russian observer, I’m of course thinking of what he told Zelensky to wave the white flag and to do the brave thing and spare his people. So you can look at many things that he has said and done. Some of them may not be so attractive as the one you just mentioned.

But overall, as regards my territory, he was highly regarded, Putin in particular had very kind and warm words in his eulogy because he saw him three or four times. So that is the Russian angle. The West-European angle, as I said, is to question dogma, whether traditionalist or reformist would take over.

Napolitano; 3:16
Right. I think you know where I’m coming from, and I’m going to drop the subject, but I’m an old-fashioned pre-Vatican II Latin-mass-attending style Catholic. So I thought that Francis deviated substantially from the deposit of faith which he’s supposed to preserve.

Doctorow:
Your traditionalism has particularly importance here in Belgium, because a country like this, when it abandoned the Latin mass, abandoned a unified church and country. So it’s–

Napolitano:
Is Vladimir Putin a serious believing Russian, member of the Russian Orthodox Church?

Doctorow:
This is absolutely true. He has very close from nations with the patriarch Kirill. There’s a great deal of mutual respect, and both of them are doing their best to be patriots. So there’s a lot that binds them together. As to faith, yes, I think nobody would question today that Mr. Putin, the ex KGB operative, so to speak, is indeed a believer.

Napolitano: 04:24
I have a close friend who’s a Roman Catholic priest in one of the very, very traditional orders, who has a close friend who’s a Russian Orthodox priest who tells my priest friend that President Putin’s confessor travels with him so that wherever he is he can go to confession. I’ve never really heard of that in the modern era, you know European kings had that, two, three hundred years ago. I’ve never heard that in the modern era. If true, and I believe it is, it’s utterly … utterly remarkable.

5:03
Okay, you mentioned President Zelensky. Is he free politically to enter into a peace accord, or does he do so at the risk of his own life?

Doctorow:
I think the latter is true. This traps him in an impossible losing position, whatever he does. And I think this last couple of days we’ve seen him smoked out. Well, in the last four days we’ve seen him smoked out. The first move that President Putin made for this purpose, as a public relations move, very clever move, was to announce the 30-hour ceasefire for Easter. There he caught Mr. Zelensky on the back foot, didn’t know what to say, looked and sounded very disagreeable, unpleasant, ugly in fact, when he finally conceded that the Ukrainians would follow suit.

6:02
Now something much more important has come up, and that is the announcement that was really extensively reported in the “Financial Times”, that President Putin is willing to make a substantial concession for purposes of negotiating a peace, namely not to insist on Russia taking over the full territory of the four provinces in Eastern Ukraine that they incorporated formally into the Russian Federation, after the referendum. That looked like a big concession, that even the “Financial Times” was speaking of it in those terms. And then you have– that was pressure on Zelensky to also make a move. And indeed Zelensky did not make a move, which explains Mr. Rubio’s cancellation of attending the negotiations or talks in London today.

And it put the Russians exactly where they want to be, to be shown in favor of concessions to reach a lasting peace where the Ukrainians are still holding on to their maximus position. I don’t think that Zelensky has a choice. If he were to make concessions, it would be at the price of his own life.

Napolitano: 7:21
The “Financial Times” article to which you refer reflects, I’ll read the headline, “Putin’s offer to halt war at current front line piles pressure on Ukraine”. The current front line must be fairly close to a hundred percent of the four oblasts, no?

Doctorow:
No, close to a hundred percent in Lugansk; but from the beginning, Lugansk was largely in Russian hands. Donetsk, it’s about 60%, maybe 70% in Russian hands. And the other two, Zaporozhzhye and Kherson, are probably closer to 50%. The Kherson city indeed is in Ukrainian hands, although the territory of the oblast is, as I say, 50% Russian.

8:12
So he would be making an important concession, but just let’s keep in mind that Piskofin, asked about this “Financial Times” report, said it was fake news. That is to say, formally speaking, the Russians have disowned that. And there’s a reason for it. This was a tactical move by the Kremlin addressing the West, addressing Washington in particular. But it was not supposed to be known within Russia, because it would raise many, many questions about Putin’s loyalty to the missions of the war that were embarrassing.

So it was really addressing Washington and if the “Financial Times” is correct, then this was somehow by connivance passed along to them to do exactly what they did, a front-page long article, but was not intended to be known or examined closely within Russia itself.

Napolitano: 9:19
Is it known in Russia and has there been any reaction to it amongst either the elites or the common folks?

Doctorow:
I can’t say about a reaction, because that will only come up this evening. It was really last night’s news after Russian state news and Russian talk shows already had closed down. So this evening, I expect there’ll be discussion of it.

Napolitano: 9:45
Very interesting. So your view is that this is a true and accurate report. They just aren’t sure that it should have been leaked.

Doctorow:
No, I think they’re happy it was leaked, because the intention was to do exactly what has happened, to call out the seriousness of Mr. Zelensky and all of his discussions of an unconditional 30-day ceasefire, blah, blah, blah, and show that when push comes to shove, he doesn’t want to give up anything. He said yesterday that he would not acknowledge Crimea as Russian, and that is the proof positive that he has dug in his heels and is against a peace with Russia.

Napolitano: 10:30
Is that the reason for which Secretary of State Rubio is not going to London either today or tomorrow or wherever they are, to resume the negotiations?

Doctorow:
I’m certain it is. This gave those within the Team Trump the hand that I’ve said they wanted, which is to have a good reason to abandon the talks and to pull out support from under Ukraine and to proceed with a rapprochement or détente with Russia as if the war never took place.

Napolitano: 11:09
Except that the person they’re sending, well, it was going to go either way, but had Secretary Rubio been there, this person would have been second amongst the American negotiators; now he’s first. And that’s the belligerent old neocon, General Kellogg. I mean, who’s going to take credibly anything that he says, after the proposal he made of dividing Ukraine up amongst the “allies”, as if it were Europe in August of 1945?

Doctorow:
Well, Kellogg’s presence is supposed to be holding the hands of the British and the French and Zelensky. He is not– he’s there kind of decorative, he’s an extra on the stage. I don’t, certainly the Russians don’t take him with any seriousness, and he’s doing that role. I don’t believe that he understands how he’s being used without being honored, but that’s his role.

12:11
His presence there gives an appearance of American continuity, but the reality is, I think it’s disruptive. I don’t believe that this procedure will go on very long.

Napolitano: 12:25
Let’s go back to the 30-hour ceasefire. How did it go? I agree with you, it was a brilliant PR move, and it caught President Zelensky flat-footed, but was it honored?

Doctorow: 12:41
The bottom line, the remarks, but let me, before I get to the bottom line, the remarks of the Russians, but they counted 4,000 Ukrainian violations of the ceasefire. A lot of these were artillery shells that were fired. Some of them were drones, some of them were airplane configuration drones, which are quite dangerous of course, but mostly were shot down. They counted 4,000. The Ukrainian strangely– usually they wait for the Russians to say something and then take it on as their own or maybe double it– the Ukrainians only claimed 2,000 violations by the Russians. But that’s just, these are just words.

13:23
The bottom line is what Vladimir Putin said at the end Sunday after making this announcement of violations, that indeed the Ukrainian attacks on the line of confrontation were significantly fewer than before or after the 30-hour ceasefire.

Napolitano:
How is the attitude amongst the Russian people toward the war? I mean, did many expect it to go on this long and be this methodically slow?

Doctorow:
Oh, not at all. And I’m sure there’s widespread disappointment that it has gone this slowly. Look, we were talking several months ago about the imminent Russian capture of Pakrovsk. This is a logistics nexus. It’s maybe 10, 15 kilometers away from the front lines today.

The Russians were focusing in, they were coming around from the north side and cutting it off. Wait a minute, nothing’s happened. That’s to say They have not taken Pakrovsk. And this is typical of what’s going on. There are a lot of small, incremental captures of this town or that town, but not any change in the battlefield that you could consider decisive.

14:48
And it’s because Putin is doing everything possible to minimize Russian casualties and because the war is not what everyone’s talking about. Yes, we all know about the artillery problem and Ukraine has a 10 to 1 disadvantage in its artillery shells. But wait a minute, the war has changed. The war now is dominated by the drones. And the drones, thank you very much, the Ukrainians are doing very well. They got several thousand from Britain, drones. They make their own drones. And the drones are hazardous, dangerous, and not easy to stop. Russian reporters who died in the last several weeks — these were drone attacks on their cars.

15:31
And the Russians do not mask their army, precisely to avoid large casualties from drone attacks. Also, look, nobody’s talking much about the casualty figures. Going back two, three months ago, every day the Russians were reporting 2000, 1800, 2200, in that range, Ukrainians killed or mutilated, that is, so their further participation in the war is excluded. Wait a minute, we don’t see that now. Now I watch Russian television, and on this front, over 200 Ukrainians were killed, now on that front– the daily figures are down sharply.

And that means that essentially the level of violence has gone down precisely because of drone warfare.

