Sometimes the production team at News X World sends the link the newly posted interviews in a matter of hours, sometimes in a matter of days. Regrettably the latter occurred with the live news broadcast of two days ago. Nonetheless, not much has changed in the Russian-Ukraine war or in the negotiations for a cease-fire since the interview was taken and those who may wish to see the editorial line of this Indian broadcaster and to hear a brief summary of my own position on the state of play may find this video useful.
In this interview I speak about the Ukrainian drone attack on the gas metering hub in Sudzha which demolished the facility in violation of the terms of the partial ceasefire that had been agreed with Ukraine and Russia. These Ukrainian attacks have not stopped since. Indeed, a day ago the Ukrainians seriously damaged an oil pumping station within Russia (Kropotkinskaya) that keeps Kazakhstan origin oil flowing across Russia for export to world markets by an international consortium with large American participation. Indeed, the Russians are not operators of the pipeline, just 24% co-owners. It is difficult to understand this Ukrainian attack on what is essentially a U.S. asset other than in terms of provocation and intent to sabotage the U.S. participation in negotiating a peace.
With this in mind, I say frankly that the efforts of Team Trump may fail. We hear on Russian talk shows backchannel information about the negotiations indicating that the Ukrainians are being obstinate, are refusing to make any concessions. Perhaps they are emboldened to defy Trump by their friends in Europe, although lately the European consensus on unlimited aid to Kiev appears to be crumbling. The 40 billion euros in financial aid to Kiev this year that EU Vice President Kaja Kallas had sought to receive from the Member States was finally reduced to a total of 5 billion euros. That is perfectly indicative of which way the wind is blowing.
I leave open the possibility that in the end Team Trump will find that no peace can be agreed with Kiev and will be compelled to cut all further financial, materiel and intelligence aid to Kiev and just walk away. Following on this we may expect the Ukrainian armed forces to continue maintaining the front for a few more months and then total collapse will follow. What comes after that is truly a mystery.
In closing, I note that at 18.55 Central European Time the Russians published on the presidential website kremlin.ru a document entitled “Basic results of the meeting of expert groups of the U.S. and Russia.” Later today I will publish a summary of its very important contents.
Interview auf News X World: Russlands massiver Drohnenangriff auf Odessa inmitten von Friedensgesprächen unter Führung der USA
Manchmal sendet das Produktionsteam von News X World den Link zu den neu veröffentlichten Interviews innerhalb weniger Stunden, manchmal innerhalb weniger Tage. Leider war dies bei der Live-Nachrichtensendung von vor zwei Tagen der Fall. Dennoch hat sich seit der Aufnahme des Interviews nicht viel im russisch-ukrainischen Krieg oder in den Verhandlungen über einen Waffenstillstand geändert, und wer die redaktionelle Linie dieses indischen Senders sehen und eine kurze Zusammenfassung meiner eigenen Position zum aktuellen Stand der Dinge hören möchte, für den könnte dieses Video nützlich sein.
In diesem Interview spreche ich über den ukrainischen Drohnenangriff auf den Gasmessknotenpunkt in Sudzha, bei dem die Anlage unter Verstoß gegen die Bedingungen des mit der Ukraine und Russland vereinbarten teilweisen Waffenstillstands zerstört wurde. Diese ukrainischen Angriffe haben seitdem nicht aufgehört. Tatsächlich haben die Ukrainer vor einem Tag eine Ölpumpstation in Russland (Kropotkinskaya) schwer beschädigt, die Öl aus Kasachstan über Russland zum Export auf die Weltmärkte durch ein internationales Konsortium mit großer amerikanischer Beteiligung fließen lässt. Die Russen sind nicht die Betreiber der Pipeline, sondern nur zu 24 % Miteigentümer. Der ukrainische Angriff auf ein im Wesentlichen US-amerikanisches Gut ist nur schwer anders zu verstehen als eine Provokation und die Absicht, die Beteiligung der USA an den Friedensverhandlungen zu sabotieren.