Napolitano: 16:19
Interesting. Are you suggesting that President Putin’s offer to draw the line where the military is now is a product of a military necessity as well as a political acumen?

Doctorow:
I would turn that around. It’s a result of political necessity. Because militarily the Russians can overwhelm Ukraine. There’s no question about it. But with what results? Just remember that about less than two weeks ago, the Russians marked because they’ve been– as they come down the countdown to the 80th anniversary of the capture of Berlin and the end of the European war– the Russians every few days have on the television screen, on the television screen, some other town or city that was captured by the Red Army in the closing months of World War II. And they had, very recently, it was marking the capture of Vienna, which cost the Russians, in three days, four days, 150,000 dead soldiers.

Mr. Putin is not Stalin. He cannot afford to have that type of horrible losses that xxxx xxxx xxxx to take cities. So this is dictated by political necessity. There would be political chaos if he were to sacrifice lives so irresponsibly.

Napolitano: 17:47
Is the threat by Marco Rubio, and somewhat endorsed by his boss, to turn off the spigot of military supplies a serious one in your view?

Doctorow:
I think it is, and this is the key question, that Mr. Trump wants to wash his hands of the Ukrainian war. I think that’s almost a given. But what follows upon that? Is he going to continue the intelligence sharing? Is he going to do, as you say, turn on or off the spigot? This will really be the decisive element, factor, in whether we can say this is, this WAS Biden’s war, or this IS Trump’s war. And I imagine the president is well aware of that distinction.

Napolitano: 18:35
Well the president has said it’s Biden’s war and it’s not his. I think most Americans recognize that right now it is his, after 100 days in office. He campaigned saying the war would be over within 24 hours of his election. As far as we all know here in the US, the spigot is still flowing. And it doesn’t consist of cash any more, but it consists of all the military equipment Kiev wants and all the intelligence data that Kiev needs.

Doctorow:
Well, the notion that it’s all the equipment that Kiev wants is a notion coming from Washington, not from Kiev. The Americans, like the Europeans, have supplied a lot of junk to Kiev, and everybody knows that, and I doubt that it stopped. They were cleaning out the stables.

They were cleaning out the warehouses for junk that had been accumulated and was still on the books, And that’s all shipped to Kiev at the prices that were in the books, not the real value. So how much this all can help Kiev is really, is questionable, but hasn’t turned the tide in the last three years. It’s certainly not going to turn the tide now. It’s a moral boost to Ukraine, which is valuable, of course. War is psychological, not just physical, but as to enabling them to fight on, it’ll take more than what’s in the U.S. pipeline.

Napolitano: 20:08
What happens if the US does turn off that spigot?

Doctorow:
Nobody knows. Look, the shows, the talk shows and the discussion, interview programs that are on, the responsible ones that are on YouTube, have experts who are military experts. I’m not one, but I follow closely what they’re saying. And there’s cacophony.

20:29
There’s a very broad array of dates that people give for when the war can end. Of course, nobody knows for sure because the psychological element is unpredictable, a mental collapse. But the reality is, that I see, is that as I’ve mentioned in past programs, the Ukrainians are putting up young soldiers who have some adequate training, who at least, who have the respect of the Russian soldiers on the ground, who have to deal with them. And as I say, the numbers game changed because just looking at artillery shells doesn’t tell you the real status of the war, just as just looking at numbers of soldiers doesn’t give you the real status. It’s this war that no one anticipated, but developed of its own course, this war of drones and electronic warfare.

Napolitano: 21:22
What does your crystal ball tell you will be the status of things in four, five or six months?

Doctorow:
The war will be over. I think that one way or another there’ll be a collapse of spirit in Ukraine when the United States pulls out. That is going to sap, undermine their confidence, and confidence is decisive in the fate of a war. So there will be some change, some significant change.

Capitulation, let’s hope so, because that would be kindest at the human parameter for the Ukrainians, if they just got it over with as Pope Francis had requested. But I can’t see this going beyond this calendar year.

Napolitano:
And if there is capitulation, I would think that President Zelensky would have to flee the country.

Doctorow:
Ahead of the capitulation.

Napolitano:
Yes, yes, ahead of the capitulation.

Doctorow:
With as many of his local managers and his British minders as they can take with him, because that regime will be gone.

Napolitano: 22:34
Got it. Professor Doctorow, thank you for an excellent conversation, starting with the Pope and ending with fleeing Kiev, but very, very insightful and deeply appreciated. [cough] Pardon me. And thank you for accommodating my schedule this morning. All the best to you. We’ll see you next week.

Doctorow:
Bye bye.

Napolitano: 22:56
Thank you. Oh and safe travels professor.

Coming up later today at 2 o’clock, Max Blumenthal, some of the things going on in Israel you just won’t believe.

And at three o’clock, Phil Giraldi. Why are the Israelis suppressing Christianity in its birthplace?

23:18
Judge Napolitano for “Judging Freedom”.

I am especially pleased with today’s chat with Judge Andrew Napolitano which covered a lot of ground that seems to be overlooked by others, yet bears directly on any prognosis of how the war will end and in what time frame.

I have in mind the following separate elements.

There is the new savvy Kremlin use of Public Relations to influence Washington’s handling of the negotiations. This began with Vladimir Putin’s announcement of a 30-hour Easter cease-fire which caught Zelensky off guard and exposed his reluctance to do anything constructive to lower the violence and enter into negotiations for a peace.  Then a day ago there was the cleverly leaked news that Putin is prepared to halt the Russian advance, freeze the border at the present line of engagement in Donbas and not insist on full takeover of the 4 oblasts that were annexed by Russia but are only partly occupied by Russia today.  This major concession put pressure on Kiev to respond in kind, as The Financial Times noted in its large front-page report on the subject yesterday evening.  But instead of also offering to retreat from his maximalist position, Zelensky responded with a firm refusal to give up claims to Crimea. This intransigence surely is what prompted US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to decide against participating in the ‘peace talks’ between the UK, France and Ukraine in London today.  I believe it is the first clear sign of an eventual Trump abandonment of its peace initiative, washing his hands of the whole affair and letting Ukraine and its Western backers sink to defeat while the USA proceeds with its reengagement with Russia.

I also had an opportunity to explore with Judge Napolitano how the war has changed dramatically from even a few months ago.  Back then the Russians were reporting 2,000 ‘kills’ of Ukrainian soldiers daily. Now it is more like 200 or 300. The reason? Because the battlefield is now dominated not by big troop movements but by drones which are directed by hundreds of skilled gamers and computer nerds on each side.   Artillery shells are no longer the issue. It is reconnaissance and kamikaze drones that are the dominant feature on the battlefield.

These are just two of the issues we discussed that I expect readers to find refreshing.

.

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Ausgabe „Judging Freedom“ vom 23. April: Sind die Friedensgespräche zwischen der Ukraine und Russland fruchtlos?

Besonders erfreut bin ich über das heutige Gespräch mit Judge Andrew Napolitano, in dem viele Aspekte angesprochen wurden, die von anderen offenbar übersehen werden, aber für die Prognose, wie der Krieg enden wird und in welchem Zeitrahmen, von direkter Bedeutung sind.

Ich denke dabei an die folgenden einzelnen Elemente.

Da ist zum einen die neue geschickte Nutzung der Öffentlichkeitsarbeit durch den Kreml, um Washingtons Verhandlungsführung zu beeinflussen. Dies begann mit Wladimir Putins Ankündigung einer 30-stündigen Oster-Waffenstillstandsvereinbarung, die Selensky überraschte und seine Zurückhaltung offenbarte, irgendetwas Konstruktives zu unternehmen, um die Gewalt zu deeskalieren und Friedensverhandlungen aufzunehmen. Dann wurde vor einem Tag geschickt die Nachricht durchsickern gelassen, dass Putin bereit sei, den russischen Vormarsch zu stoppen, die Grenze an der derzeitigen Frontlinie im Donbass einzufrieren und nicht auf der vollständigen Übernahme der vier von Russland annektierten, aber heute nur teilweise besetzten Oblaste zu bestehen. Dieses große Zugeständnis setzte Kiew unter Druck, ebenfalls zu reagieren, wie die „Financial Times“ gestern Abend in ihrem großen Bericht zu diesem Thema auf der Titelseite feststellte. Doch anstatt ebenfalls einen Rückzug von seiner maximalistischen Position anzubieten, reagierte Selensky mit einer entschiedenen Weigerung, seine Ansprüche auf die Krim aufzugeben. Diese Unnachgiebigkeit hat sicherlich US-Außenminister Marco Rubio dazu veranlasst, sich gegen eine Teilnahme an den „Friedensgesprächen“ zwischen Großbritannien, Frankreich und der Ukraine heute in London zu entscheiden. Ich glaube, dies ist das erste klare Zeichen dafür, dass Trump seine Friedensinitiative aufgibt, sich aus der ganzen Angelegenheit zurückzieht und die Ukraine und ihre westlichen Unterstützer in die Niederlage sinken lässt, während die USA ihre Annäherung an Russland fortsetzen.