Vor diesem Hintergrund sage ich ganz offen, dass die Bemühungen des Trump-Teams scheitern könnten. In russischen Talkshows hören wir über inoffizielle Kanäle Informationen über die Verhandlungen, die darauf hindeuten, dass die Ukrainer stur sind und sich weigern, Zugeständnisse zu machen. Vielleicht werden sie von ihren Freunden in Europa ermutigt, Trump die Stirn zu bieten, obwohl der europäische Konsens über unbegrenzte Hilfe für Kiew in letzter Zeit zu bröckeln scheint. Die 40 Milliarden Euro an Finanzhilfe für Kiew in diesem Jahr, die EU-Vizepräsidentin Kaja Kallas von den Mitgliedstaaten zu erhalten versucht hatte, wurden schließlich auf insgesamt 5 Milliarden Euro reduziert. Das zeigt ganz deutlich, aus welcher Richtung der Wind weht.
Ich lasse die Möglichkeit offen, dass das Team Trump am Ende feststellt, dass mit Kiew kein Frieden geschlossen werden kann, und gezwungen ist, jegliche weitere finanzielle, materielle und nachrichtendienstliche Hilfe für Kiew einzustellen und einfach wegzugehen. Daraufhin können wir erwarten, dass die ukrainischen Streitkräfte die Front noch einige Monate lang halten, bevor dann der totale Zusammenbruch erfolgt. Was danach kommt, ist wirklich ein Rätsel.
Abschließend möchte ich darauf hinweisen, dass die Russen um 18:55 Uhr mitteleuropäischer Zeit auf der Website des Präsidenten kremlin.ru ein Dokument mit dem Titel „Grundlegende Ergebnisse des Treffens der Expertengruppen der USA und Russlands“ veröffentlicht haben. Im Laufe des Tages werde ich eine Zusammenfassung seines sehr wichtigen Inhalts veröffentlichen.
Over the past couple of days, we have all heard sound bites taken from Tucker Carlson’s interview with Donald Trump’s personal emissary to Moscow, Steve Witkoff that major media have broadcast, mostly with intent to impugn Witkoff’s judgment, to cast doubt on the appropriateness of this ‘amateur’ handling such a sensitive diplomatic mission. Several broadcasters directly imply that Witkoff is a spokesman for Russian president Vladimir Putin. After all, in the sound bites we heard Witkoff say that Putin is very smart, that only the smartest people were recruited into the KGB, that Putin is direct and trustworthy and that Putin and Trump are both ‘great leaders.’ In very Russophobic America, those assertions are sufficient to cast you straight past Purgatory into Hell.
What we have not heard is the rest of the 89 minutes of the Carlson interview that was released on his own internet channel three days ago. I heartily recommend to the community that you do just that now:
What you will find here is breadth of thinking and sophisticated appreciation of the challenges to the success of his peacekeeping mission coming from domestic opponents of Trump and from the European leaders. At one point he explains why the dominant narrative of the Biden administration and refusal to speak to the Russians was a case of lemmings heading for doom.
I was alerted this morning to the importance of the Witkoff interview by the Russia 24 News Channel, which broadcast a large segment of it with Russian voice over. It was immediately obvious that this is far more deserving of our attention than anything Carlson has produced till now. I place it well above Tucker’s vastly watched and vastly overrated interview with Vladimir Putin last year and his still earlier debut on the international stage when he interviewed Viktor Orban. In those interviews with foreign leaders, Tucker was out of his depth and was unable to mine the treasure before him. He allowed Putin to bore us all to death with a history lecture taking us all back to the Stone Age. With Witkoff, he is dealing with a fellow American and with the politics of Washington, all very familiar material for Carlson, who knows what to do with it and extracts valuable responses from his interviewee.
Today’s political news in the United States is headed by the leak to the editor of ‘The Atlantic’ magazine, Jeffrey Goldberg, of highly confidential plans for attacking the Houthis hours before the bombing raids were carried out. His name was inadvertently added to the distribution list by National Security Advisor Waltz and an unauthorized commercial messenger service was used for the chat. Commentary on CNN has pointed to Trump’s responsibility for such violations by his appointment of ‘amateurs’ to fill top level government positions. The appointment of the real estate developer friend of Trump, Steve Witkoff, to one of the most sensitive diplomatic tasks of our time would seem to be in line with that harsh criticism.