Ich hatte auch Gelegenheit, mit Judge Napolitano zu erörtern, wie sich der Krieg seit einigen Monaten dramatisch verändert hat. Damals meldeten die Russen täglich 2.000 „getötete“ ukrainische Soldaten. Jetzt sind es eher 200 oder 300. Der Grund dafür? Weil das Schlachtfeld nicht mehr von großen Truppenbewegungen dominiert wird, sondern von Drohnen, die von Hunderten von erfahrenen Spielern und Computerfreaks auf beiden Seiten gesteuert werden. Artilleriegeschosse spielen keine Rolle mehr. Auf dem Schlachtfeld dominieren nun Aufklärungs- und Kamikaze-Drohnen.

Dies sind nur zwei der Themen, die wir diskutiert haben und die den Lesern meiner Meinung nach neu sein dürften.

Transcript submitted by a reader
————-

Joining us now out of Brussels is Gilbert Doctorow, Independent International Affairs Analyst. For more on the story, Mr. Gilbert Doctorow, pleasure to check in with you. Hope you’re safe and doing well this afternoon out there in Brussels. Your initial thoughts on the ramifications iInvolved here of this multi-year, we could call it a multi-decade pact between Tehran and Moscow.

Doctorow: it underlines the closeness of the two countries. And that is particularly relevant at this moment when the United States is negotiating on its sanctions relating to the Iranian nuclear program. Now I mention this because Russia is perceived by Donald Trump’s team as a useful and important intercessor and intermediary and advisor on its dealings with Iran.

This was perfectly clear nine days ago. Mr. Trump’s personal emissarysst, Steve Witkoff, stopped off for half a day in St Petersburg on his way to negotiations with the Iranians in Oman. I believe that dealt with Iran and on what role Russia will play when the terms of the inspections, the verifications are clarified by the parties, that is to say, between Iran and the United States. The role of Russia is particularly important today. I have spoken in the past of how Iran is bracketed by two major world powers, China and Russia. And this is in BRICS, This is in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and so forth. China at the present time is in very difficult relations with the United States.

China is important in the background as a threat to the United States, not to do something stupid with respect to Iran, because China has many possibilities of inflicting great pain on the United States if Washington makes mistakes. In the case of Russia, military action on behalf of Iran is improbable and unnecessary. It’s not incorporated into the terms of the cooperation agreement. But the closeness of the two countries, their political alignment on major international and regional questions is well known to Washington. And it is in the interests both of Iran and of Russia that that they will be going forward in parallel as relations with Washington realign for both countries

Press TV: Mr. Doctorow, a lot of people feel it is U.S. policies that have pushed Iran closer to Moscow and Beijing for that matter, not just for Iran, but for many other countries as well as of late. Or do you feel that for Iran in particular it’s just a natural evolution given the geopolitics of the country, of the three countries involved here and their cultural and political similarities you just alluded to.

Doctorow: And geography. The logistical alignment of mutual interests of Iran and Russia are a major factor in the rapprochement. Both countries will experience greater prosperity and greater security as these important projects and logistics in the North-South Corridor are developed.

They were talking points in the past. They were almost stagnant for a couple of decades. But I think now in the new circumstances of closer relations between Iran and Russia, they will be developed and will give a big economic boost to add to the geopolitical importance of this relationship.


Good stuff. Always a pleasure sir. Stay safe out in Brussels today and every day afterwards. Gilbert Doctorow joining us, independent international affairs analyst, joining us out of Brussels. Stay safe.

Press TV, Iran:  Putin has officially ratified a 20-year strategic partnership agreement with Iran

That Russia has in the past day fully ratified the strategic partnership agreement with Iran was not featured on Russian state news, to my knowledge, but it is understandable that Teheran takes special comfort from this formal completion of their special relationship with Russia. And it is for this reason that this morning Press TV invited my comment on the development.

https://www.urmedium.net/c/presstv/133398

Regrettably there were some technical problems with the skype connection which cut off some of what I was saying, particularly at the start of the interview. Nonetheless the main points are clear enough: namely that the closeness of Teheran and Moscow have made Putin an essential adviser to Witkoff on how to deal with the Iranians and to reach an agreement that will look good enough to silence the war hawks on Capitol Hill and in Tel Aviv, yet still respect the sovereignty and dignity of Iran.   As I say here, I foresee a possible role for Russia in the eventual inspection and verification procedures that will be embodied in any US-Iran agreement on their nuclear program.

Though Iran’s security is greatly enhanced by its being bracketed by two big friends, China and Russia, these two Great Powers provide rather different support to Iran.  China presently is engaged in a hot trade war with the United States and cannot offer any assistance on the diplomatic front, but, especially due to its combative posture vis-à-vis Washington can and does threaten the US with real harm to its interests if Washington were to do something stupid against Iran.  For its part, the Russians offer precisely the diplomatic support to Iran that is very timely for the talks with Washington.

At the same time, Russia’s being useful to Team Trump in reaching an accord with Iran demonstrates concretely what benefits can accrue to Washington if it treats Russia with greater civility. And this will contribute to the realization of US-Russian détente.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Press TV, Iran: Putin hat das 20-jährige strategische Partnerschaftsabkommen mit dem Iran offiziell ratifiziert

Dass Russland in den vergangenen Tagen das strategische Partnerschaftsabkommen mit dem Iran vollständig ratifiziert hat, wurde meines Wissens in den russischen Staatsnachrichten nicht erwähnt, aber es ist verständlich, dass Teheran diese formale Vervollständigung seiner besonderen Beziehungen zu Russland als besonderen Trost empfindet. Aus diesem Grund hat Press TV heute Morgen mich um einen Kommentar zu dieser Entwicklung gebeten.

https://www.urmedium.net/c/presstv/133398

Leider gab es einige technische Probleme mit der Skype-Verbindung, die dazu führten, dass einiges von dem, was ich sagte, abgeschnitten wurde, insbesondere zu Beginn des Interviews. Nichtsdestotrotz sind die wichtigsten Punkte klar genug: nämlich, dass die Nähe zwischen Teheran und Moskau Putin zu einem wichtigen Berater Witkoffs gemacht hat, wenn es darum geht, wie mit den Iranern umzugehen ist und ein Abkommen zu erreichen, das gut genug aussieht, um die Kriegsfanatiker auf dem Capitol Hill und in Tel Aviv zum Schweigen zu bringen, und das dennoch die Souveränität und Würde des Iran respektiert. Wie ich hier bereits sagte, sehe ich eine mögliche Rolle für Russland bei den eventuellen Inspektions- und Überprüfungsverfahren, die in jedem Abkommen zwischen den USA und dem Iran über das iranische Atomprogramm enthalten sein werden.

Obwohl die Sicherheit des Iran durch seine Einbettung in zwei große Freunde, China und Russland, erheblich verbessert wird, unterstützen diese beiden Großmächte den Iran auf recht unterschiedliche Weise. China befindet sich derzeit in einem heißen Handelskrieg mit den Vereinigten Staaten und kann keine Unterstützung an der diplomatischen Front anbieten, kann aber, insbesondere aufgrund seiner kämpferischen Haltung gegenüber Washington, den USA mit einer realen Beeinträchtigung derer Interessen drohen, falls Washington etwas Dummes gegen den Iran unternehmen sollte. Die Russen ihrerseits bieten dem Iran genau die diplomatische Unterstützung, die für die Gespräche mit Washington genau zum richtigen Zeitpunkt kommt.

Gleichzeitig zeigt die Tatsache, dass Russland dem Team Trump bei der Erzielung eines Abkommens mit dem Iran behilflich ist, ganz konkret, welche Vorteile sich für Washington ergeben können, wenn es Russland mit mehr Höflichkeit behandelt. Und dies wird zur Verwirklichung der amerikanisch-russischen Entspannung beitragen.

In the new issue of this francophone Belgian magazine of commentary you will find on pages 20-24 excerpts from an hour-long interview which I gave to their lead journalist Daniel de Wolff not long ago.  In the near future they will be putting a video of the interview on the internet.

https://www.zebre-magazine.com/mon-zebre-digitale/zebre-magazine-04

I have not commented on this heretofore, but it is high time to say that currently there is a lot of sensational, fake news on youtube with regard to the risks of war erupting between Russia and NATO.

Many of these sensational video postings come from Indian newspapers. But among them, there can be postings of a more serious nature, like the one cited here:

This one is especially interesting because it highlights the risk of armed clash in the Baltic and not from what Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron are doing to provoke the Russians with their ‘coalition of the willing’ or with the arsonist Friedrich Merz and his plans for sending Taurus long range cruise missiles to Kiev with the objective of destroying the Kerch (Crimean) bridge and other major logistical infrastructure of Russia.

The latest problems in the Baltic region are being created by Estonia, which in the past week seized an empty oil tanker on its way to Petersburg. The tanker in question is one of the Russian ‘shadow fleet’ that quite legally have been carrying Russian oil exports and so resisted European sanctions intended to cripple the Russian economy.  More to the point, Estonia has just passed a law allowing its “navy” to seize, divert and even sink Russian commercial vessels in the Baltic which Estonia deems to threaten its security.  The video above correctly sets out the issues.

Aside from the official protests and warnings from the Russian Ministry of Affairs spokeswoman Zakharova that the video exhibits, the Russian talk shows have been devoting attention to the Estonian provocations. Last night’s Solovyov program gave the subject ample time, with the host suggesting that Russia is ready to send military vessels to accompany its commercial ships through the Baltic waters and is ready not only to sink whatever navy Estonia thinks it has and to level the country to the ground.

We can assume that the authorities in Tallinn are watching these Russian shows and are unlikely to take actions that would precipitate the Russian response that has been sketched for them.

I close this brief note with one other observation from last night’s Solovyov show, this time from the retired colonel who regularly appears as panelist.  He remarked that Merz does not know what he is talking about, since the Taurus, while a good missile, is utterly unsuited for a mission of destroying a bridge. Its main use is for destroying underground bunkers and the like. Moreover, the Ukrainians will require some period of time to put any Taurus missiles to use.  It can be carried by the French fighter jets that are on promise, by the Eurofighters which are not yet on delivery schedule to Kiev, but not by the F-16s which they recently received.  Surely a solution will be found to enable use of the Taurus, but not at once. Or to put it more broadly: not in time to save the necks of the floundering Ukrainian armed forces now under strong pressure from a Russian offensive.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Russische Schiffe auf See: Moskau droht mit Konsequenzen für Provokationen in der Ostsee! | TN World

Ich habe mich bisher noch nicht dazu geäußert, aber es ist höchste Zeit zu sagen, dass derzeit auf YouTube viele sensationelle Fake News über die Risiken eines Krieges zwischen Russland und der NATO kursieren.

Viele dieser sensationellen Videobeiträge stammen aus indischen Zeitungen. Aber darunter gibt es auch Beiträge von ernsthafterer Natur, wie der hier zitierte:

Dieser Beitrag ist besonders interessant, weil er das Risiko eines bewaffneten Konflikts im Baltikum hervorhebt und nicht das, was Keir Starmer und Emmanuel Macron tun, um die Russen mit ihrer „Koalition der Willigen“ oder mit dem Brandstifter Friedrich Merz und seinen Plänen, Taurus-Langstreckenraketen nach Kiew zu schicken, um die Kertsch-Brücke (Krim) und andere wichtige logistische Infrastrukturen Russlands zu zerstören, zu provozieren.

Die jüngsten Probleme in der Ostseeregion werden von Estland verursacht, das in der vergangenen Woche einen leeren Öltanker auf dem Weg nach Petersburg beschlagnahmt hat. Der betreffende Tanker gehört zur russischen „Schattenflotte“, die ganz legal russische Ölexporte transportiert und sich damit den europäischen Sanktionen widersetzt, die die russische Wirtschaft lähmen sollen. Noch entscheidender ist, dass Estland gerade ein Gesetz verabschiedet hat, das seiner „Marine“ erlaubt, russische Handelsschiffe in der Ostsee, die Estland als Bedrohung seiner Sicherheit ansieht, zu beschlagnahmen, umzuleiten und sogar zu versenken. Das obige Video stellt die Probleme korrekt dar.

Abgesehen von den offiziellen Protesten und Warnungen der Sprecherin des russischen Außenministeriums, Zakharova, die das Video zeigt, widmen auch russische Talkshows den estnischen Provokationen große Aufmerksamkeit. In der Solowjow-Sendung von gestern Abend wurde diesem Thema viel Zeit gewidmet, wobei der Moderator andeutete, dass Russland bereit sei, Militärschiffe zur Begleitung seiner Handelsschiffe durch die baltischen Gewässer zu entsenden und nicht nur die gesamte estnische Marine zu versenken, sondern auch das Land dem Erdboden gleichzumachen.

Wir können davon ausgehen, dass die Behörden in Tallinn diese russischen Sendungen verfolgen und wahrscheinlich keine Maßnahmen ergreifen werden, die eine russische Reaktion provozieren würden, die ihnen bereits vorgezeichnet ist.

Ich schließe diesen kurzen Beitrag mit einer weiteren Beobachtung aus der Solowjow-Sendung von gestern Abend, diesmal von einem pensionierten Oberst, der regelmäßig als Diskussionsteilnehmer auftritt. Er bemerkte, dass Merz keine Ahnung habe, wovon er rede, da die Taurus zwar eine gute Rakete sei, sich aber für die Zerstörung einer Brücke völlig ungeeignet sei. Sie werde hauptsächlich zur Zerstörung von unterirdischen Bunkern und ähnlichem eingesetzt. Außerdem würden die Ukrainer einige Zeit benötigen, um Taurus-Raketen einsatzfähig zu machen. Sie können von den französischen Kampfflugzeugen transportiert werden, die zugesagt wurden, von den Eurofightern, deren Auslieferung an Kiew noch nicht geplant ist, aber nicht von den F-16, die sie kürzlich erhalten hatten. Sicherlich wird eine Lösung gefunden werden, um den Einsatz der Taurus-Raketen zu ermöglichen, aber nicht sofort. Oder allgemeiner ausgedrückt: nicht rechtzeitig, um den unter starkem Druck der russischen Offensive stehenden ukrainischen Streitkräften das Leben zu retten.

As I have said from time to time, the requests I receive almost daily from one or another media outlet prompt me to speak or write about current events to which I otherwise might not give due attention.

So it was yesterday evening when Sputnik International requested my thoughts on President Putin’s just announced 30 hour ‘humanitarian’ cease fire for Easter. I imagine that Sputnik will put this material on line some time later today. But the earlier this appears, the better, so as not to be overridden by other ‘breaking news.’

Accordingly, here below are the questions and my answers to Sputnik:

) How do you expect Easter truce announced by Vladimir Putin to affect the ongoing peace resolution progress?

I believe it will have no impact on the ongoing peace resolution progress because the “compromise” solution that the Trump Team is putting forward, namely the General Kellogg solution and not the Witkoff (Russia-friendly) solution will not be acceptable to either of the warring parties. The Ukrainians do not accept loss of the territories of Donbas, Kherson, Zaporozhia and Crimea. The Russians do not accept the notion of security guaranties to one side only, to Kiev, in the form of Western (NATO) troops on the ground and the preservation intact of the present Russia-hating, neo-Nazi directed regime in Kiev. So the peace process from Trump will fail.

2) Do you expect the Kiev regime to comply with the truce conditions?

No, the Kiev regime will not comply. There will be violations which the Russians will announce.

3) What signal is being sent to Trump?

The signal is that the Russians are ready for peace and the Ukrainians are not. But this is just Public Relations. Let us be honest about it. It is very important PR for Russia and so I believe the President Putin’s proposal was an excellent move by Russia.

*****

As of now, the Russians have reported that the Ukrainians violated the cease-fire hundreds of times over the past night, sending drones and artillery shells their way. Of course, for their part, Kiev was already last night denouncing alleged Russian violations. And yet the tally is not exactly equal. The major Western media were obliged to report Vladimir Putin’s speech to the armed forces yesterday ordering the cease fire, and he looked very earnest on screen. By contrast, Volodymir Zelensky’s taped response looked scrappy and ill-prepared.

Finally, I wish to add here a further consideration on the seemingly poor judgment of Team Trump in advancing the Kellogg solution as the end game to the war. Surely, they understood as I do that this solution would be unacceptable to both warring parties. Accordingly, it is entirely possible, if not likely that Trump chose it precisely in order to provide himself with a justification before his opponents in the States and abroad for washing his hands of Ukraine when the parties reject it.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation into German below (Andreas Mylaeus)

Präsident Putins 30-stündiger Oster-Waffenstillstand

Wie ich bereits mehrfach erwähnt habe, veranlassen mich die Anfragen, die ich fast täglich von verschiedenen Medien erhalte, dazu, mich zu aktuellen Ereignissen zu äußern, denen ich sonst möglicherweise nicht die gebührende Aufmerksamkeit schenken würde.

So war es auch gestern Abend, als Sputnik International mich um meine Meinung zu Präsident Putins gerade angekündigtem 30-stündigen „humanitären“ Waffenstillstand zu Ostern bat. Ich gehe davon aus, dass Sputnik diesen Beitrag im Laufe des Tages online stellen wird. Je früher er erscheint, desto besser, damit er nicht von anderen „Eilmeldungen“ überlagert wird.

Nachfolgend finden Sie daher die Fragen von Sputnik und meine Antworten darauf:

1) Wie wird sich die von Wladimir Putin angekündigte Oster-Feuerpause Ihrer Meinung nach auf die laufenden Friedensbemühungen auswirken?