Needless to say, criticism of this sort is coming from the Democrats and their supporters in the media. I suggest that it shows ignorance of their own party’s past. After all, one of the most successful American diplomats in the 20th century was Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s personal emissary to Churchill and then to Stalin during the critical days of WWII: W. Averell Harriman.
True, Harriman performed these missions with the title of ‘ambassador.’ But he had no training whatsoever in diplomacy, never served in the State Department previously, and brought to the job native intelligence and high-level experience in business, namely in banking. Banking? Not working for Goldman Sachs or similar brokerages like the lightweights of our times, Emmanuel Macron or Rishi Sunak. No, Harriman was a founder of banks.
When critics of the ‘amateurism’ of Trump’s appointees say he should have appointed people with experience, they have in mind fellow members of The Atlantic Council or of the Council of Foreign Relations. Well, Trump had his fill of those deplorables in his first term when he appointed Pompeo and Bolton to top positions only to watch them sabotage his every foreign policy initiative.
Upon listening closely to Steve Witkoff in the Tucker Carlson interview, I conclude that no better choice could have been made to bring the Cold War to conclusion and usher in an age of détente.
*****
As I write, we are all awaiting the public read-out of the Kremlin on yesterday’s 12 hours of negotiations in Riyadh between Russian and American delegations. When this is released, I will give it a thorough reading and report back
Steve Witkoff als Abgesandter des Präsidenten: der Averell Harriman unserer Tage
In den letzten Tagen haben wir alle die O-Töne aus dem Interview von Tucker Carlson mit Steve Witkoff, dem persönlichen Abgesandten von Donald Trump in Moskau, gehört, die von den großen Medien ausgestrahlt wurden, hauptsächlich mit der Absicht, Witkoffs Urteilsvermögen in Zweifel zu ziehen und die Eignung dieses „Amateurs“ für eine so heikle diplomatische Mission in Frage zu stellen. Mehrere Sender implizieren direkt, dass Witkoff ein Sprecher des russischen Präsidenten Wladimir Putin sei. Schließlich haben wir in den O-Tönen gehört, wie Witkoff sagte, dass Putin sehr klug sei, dass nur die klügsten Leute für den KGB rekrutiert würden, dass Putin direkt und vertrauenswürdig sei und dass Putin und Trump beide „großartige Führungspersönlichkeiten“ seien. Im sehr russophoben Amerika reichen diese Aussagen aus, um direkt vom Fegefeuer in die Hölle zu kommen.
Was wir nicht gehört haben, ist der Rest der 89 Minuten des Carlson-Interviews, das vor drei Tagen auf dessen eigenem Internetkanal veröffentlicht wurde. Ich empfehle der Community von Herzen, genau das jetzt zu tun:
Was Sie dort finden werden, ist eine breite Palette an Denkansätzen und eine differenzierte Einschätzung der Herausforderungen für den Erfolg seiner Friedensmission, die von inländischen Gegnern Trumps und von den europäischen Staats- und Regierungschefs ausgehen. An einer Stelle erklärt er, warum das vorherrschende Narrativ der Biden-Regierung und die Weigerung, mit den Russen zu sprechen, ein Fall von Lemmingen war, die auf ihr Verderben zusteuern.