Ich glaube, dass dies keinen Einfluss auf den laufenden Friedensprozess haben wird, da die „Kompromisslösung“, die das Trump-Team vorschlägt, nämlich die Lösung von General Kellogg und nicht die (russlandfreundliche) Lösung von Witkoff, für keine der beiden Konfliktparteien akzeptabel sein wird. Die Ukrainer akzeptieren den Verlust der Gebiete Donbass, Cherson, Saporischschja und Krim nicht. Die Russen akzeptieren nicht, dass nur einer Seite, nämlich Kiew, Sicherheitsgarantien in Form von westlichen (NATO-)Truppen vor Ort und der Aufrechterhaltung des derzeitigen russlandfeindlichen, neonazistisch geprägten Regimes in Kiew gegeben werden. Daher wird der Friedensprozess von Trump scheitern.

2) Rechnen Sie damit, dass das Kiewer Regime die Feuerpause einhalten wird?

Nein, das Kiewer Regime wird sich nicht daran halten. Es wird zu Verstößen kommen, die von den Russen bekannt gegeben werden.

3) Welches Signal wird an Trump gesendet?

Das Signal lautet, dass die Russen zum Frieden bereit sind, die Ukrainer jedoch nicht. Aber das ist nur Public Relations. Seien wir ehrlich. Es ist sehr wichtige PR für Russland, und daher halte ich den Vorschlag von Präsident Putin für einen ausgezeichneten Schachzug Russlands.

*****

Bislang haben die Russen gemeldet, dass die Ukrainer in der vergangenen Nacht hunderte Male gegen die Waffenruhe verstoßen und Drohnen und Artilleriegeschosse in ihre Richtung abgefeuert haben. Natürlich hat Kiew seinerseits bereits gestern Abend angebliche Verstöße Russlands angeprangert. Und doch ist die Bilanz nicht ganz ausgeglichen. Die großen westlichen Medien waren verpflichtet, über die gestrige Rede Wladimir Putins vor den Streitkräften zu berichten, in der er die Waffenruhe angeordnet hat, und er wirkte auf dem Bildschirm sehr ernst. Im Gegensatz dazu wirkte die aufgezeichnete Antwort Wolodymyr Selenskys zerfahren und schlecht vorbereitet.

Abschließend möchte ich noch eine weitere Überlegung zu der offenbar schlechten Entscheidung des Trump-Teams anfügen, die Kellogg-Lösung als Endspiel für den Krieg voranzutreiben. Sicherlich haben die ebenso wie ich verstanden, dass diese Lösung für beide Kriegsparteien inakzeptabel wäre. Dementsprechend ist es durchaus möglich, wenn nicht sogar wahrscheinlich, dass Trump sich genau dafür entschieden hat, um sich vor seinen Gegnern im In- und Ausland zu rechtfertigen, wenn die Parteien diese Lösung ablehnen und er sich aus der Ukraine zurückziehen kann.

The past couple of days have brought wildly contradictory reports from the Trump administration on progress in its initiative to achieve a peace accord ending the Russia-Ukraine war.

Either they are progressing well and close to success, as Vice President J.D. Vance has commented or they will be ended in the coming days if the warring parties remain obdurate and their positions are irreconcilable, as Secretary of State Rubio stated yesterday. 

Trump himself in his various statements to journalists has moved from the one position to the other and back again, leaving us all guessing as to his real intentions. However, there are sufficient reasons to believe that the administration will announce that it is leaving the talks and moving on to other foreign policy issues on its agenda. I will set those reasons out briefly below.

What I will not address is what the United States’ washing its hands of the war means for all the parties to the war, including the Europeans. Will Washington proceed on its rapprochement with Moscow and relax sanctions or will it impose new, tougher sanctions on Russia? Will it stop all funding and arms deliveries to Ukraine, or will it allow Europeans to buy its arms for delivery to Kiev.  The evidence for any of these eventualities is still insufficient to venture a guess.

                                                                         *****

I have remarked in recent days on the contradictions in positions on the war’s preferred outcome between the ‘hardliners’ Marco Rubio and General Kellogg on the one side and the more Russia-friendly Steve Witkoff on the other side.

From reports on what has been taking place in Paris a day ago, it would appear that the Kellogg line on the end-game in Ukraine has gained the upper hand. This would leave the Russians in possession of the portion of the Eastern Ukrainian oblasts (provinces) that they presently occupy, freezing the line of engagement where it presently is. It would establish a European protectorate over the Westernmost part of Ukraine, presumably with ‘boots on the ground.’ And it would leave intact the Kievan regime, rabidly anti-Russian as it is, holding the rump sovereign state of Ukraine in the middle.

This solution to the war seems to have prevailed over the alternative solution coming from Donald Trump’s personal emissary Steve Witkoff, who appears to have sided with the Russian end-of-war scenario wherein Moscow gets the 4 Eastern oblasts in their entirety, not just at the line of confrontation, where Ukraine declares neutrality, the presence of foreign troops or infrastructure is prohibited, and the size of the Ukrainian army is specified in the peace treaty along with provisions ensuring that the rights of Russian speakers living in the rump Ukraine will be respected.

I see the backing of the Kellogg solution in what was going on in Paris at the invitation of Emmanuel Macron. The Americans led by Rubio and Witkoff sat on one side of the table, while the Ukrainian negotiators sat together with the European representatives on the other side. Ostensibly the Europeans has been invited to the talks because a definitive peace will not be possible unless, at its conclusion, the Europeans support it and agree to lift their own sanctions on Russia.

At the end of the talks, the Europeans said they were satisfied to have taken part, that it was important to reach an alignment of views with the Americans. The Americans, for their part, said the contribution of the Europeans had been ‘constructive.’ They believed they had persuaded the Europeans to accept the realities of the situation, namely the battlefield results, with no further clarifications

Although the participants said that the question of security guaranties for Ukraine had not been discussed, meaning the specifics of European proposals to put ‘boots on the ground’ in Ukraine, the very fact that the Europeans were satisfied with the tenor of the discussion is a victory for the Kellogg position versus the Putin-friendly Witkoff position.

We did not hear from the Ukrainian negotiators, but they could not have been happy with the provisions of the Kellogg solution regarding the disposition of the Ukrainian territory now under Russian occupation. Kiev rejects categorically territorial concessions to Russia.

For these reasons, I find that any 50-50 compromise between what the Europeans and Kiev want versus what Moscow wants is utterly unworkable. The desires of the warring parties are mutually exclusive and neither will accept the Trump administration’s proposed compromise. The only question is who, Kiev or Moscow, will be the first to reject the compromise publicly, risking Trump’s fury.

Given these conditions, I expect Trump to walk away from the Ukraine war within a week’s time. When you have a clear winner in a war, it is unrealistic and futile to demand that the winner give up the objectives that caused him to launch the war: namely to keep NATO Member States out of Ukraine and to ensure that the human rights of Russian speakers living in Ukraine are respected.. It is still more absured to expect the winner to capitulate to the loser, as Kiev and the EU are demanding and give up all territorial gains on the field of battle.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation into German below (Andreas Mylaeus)

Das Beste, was Trump jetzt tun kann, ist, sich aus dem Krieg zwischen Russland und der Ukraine zurückzuziehen

In den letzten Tagen gab es widersprüchliche Berichte aus der Trump-Regierung über die Fortschritte ihrer Initiative zur Erreichung eines Friedensabkommens zur Beendigung des Krieges zwischen Russland und der Ukraine.

Entweder kommen sie gut voran und stehen kurz vor dem Erfolg, wie Vizepräsident J.D. Vance kommentierte, oder sie werden in den kommenden Tagen beendet, wenn die Kriegsparteien unnachgiebig bleiben und ihre Positionen unvereinbar sind, wie Außenminister Rubio gestern erklärte.

Trump selbst hat in seinen verschiedenen Äußerungen gegenüber Journalisten zwischen den beiden Positionen hin und her gewechselt, sodass wir alle über seine wahren Absichten im Unklaren bleiben. Es gibt jedoch genügend Gründe zu der Annahme, dass die Regierung bekannt geben wird, dass sie die Gespräche aufgibt und sich anderen außenpolitischen Themen auf ihrer Agenda zuwendet. Diese Gründe werde ich im Folgenden kurz darlegen.

Was ich nicht behandeln werde, ist die Frage, was der Rückzug der USA aus dem Krieg für alle Kriegsparteien, einschließlich der Europäer, bedeutet. Wird Washington seine Annäherung an Moskau fortsetzen und die Sanktionen lockern oder wird es neue, härtere Sanktionen gegen Russland verhängen? Wird es alle Finanzhilfen und Waffenlieferungen an die Ukraine einstellen oder wird es den Europäern erlauben, seine Waffen für Lieferungen nach Kiew zu kaufen? Die Beweise für eine dieser Möglichkeiten sind noch unzureichend, um eine Vermutung zu wagen.

                                                                         *****

Ich habe in den letzten Tagen auf die widersprüchlichen Positionen hinsichtlich des bevorzugten Kriegsausgangs zwischen den „Hardlinern“ Marco Rubio und General Kellogg auf der einen Seite und dem eher russlandfreundlichen Steve Witkoff auf der anderen Seite hingewiesen.