Ich wurde heute Morgen vom russischen Nachrichtensender Russia 24 auf die Bedeutung des Witkoff-Interviews aufmerksam gemacht, der einen großen Teil davon mit russischem Voice-Over ausgestrahlt hat. Es war sofort klar, dass dies unsere Aufmerksamkeit weit mehr verdient als alles, was Carlson bisher produziert hat. Ich stelle es weit über Tuckers viel beachtetes und weit überbewertetes Interview mit Wladimir Putin im vergangenen Jahr und sein noch früheres Debüt auf der internationalen Bühne, als er Viktor Orban interviewt hat. Bei diesen Interviews mit ausländischen Staats- und Regierungschefs war Tucker überfordert und konnte den Schatz vor ihm nicht heben. Er ließ zu, dass Putin uns alle mit einem Geschichtsvortrag zu Tode langweilte, der uns alle in die Steinzeit zurückversetzte. Mit Witkoff hat er es mit einem Landsmann und mit der Politik Washingtons zu tun, alles sehr vertrautes Material für Carlson, der weiß, was damit zu tun ist, und wertvolle Antworten von seinem Interviewpartner erhält.
Die heutigen politischen Nachrichten in den Vereinigten Staaten werden von der Weitergabe streng vertraulicher Angriffspläne gegen die Huthis an den Herausgeber des Magazins „The Atlantic“, Jeffrey Goldberg, angeführt, und zwar Stunden vor der Durchführung der Bombenangriffe. Sein Name wurde versehentlich vom Nationalen Sicherheitsberater Waltz in die Verteilerliste aufgenommen und für den Chat wurde ein nicht autorisierter kommerzieller Kurierdienst genutzt. Kommentatoren auf CNN haben auf Trumps Verantwortung für solche Verstöße hingewiesen, indem er „Amateure“ in hochrangige Regierungspositionen berief. Die Ernennung des mit Trump befreundeten Immobilienentwicklers Steve Witkoff für eine der heikelsten diplomatischen Aufgaben unserer Zeit scheint dieser scharfen Kritik zu entsprechen.
Es versteht sich von selbst, dass diese Art von Kritik von den Demokraten und ihren Unterstützern in den Medien kommt. Ich behaupte, dass dies von Unkenntnis der Vergangenheit ihrer eigenen Partei zeugt. Schließlich war einer der erfolgreichsten amerikanischen Diplomaten im 20. Jahrhundert Franklin Delano Roosevelts persönlicher Abgesandter bei Churchill und dann bei Stalin in den kritischen Tagen des Zweiten Weltkriegs: W. Averell Harriman.
Es stimmt, dass Harriman diese Missionen mit dem Titel „Botschafter“ durchführte. Aber er hatte keinerlei diplomatische Ausbildung, war nie zuvor im Außenministerium tätig und brachte für diese Aufgabe einheimische Intelligenz und hochrangige Erfahrung in der Wirtschaft, insbesondere im Bankwesen, mit. Bankwesen? Er arbeitete nicht etwa für Goldman Sachs oder ähnliche Brokerhäuser wie die Leichtgewichte unserer Zeit, Emmanuel Macron oder Rishi Sunak. Nein, Harriman war ein Gründer von Banken.
Wenn Kritiker des „Dilettantismus“ von Trumps Ernennungen sagen, er hätte Leute mit Erfahrung ernennen sollen, dann denken sie dabei an Kollegen vom Atlantic Council oder vom Council of Foreign Relations. Nun, Trump hatte in seiner ersten Amtszeit genug von diesen Bedauernswerten, als er Pompeo und Bolton in Spitzenpositionen berief, nur um zuzusehen, wie sie jede seiner außenpolitischen Initiativen sabotierten.
Nachdem ich Steve Witkoff im Tucker-Carlson-Interview aufmerksam zugehört habe, komme ich zu dem Schluss, dass es keine bessere Wahl hätte geben können, um den Kalten Krieg zu beenden und ein Zeitalter der Entspannung einzuleiten.
*****
Während ich dies schreibe, warten wir alle auf die öffentliche Stellungnahme des Kremls zu den gestrigen 12-stündigen Verhandlungen zwischen russischen und amerikanischen Delegationen in Riad. Sobald diese veröffentlicht wird, werde ich sie gründlich lesen und darüber berichten.
Occasionally, when I write some critical words about one or another leading personality in the alternative media, I get a Comment on my site or a direct email to me from someone who objects to anyone breaking solidarity in our ranks. ‘Tis proof that not only in mainstream do folks believe that there is strength in unity, even if the unity is behind dead wrong ideas.