Aus Berichten über die Ereignisse in Paris vor einem Tag geht hervor, dass die Kellogg-Linie zum Endspiel in der Ukraine die Oberhand gewonnen zu haben scheint. Damit sollen die Russen den Teil der ostukrainischen Oblaste (Provinzen) behalten, den sie derzeit besetzen, und die Frontlinie soll an ihrer derzeitigen Position eingefroren werden. Es soll ein europäisches Protektorat über den westlichsten Teil der Ukraine errichtet werden, vermutlich mit „Bodentruppen“. Und es soll danach das Kiewer Regime, so fanatisch russlandfeindlich es auch ist, intakt gelassen werden, das den Reststaat Ukraine in der Mitte hält.

Diese Lösung des Krieges scheint sich gegen die Alternative von Donald Trumps persönlichem Gesandten Steve Witkoff durchgesetzt zu haben, der sich offenbar für das russische Szenario zum Kriegsende ausgesprochen hat, wonach Moskau die vier östlichen Oblaste vollständig erhält, nicht nur bis zur Frontlinie, wo die Ukraine ihre Neutralität erklärt, die Präsenz ausländischer Truppen oder Infrastruktur verboten wäre und die Größe der ukrainischen Armee im Friedensvertrag festgelegt würde, zusammen mit Bestimmungen, die die Rechte der in der Restukraine lebenden russischsprachigen Bevölkerung garantieren.

Ich sehe die Unterstützung für die Kellogg-Lösung in den Ereignissen, die sich auf Einladung von Emmanuel Macron in Paris zugetragen haben. Die Amerikaner unter der Führung von Rubio und Witkoff saßen auf der einen Seite des Tisches, während die ukrainischen Unterhändler zusammen mit den europäischen Vertretern auf der anderen Seite saßen. Offensichtlich wurden die Europäer zu den Gesprächen eingeladen, weil ein endgültiger Frieden nur möglich ist, wenn die Europäer ihn am Ende unterstützen und sich bereit erklären, ihre eigenen Sanktionen gegen Russland aufzuheben.

Am Ende der Gespräche erklärten die Europäer, sie seien zufrieden mit ihrer Teilnahme und es sei wichtig gewesen, eine Annäherung der Standpunkte mit den Amerikanern zu erreichen. Die Amerikaner ihrerseits bezeichneten den Beitrag der Europäer als „konstruktiv“. Sie glaubten, die Europäer davon überzeugt zu haben, die Realitäten der Situation, nämlich die Ergebnisse auf dem Schlachtfeld, ohne weitere Klarstellungen zu akzeptieren.

Obwohl die Teilnehmer erklärten, dass die Frage der Sicherheitsgarantien für die Ukraine nicht diskutiert worden sei, also die Einzelheiten der europäischen Vorschläge für eine Stationierung von Bodentruppen in der Ukraine, ist die Tatsache, dass die Europäer mit dem Tenor der Diskussion zufrieden waren, ein Sieg für die Position von Kellogg gegenüber der Putin-freundlichen Position von Witkoff.

Wir haben nichts von den ukrainischen Verhandlungsführern gehört, aber sie können mit den Bestimmungen der Kellogg-Lösung hinsichtlich der Disposition des derzeit von Russland besetzten ukrainischen Territoriums nicht zufrieden gewesen sein. Kiew lehnt territoriale Zugeständnisse an Russland kategorisch ab.

Aus diesen Gründen halte ich einen 50:50-Kompromiss zwischen den Forderungen der Europäer und Kiews und denen Moskaus für völlig undurchführbar. Die Wünsche der Kriegsparteien schließen sich gegenseitig aus, und keine Seite wird den von der Trump-Regierung vorgeschlagenen Kompromiss akzeptieren. Die einzige Frage ist, wer – Kiew oder Moskau – als Erster den Kompromiss öffentlich ablehnen und damit Trumps Zorn riskieren wird.

Angesichts dieser Umstände gehe ich davon aus, dass Trump innerhalb einer Woche aus dem Ukraine-Krieg aussteigen wird. Wenn es einen klaren Sieger in einem Krieg gibt, ist es unrealistisch und sinnlos, von diesem zu verlangen, dass er die Ziele aufgibt, die ihn zum Krieg veranlasst haben: nämlich die NATO-Mitgliedstaaten aus der Ukraine fernzuhalten und die Menschenrechte der in der Ukraine lebenden russischsprachigen Bevölkerung zu gewährleisten. Noch absurder ist es, vom Sieger zu erwarten, dass er sich dem Verlierer ergibt, wie es Kiew und die EU fordern, und alle territorialen Gewinne auf dem Schlachtfeld aufgibt.

Transcript submitted by a reader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCWkUAiE4Gw

Napolitano: 0:32
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for “Judging Freedom”. Today is Thursday, April 17th, 2025. Professor Gilbert Doctorow joins us now. Professor Doctorow, welcome here. You have a fascinating piece out about Germany and May 9th and the significance of all of it. But before we get there, and we will, a couple of other questions.

So you have a feeling from your position in Brussels that the neocons around President Trump are ascendant.

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
We have a feeling here in Brussels that the neocons, domestic neocons in Europe, are ascendant also. So the problem is not just a Washington issue, but if you meant by the neocons, the hardliner people within Trump’s circle, that is Rubio and Kellogg, then yes. The Russians are certainly aware of that. I’m aware of that.

1:41
But to say they’re ascendant, I think is an exaggeration. The problems that we see, that the Russians have identified very clearly in the last few days, is Trump’s ability and willingness to do what is necessary to put through his agenda. I think a lot of people here were struck by his wobbling and by his backtracking on his chaotically introduced tariffs that put in question his ability to negotiate.

Napolitano:
Well, back to the neocons, and maybe ascendant is too strong a word. The “Wall Street Journal” reports that they have his ear. They were reluctant to have his ear in promoting their neocon ways until recently.

Max Blumenthal, who will be on shortly after you, reports that the dismissals at the Pentagon, which have shaken it up mightily, were caused by a leak to the “New York Times” of the neocons being ascendant and breaking with the America firsters, and that shockingly, Secretary Hegseth was not among the neocons, that he was urging the president to tell Prime Minister Netanyahu not to attack Iran.

I don’t want to get too into the weeds, but is Donald Trump perceived in Europe as being on both sides of these issues, a man of peace and a man of war at the same time?

Doctorow: 3:32
Very definitely. There’s a lot of confusion and there’s reason for the confusion. As I mentioned a moment ago, his wobbling has caused a lot of uncertainty about where he really stands and how tough he’s going to fight for the initiatives that he rolled out in the first days of his presidency.

That remains the case. That is true in Europe for sure. Look, he was saying– there were all indications that he’s backing away from NATO. And then, was it yesterday or maybe day before, there’s the announcement that after all, America’s sending 5,000 troops to the new forthcoming NATO exercises. So whether it is neocons who are influencing him or other factors, he is not pursuing a clearly defined policy, and he reverses himself, which is not good for him and not good for his eventual success.

Napolitano: 4:32
As you read the American neocons, do they want the war in Ukraine to end, or they want it to continue?

Doctorow:
Oh, they want it to continue. And this, they are definitely the natural allies of the Europeans, who have their own reasons for wanting the war to continue, because they are in the ascendant, they have staked their careers on this and they are looking for the hostile Russia as a unifying factor in an otherwise crumbling European Union.

Napolitano: 5:08
You and almost everyone on this show have been very critical of Sir Keir Starmer and French President Macron in their efforts to cobble together– this is a totally discredited Bush-Cheney phrase, but why they’re using it, I don’t know– Coalition of the Willing. Is a new partner about to join that effort coming from Berlin?

Doctorow: 5:46
Join the effort? I’m not sure that is the proper way to look at it. These two– they also have their own competition, who is going to be the top dog, who is the one who is going to be the most important defence authority in Europe, that is Stammer and Macron– they are vying, they’re competing for that title.

At the same time, the German incoming chancellor is not making common cause with them. He is in the same competitive situation, trying to position Germany and himself as the leaders, the dominant force in Europe’s coming defense. And he’s doing it by building on the very aggressive belligerent statements towards Russia that he used as part of his electoral campaign.

Napolitano: 6:38
You have referred to Friedrich Merz, and I quote, as “the most dangerous German leader since Adolf Hitler”, a very, very serious statement. What did you mean by that, and why did you say it?

Doctorow:
Well, first of all, I don’t think he had too much competition for that role.

Napolitano:
Okay, look at who he’s replacing. Look at who he’s succeeding, whocan barely get words out of his mouth. Go ahead.

Doctorow:
Yes, he had mealy-mouthed people who have put Germany in risky positions, and here he is, by his belligerence towards Russia and by his obvious willingness to take on risks that his predecessor or soon-to-be predecessor Scholz refused to take on, namely giving the Ukrainians the cruise missiles that they have longed for.