Today I will put up an example of how and why we commentators can have honest disagreements over where the world is headed. There is plenty of room for differences of analysis and prognostication given the very limited information we have before us, as in the case of last week’s Putin-Trump telephone call. And there is the very important issue that many of us come from different professional backgrounds and have been trained in different methodologies.
The case in point is today’s ‘Judging Freedom’ program which hosted the widely respected former British diplomat and expert on Middle Eastern affairs Alastair Crooke.
I cite this show because it demonstrates the admirable feature of Judge Andrew Napolitano’s channel: to bring to the attention of his community of 530,000 subscribers respected authorities who set out views that sometimes are directly contradictory.
What Alastair says in this interview completely contradicts what I have been saying for the past several weeks about Donald Trump’s foreign policy and, in particular, how the possible rapprochement with Russia goes well beyond the noble mission of ending useless bloodshed in Ukraine. Rather it is the cornerstone to a wholly new (very old) foreign policy concept based on Great Powers sharing governance of the world. It is pure Realpolitik and takes us back to the Yalta agreements of 1945.
Alastair does not see any consistency in Trump’s foreign policy moves other than subservience to Israel’s national interests as defined by Benjamin Netanyahu. Donald Trump is preparing for an attack on Iran with intent to decapitate the country and prepare the political landscape of the Middle East for unchallenged rule by Zionist Israel. This is clear from the threats being directed at Teheran by Trump, by Waltz and others in the administration who give the country 2 months to give up all possibility of creating nuclear weapons, to give up its offensive missiles and to give up its foreign policy of an Axis of Resistance through proxies in the region, OR ELSE. To make clear the seriousness of the American intentions, says Alastair, the Pentagon has been practicing B-52 flights in the region.
Given the centrality of subjugation of Iran in Trump’s thinking, per Alastair Crooke, the outreach to Russia today only serves the purpose of drawing Moscow back from thoughts of assisting Iran should it come under attack.
*****
What I see in Alastair Crooke’s argument is proof positive that Donald Trump is succeeding in spreading confusion among all observers in order to keep his own hands free.
Alastair is, as I said, firstly an expert on the Middle East. Accordingly, his interpretation of the situation proceeds from that fact, whereas I am an expert on Russian affairs, and my insistence on the centrality of the rapprochement with Russia in Trump’s thinking may be said to proceed from my own professional bias.
However, I like to think that there are also some objective considerations that exist outside the biases of one or another analyst.
The question of whether Israel is the tail wagging the dog (USA) or whether Washington is wagging Israel has been debated by various panelists on the Judge Napolitano show over the past six months or more. In backing the former view, Alastaire Crooke is joined by the ‘heavyweight’ in the Realist camp, Professor John Mearsheimer, who has spent more than 20 years arguing that point. On my side, saying that Washington supports Israel because Israel is doing what Washington wants to see done in the Middle East, there is another ‘heavyweight,’ Colonel Larry Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Wilkerson knows a thing or two about the Middle East and about top policymakers in the circle of American presidents.
What neither side to this argument will question is the obvious fact that the Israeli Lobby has great influence on Congress. And this is precisely why I have been saying that Trump’s strong support for Israel even extending to enabling the renewal of genocide in Gaza and to allowing Jerusalem to believe that Washington is ready to pounce on Iran all serves the purpose of providing essential backing to Trump from that Israel Lobby. This backing is essential for Trump while he maneuvers to break entirely with the fundamental Russia, Russia, Russia policies of Cold War that have defined America’s role on the world stage for the past 80 years.
I also have several other reasons why I do not believe that Trump really intends to attack Iran. First, it is unforeseeable how Russia will react if Washington’s threats against Teheran move beyond words to action. As Alastair does mention, Iran is very important to Russia for its North-South logistical corridor. However, the reasons against an American move really lie elsewhere. There is China, which now gets 30% of its oil from Iran and which unlike the world at large is able to strike back at the United States if that supply is jeopardized by its planned attack on Teheran. And then the world at large comes into play insofar as any American action would result in Iran blocking the Straits of Hormuz, cutting off Arab oil to global markets and driving petroleum prices to new heights that gravely damage all economies, including the USA.
Who is right about Trump’s real intentions vis-à-vis Iran and Russia, Alastair or me? We will all know in several weeks, because the timeline that Trump has given both for resolution of relations with Iran and for resolution of relations with Russia come within that time frame.
***
Before closing, I wish to add a few notes about the Russian-American talks that have gone on in Riyadh today and about what Russia’s chattering classes have been saying about the latest developments in Europe.
It should be stressed that the talks in Saudi Arabia between U.S. and Russian working groups are focused on the extension of cease-fire terms to freedom of navigation in the Black Sea. The talks have gone on for many hours because the issues are thorny. Those in Ukraine, Britain, France and in the European Institutions who say that Vladimir Putin is stalling for time and is not serious about ending the war are engaging in vicious propaganda, nothing more.
The ‘nuances’ that Vladimir Putin mentioned when he responded to the U.S. calls for a cease-fire with a ‘Yes, but’ are indeed serious and require full agreement if the cease fire is to be real, if it is to be a stepping stone to conclusive peace negotiations and not just a Public Relations exercise to cover up the regrouping of Ukrainian forces on the ground and renewed arms shipments to Kiev by the Europeans. Without detailed work now, there would be widespread, unmonitored violations by the Ukrainian side, as we just saw in their destruction of the gas pipeline hub in Sudzha, Kursk oblast just after the Ukrainian evacuation of the town and after the prohibition on attacks against energy infrastructure had been agreed.
As for the talk shows, I call attention to the Sunday Evening with Vladimir Solovyov program yesterday during which the sole military expert present, a retired colonel who is a frequent visitor, explained the utter nonsense of Keir Starmer’s latest pronouncements about the robustness of British defenses and readiness to take on the Russians. Starmer had very quietly shifted the discussion from boots on the ground in Ukraine to sending air and sea support to the Ukrainians. Someone from their navy touted the capabilities of their Trident submarines which, he said, could deliver nuclear warheads to destroy 40 Russian cities.
As the Russian expert explained on air, the British have 4 Trident submarines, each carrying 16 missiles. In principle that would support their claims. BUT in practice, the British have been able to put only one of their submarines on active duty at any given time. Moreover, they do not have control of the missiles, which were U.S.-built and which require the approval of Washington to be fired, just as the F16s and other nuclear-capable aircraft on NATO bases in Europe require Washington’s agreement to carry and deliver the U.S. nuclear weapons that they store on their airbases.
In short, apart from France, which never put its nuclear force de frappe under NATO, Europe has been fully dependent on U.S. participation in any attack on Russia for it to go ahead. Under present conditions of Washington’s hoped-for rapprochement with Moscow, all of that materiel might just as well not exist.
Die Vorzüge von „Judging Freedom“ für diejenigen, die aufmerksam sind
Gelegentlich, wenn ich einige kritische Worte über die eine oder andere führende Persönlichkeit in den alternativen Medien schreibe, erhalte ich einen Kommentar auf meiner Website oder eine direkte E-Mail von jemandem, der es ablehnt, dass jemand die Solidarität in unseren Reihen bricht. Das ist ein Beweis dafür, dass nicht nur in der Mainstream-Gesellschaft die Menschen glauben, dass in der Einheit Stärke liegt, selbst wenn die Einheit hinter völlig falschen Ideen steht.
Heute möchte ich ein Beispiel dafür anführen, wie und warum wir Kommentatoren ehrliche Meinungsverschiedenheiten darüber haben können, in welche Richtung sich die Welt entwickelt. Angesichts der sehr begrenzten Informationen, die uns vorliegen, gibt es viel Raum für unterschiedliche Analysen und Prognosen, wie im Fall des Telefonats zwischen Putin und Trump in der vergangenen Woche. Und es gibt das sehr wichtige Thema, dass viele von uns aus unterschiedlichen beruflichen Hintergründen kommen und in unterschiedlichen Methoden ausgebildet wurden.