This is the Taurus, which is an air-launched missile that the Russians have little or no experience combating. So at the outset, should it be in the hands of the Ukrainians, it could indeed do some damage, where the previous long-range missiles either coming from the States or mostly from Britain and France, the SCALP and the Storm Shadow, the Russians mastered those, found ways of neutralizing them. But the Taurus could be dangerous. And just speaking about sending Taurus to Ukraine, the numbers, let’s go to the numbers. Germany has 600 of these in stock. What’s being discussed is shipping 160 to Ukraine.

8:28
Shipping them is only the beginning of the task. The reason why, as we all know, the reason why Scholz refused to give the Taurus to Ukraine was his knowledge from leaked conversations between senior German air force officers that this product was usable only if it were programmed and controlled by the German manufacturer and German personnel. And that would expose Germany to the charges of being a co-belligerent. So he refused? Mr. Merz is ignoring this completely.

Napolitano: 9:11
Does he want a war with Russia? Can Germany afford the consequences of becoming a co-belligerent? And the United States is already a co-belligerent. And the Russians have been extremely restrained. Under international law, I hate to say this, the Russians could attack Miami if they wanted. But doesn’t Merz fear the consequence of becoming a co-belligerent?

Doctorow:
Well, the risks have changed over time. The coming to power of Donald Trump and the new doubts about the United States’ willingness to defend its NATO allies, that changes the equation. And frankly, it is stunning that Merz doesn’t recognize this.

As you’ve just mentioned, the Russians had the legal basis for attacking the United States in response to its co-belligerent status, its direct intervention in the Ukraine war by the intelligence and by the programming of its missiles that it has done for Kiev.

Now the situation presently is that Germany, by supplying such equipment and necessarily providing the hands-on control of this equipment of its own officers and manufacturers, would be taking the risk of a Russian counterstrike on Germany itself. And the notion that the Article 5 would be invoked and would be responded to positively is a very risky proposition today. Somehow, Merz has not seen that. And so he is waving a red flag.

It gets worse. Not just would they supply these 160 Taurus to Ukraine, but they are recommending that Ukraine use this to target the Kerch bridge. That is the bridge that links mainland Russia with the peninsula of Crimea–

Napolitano:
That’s a billion-dollar bridge.

Doctorow:
Yes. –and other vital infrastructure that supports the Russian logistics for the war, saying this could change the dynamics of the war in Ukraine’s favor.
That he says this publicly is remarkable. That his father fought within the German armies and was a Nazi supporter, has been called up by the Russians in response to what they see as provocative and totally irresponsible statements coming from the incoming chancellor.

Napolitano: 12:07
Back to Starmer and Macron. Do they have the financial resources to achieve what they’re trying to put together? The “coalition of the willing” would only make sense from their perspective if there were military assets involved. Do they have them?

Doctorow:
It would make sense if they had willing.

Napolitano:
Apparently they don’t have any willing other than the two of them. The British have no military of which to speak. I’m not familiar with what the French have. You can educate us. But where are they going with this? I suppose we have to add the princess, von der Leyen, to all of this. She doesn’t have a military either, but she’d love nothing more than to be, correct me if I’m wrong, Professor, the commander in chief of the European armies, wouldn’t she?

Doctorow: 13:02
Well, she’s a cheerleader. But the two of them are not completely alone. They have three other European member states that have joined the coalition of the willing. Regrettably, for military value, when you add all three together, you come up with zero. I’m speaking about the three Baltic states. The total population of all three of them is probably under 4 million or closer to 5 million.

But their armies are negligible. We’re speaking about the equivalent of police forces. They have nothing to contribute.

Napolitano: 13:39
Where is it going to go then? Nowhere. The effort to assemble the coalition of the willing, they’re going to fall flat on their faces. Maybe that’s why President Macron is talking about recognizing a Palestinian state, getting the public’s mind off of whatever he’s trying to accomplish in Ukraine.

Doctorow:
Well, he has his own ambitions still in Ukraine. And the ambitions of Macron, to a lesser extent, those of Starmer, are focused on one city. The city is Odessa.

And as for the French, it is a certain nostalgia. Let’s remember that the first mayor of the city of Odessa in the late 18th century was a certain Duke de Richelieu, the French duke. And there’s a monument to him in downtown Odessa. So there is a certain claim that the French have for being protectors, shall we say, of Odessa. For the British, it’s much more practical.

14:48
Odessa is a staging ground for their activities in the Black Sea, and it is close, if you look at the map, by a direct line to the Crimean Peninsula. So for their military purposes, to cause havoc in Russian-owned Crimea, Odessa has great importance. Of course, it’s also the principal port for commercial activities of Ukraine. So this is the city in Ukraine, which they have focused their attention on.

As to the coalition of the willing, that is largely posturing. And it would be to cover up any operation that they would take focused on Odessa. Odessa is also conveniently close to the Romanian border. So it is conceivable that without talking about peacekeepers over the whole thousand-kilometer-long line of engagement, these two powers of France and Britain could concentrate their efforts on one city for which they probably have sufficient manpower and equipment, that is the city being Odessa.

Napolitano: 16:07
Let me ask you about Germany. Has the Nord Stream pipeline been repaired?

Doctorow:
No, well, there are two pipelines. The one that is still almost usable, that is the pipeline two, which was ready to be put into service and then was refused acceptance by the Germans. It has some problems. You can’t keep a pipeline like this inactive for two, three years with no maintenance, but to restart it is probably an easy matter. The first pipeline, the one that was blown up, also was salvageable, but it will take considerably bigger investment in time to restore it.

17:01
The issue, of course, is that the Germans remain and under Merz, are likely to remain vehemently opposed to taking Russian gas, even if it’s essential for their economy to recover.

Napolitano:
Very interesting. And I have that image in my mind of Chancellor Scholz standing blithely, meekly next to President Biden. As Biden says, you know, we’ll take care of the Nord Stream pipeline. He obviously knew what was going on.

Switching gears, the Kellogg plan, the plan put forth by General Kellogg. It’s hard to imagine this was not run past Donald Trump. It’s harder to imagine that Trump approved of it. Nevertheless, the plan would divide Ukraine, sort of the way Germany was divided at the end of World War II among the Allies, into three or four protectorates. How was this viewed in Europe?

18:09
In Europe, I can’t say. I don’t think they give him too much attention, to General Kellogg. And still, it is something that’s hanging in the air. It doesn’t have the backing of Donald Trump, so it’s not clear where it’s headed. I will say something about how the Russians feel, probably more positively than you would anticipate.

The thing about– in fact, when I’ve written about this Kellogg plan versus the position of Steve Witkoff, I got a comment saying, well, what’s the difference between them after all? Because both parties are recognizing Russian possession of the four oblasts that it’s now occupying largely in Eastern Ukraine plus Crimea. In that sense, both Kellogg and Witkoff are saying the same thing–

Napolitano:
[Putin] would never agree to American troops in in Western Ukraine, would he?

Doctorow:
No no, the issue of the troops and the– the real difference between Witkoff and Kellogg is over what about the rest of Ukraine. That Kellogg, as we know, is speaking about Western troops in the westernmost part of Ukraine. The center of Ukraine being a kind of rump state, neutral state of, presumably neutral state of Ukraine. And the Russians are in the eastern part.

Nonetheless, I want to look at this from a– take a step back. They are talking, Witkoff and Kellogg are talking about the end game. Let’s remember that when Trump rolled out his initiative, it was only about a ceasefire, and the Russians were complaining, hey, wait a minute, this doesn’t count. Where is the end game?

So the Americans have taken on board, whether it’s Kellogg as the hardliner together with Rubio, or it is Steve Witkoff as the soft guy who is taking on board and accepting Russia’s basic demands. They all are dealing with the endgame, not with the ceasefire. Now, we’re approaching the deadline that Donald Trump gave for acceptance of the ceasefire, and that is the 20th of April.

The point I want to make here is that the Russians are being blamed for the delays. I think this is dead wrong. I think the blame for the delays is on the desk of Donald Trump. He doesn’t have the guts so far to do what’s necessary for the agreements to be reached. Namely, he has not taken on Europe. Without Europe being challenged and put in its place– without their understanding who’s who, that the boss is the United States, and don’t have any mistake about it– without that happening, there will be neither a ceasefire nor a peace treaty that is brokered by Trump. And so far he shows no sign of taking on Europe.

Napolitano: 21:17
Does the Kellogg Plan mention NATO?

Doctorow:
NATO, no. NATO member states, yes. I don’t think he would in any way challenge the remarks that Donald Trump made soon after taking office, that the United States will not provide Article 5 coverage for any Western European military that is put into Ukraine, under the name of peacekeepers or whatever. So, no, he wouldn’t overrule that.

Napolitano:
But what kind of an administration listens to Steve Witkoff in one ear and Lindsey Graham in the other?

Doctorow:
Donald Trump is a Catholic in more than one sense, and he’s listening to all sides, and he’s leaving everybody guessing. This can only carry you so far, and I think he’s running at the outer limits of where this negotiating tactic works, and coming up to the point where it stops working. If he cannot make a decision and take the consequences, then he’s going to lose on all fronts.

Napolitano: 22:32
Professor Doctorow, a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you for your analysis. Safe travels. Happy Easter and we’ll look forward to seeing you next week.

Doctorow:
Happy Easter to all of you. Thank you.

Napolitano:
Thank you. And coming up later today at 11 o’clock this morning with some explosive information about an American being kicked out of the United States. Oops, could I have made a mistake on this one? Max Blumenthal at 11:00, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson at 2:00, and the always worth waiting for Professor John Mearsheimer at 3:00.

23:11
Judge Napolitano for “Judging Freedom”.

‘Judging Freedom’ edition of 17 April

Today’s show, which was advertised under the heading “Germany and May 9^” did indeed devote some attention to Germany and the totally irresponsible position of belligerence towards Russia by the incoming chancellor Friedrich Merz.

As Judge Napolitano remarked, in a recent essay I called Merz “the most dangerous German leader since Hitler.”  Asked to explain myself, I pointed out that Merz did not have much competition for that title. His predecessors have almost to a man (or woman) been submissive to the Americans and very cautious in foreign and defense policy. Not Merz, who has in the past few days said he is ready to ship the Taurus air-launched long range cruise missile to Ukraine and who counselled them to use it to regain strategic advantage in the war by striking the Kerch (Crimean) bridge and other essential Russian logistical infrastructure. Such a shipment would mean the close support of the Taurus systems by the German manufacturer and its targeting by German military officers, making Germany a co-belligerent.

To be sure, in this sense the United States has long been a co-belligerent, but Russia’s willingness to go to war with the United States is incomparably than its willingness and ability to destroy Germany with conventional arms. And if I may dot the ‘i’ here:  President Putin would either strike back at Germany in response to an attack, say, on the Kerch bridge with missiles destroying the German manufacturing plant of Taurus or some other key German military asset. For failure to respond, Putin would be swept from power by his more energetic and less cautious colleagues. Yes, in these circumstances I do believe that a palace coup in the Kremlin is possible, even likely.

I did not have time to mention that the latest speculation in Germany on the distribution of ministerial portfolios between the coalition partners, Merz’s Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats, indicate that the latter will continue to hold the Defense Ministry. This likely means the continuation in office of Boris Pistorius, the most belligerent member of the outgoing government of Olaf Scholz. The only positive sign is that the nincompoop Russia-hating Annalena Baerbock will be sent on her way, since the Foreign Ministry will be taken over by the Christian Democrats.

Otherwise, the Judge and I spent more time on Trump than on Merz.  The point I made is that Trump has raised doubts in Moscow over his resolve to carry through his various foreign policy initiatives. The flip-flopping on tariffs that followed their chaotic introduction has undermined his credibility.  And in the case of Russia, we must ask why is it taking so long to reach an agreement on the end game in the Ukraine war and on the cease-fire?

Trump set 20 April as the final date for the Russians to sign up to a cease fire. That date is fast approaching and there are no results to show for Trump’s efforts.  While the war mongers in Western Europe blame Vladimir Putin for the foot-dragging and say that Putin does not want peace, I believe the reality is that responsibility is with Donald Trump: he so far has not shown his readiness to put the Europeans in their place, to threaten them with cut-off of all U.S. security guaranties if they do not support the peace treaty that he is about to impose on Kiev. 

The notion that Trump is pulling the U.S. out of NATO was undermined by the announcement yesterday that, after all, the U.S. will be sending 5,000 troops to Europe to participate in the next NATO war games.

Trump’s idea of keeping everyone guessing about his next move to keep his hands-free during negotiations is reaching the end of its usefulness. He must throw in his fate with one side or the other, or he will fail in everything.

The Russians are prepared for his failure and will proceed to prosecute the war till the objectives of the Special Military Operation are fully achieved.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Ausgabe „Judging Freedom“ vom 17. April

Die heutige Sendung, die unter der Überschrift „Deutschland und der 9. Mai^“ angekündigt war, widmete sich tatsächlich Deutschland und der völlig unverantwortlichen kriegerischen Haltung des designierten Bundeskanzlers Friedrich Merz gegenüber Russland.

Wie Judge Napolitano bemerkte, habe ich Merz in einem kürzlich erschienenen Essay als „den gefährlichsten deutschen Politiker seit Hitler“ bezeichnet. Auf die Frage, warum ich das tue, habe ich darauf hingewiesen, dass Merz in dieser Hinsicht kaum Konkurrenz hat. Seine Vorgänger waren fast ausnahmslos den Amerikanern unterwürfig und in der Außen- und Verteidigungspolitik sehr zurückhaltend. Nicht so Merz, der in den letzten Tagen erklärt hat, er sei bereit, die luftgestützten Langstrecken-Marschflugkörper vom Typ Taurus an die Ukraine zu liefern, und der ihnen geraten hat, diese einzusetzen, um durch einen Schlag gegen die Kertsch-Brücke (Krim) und andere wichtige russische Logistikinfrastrukturen einen strategischen Vorteil im Krieg zurückzugewinnen. Eine solche Lieferung würde eine enge Unterstützung der Taurus-Systeme durch den deutschen Hersteller und deren Zielerfassung durch deutsche Militärs bedeuten, wodurch Deutschland definitiv zur Kriegspartei würde.

Sicherlich sind die Vereinigten Staaten in diesem Sinne seit langem Kriegspartei, aber Russlands Bereitschaft, gegen die Vereinigten Staaten in den Krieg zu ziehen, ist nicht vergleichbar mit seiner Bereitschaft und Fähigkeit, Deutschland mit konventionellen Waffen zu zerstören. Und wenn ich das hier noch einmal klarstellen darf: Präsident Putin würde entweder auf einen Angriff, beispielsweise auf die Kertsch-Brücke, mit Raketen zurückschlagen, die die deutsche Produktionsstätte von Taurus oder andere wichtige deutsche Militäreinrichtungen zerstören würden. Wenn er nicht reagieren würde, würde Putin von seinen energischeren und weniger vorsichtigen Kollegen aus dem Amt gefegt werden. Ja, unter diesen Umständen halte ich einen Palastputsch im Kreml für möglich, sogar für wahrscheinlich.

Ich hatte keine Zeit zu erwähnen, dass die jüngsten Spekulationen in Deutschland über die Verteilung der Ministerposten zwischen den Koalitionspartnern, den Christdemokraten von Merz und den Sozialdemokraten, darauf hindeuten, dass Letztere das Verteidigungsministerium behalten werden. Dies bedeutet wahrscheinlich, dass Boris Pistorius, das kriegerischste Mitglied der scheidenden Regierung von Olaf Scholz, im Amt bleiben wird. Das einzige positive Zeichen ist, dass die russlandfeindliche Annalena Baerbock, die sich als unfähig erwiesen hat, aus dem Amt geschickt wird, da das Außenministerium von den Christdemokraten übernommen wird.

Ansonsten haben der Judge und ich mehr Zeit mit Trump als mit Merz verbracht. Ich habe darauf hingewiesen, dass Trump in Moskau Zweifel an seiner Entschlossenheit geweckt hat, seine verschiedenen außenpolitischen Initiativen durchzusetzen. Das Hin und Her bei den Zöllen nach ihrer chaotischen Einführung hat seine Glaubwürdigkeit untergraben. Und im Falle Russlands müssen wir uns fragen, warum es so lange dauert, bis eine Einigung über das Ende des Krieges in der Ukraine und über einen Waffenstillstand erzielt wird.

Trump hat den 20. April als endgültigen Termin für die Unterzeichnung eines Waffenstillstands durch die Russen gesetzt. Dieser Termin rückt immer näher, und Trumps Bemühungen haben bisher keine Ergebnisse gebracht. Während die Kriegstreiber in Westeuropa Wladimir Putin für die Verzögerungen verantwortlich machen und behaupten, Putin wolle keinen Frieden, liegt meiner Meinung nach die Verantwortung bei Donald Trump: Er hat bisher nicht seine Bereitschaft gezeigt, die Europäer in ihre Schranken zu weisen und ihnen mit der Aufhebung aller Sicherheitsgarantien der USA zu drohen, sollten sie den Friedensvertrag, den er Kiew aufzwingen will, nicht unterstützen.

Die Vorstellung, dass Trump die USA aus der NATO herausziehen will, wurde durch die gestrige Ankündigung untergraben, dass die USA doch 5.000 Soldaten nach Europa entsenden werden, um an den nächsten NATO-Kriegsspielen teilzunehmen.

Trumps Strategie, alle über seinen nächsten Schritt im Unklaren zu lassen, um sich während der Verhandlungen alle Optionen offen zu halten, hat sich weitgehend erschöpft. Er muss sich für eine Seite entscheiden, sonst wird er in allen Bereichen scheitern.

Die Russen sind auf sein Scheitern vorbereitet und werden weitermachen wie bisher.