Ein gutes Beispiel dafür ist das heutige Programm „Judging Freedom“, in dem der weithin respektierte ehemalige britische Diplomat und Nahostexperte Alastair Crooke zu Gast war.
Ich führe diese Sendung an, weil sie die bewundernswerte Eigenschaft des Kanals von Judge Andrew Napolitano demonstriert: Er macht seine Community von 530.000 Abonnenten auf angesehene Autoritäten aufmerksam, die Ansichten vertreten, die manchmal direkt widersprüchlich sind.
Was Alastair in diesem Interview sagt, steht in völligem Widerspruch zu dem, was ich in den letzten Wochen über die Außenpolitik von Donald Trump gesagt habe, und insbesondere dazu, dass die mögliche Annäherung an Russland weit über die hehre Mission hinausgeht, das sinnlose Blutvergießen in der Ukraine zu beenden. Vielmehr ist sie der Grundstein für ein völlig neues (sehr altes) außenpolitisches Konzept, das auf der gemeinsamen Weltordnungspolitik der Großmächte basiert. Es ist reine Realpolitik und führt uns zurück zu den Vereinbarungen von Jalta aus dem Jahr 1945.
Alastair sieht in Trumps außenpolitischen Schritten keine andere Konsequenz als die Unterordnung unter die von Benjamin Netanjahu definierten nationalen Interessen Israels. Donald Trump bereite einen Angriff auf den Iran vor, mit der Absicht, das Land zu enthaupten und die politische Landschaft des Nahen Ostens auf eine unangefochtene Herrschaft des zionistischen Israels vorzubereiten. Dies gehe aus den Drohungen hervor, die Trump, Waltz und andere in der Regierung gegen Teheran richten und die dem Land zwei Monate Zeit geben, um jede Möglichkeit der Herstellung von Atomwaffen aufzugeben, seine Offensivraketen aufzugeben und seine Außenpolitik einer Achse des Widerstands durch Stellvertreter in der Region aufzugeben, SONST. Um die Ernsthaftigkeit der amerikanischen Absichten zu verdeutlichen, so Alastair, hat das Pentagon B-52-Flüge in der Region durchgeführt.
Da die Unterwerfung des Iran in Trumps Denken eine zentrale Rolle spiele, diene die Kontaktaufnahme mit Russland heute laut Alastair Crooke nur dem Zweck, Moskau von dem Gedanken abzubringen, dem Iran im Falle eines Angriffs beizustehen.
*****
Was ich in Alastair Crookes Argumentation sehe, ist der eindeutige Beweis dafür, dass es Donald Trump gelingt, bei allen Beobachtern Verwirrung zu stiften, um seine eigenen Hände frei zu halten.
Alastair ist, wie gesagt, in erster Linie ein Experte für den Nahen Osten. Dementsprechend geht seine Interpretation der Situation von dieser Tatsache aus, während ich ein Experte für russische Angelegenheiten bin, und mein Beharren auf der zentralen Bedeutung der Annäherung an Russland in Trumps Denken könnte man als Ergebnis meiner eigenen beruflichen Voreingenommenheit bezeichnen.
Ich gehe jedoch gerne davon aus, dass es auch einige objektive Überlegungen gibt, die außerhalb der Vorurteile des einen oder anderen Analysten existieren.
Die Frage, ob Israel der Schwanz ist, der mit dem Hund (USA) wedelt, oder ob Washington mit Israel wedelt, wurde in den letzten sechs Monaten oder länger von verschiedenen Diskussionsteilnehmern in der Sendung „Judge Napolitano“ diskutiert. Alastaire Crooke vertritt die erstgenannte Ansicht und wird dabei vom Schwergewicht im Lager der Realisten, Professor John Mearsheimer, unterstützt, der diesen Standpunkt seit mehr als 20 Jahren vertritt. Auf meiner Seite, die besagt, dass Washington Israel unterstützt, weil Israel im Nahen Osten das tut, was Washington sehen will, steht ein weiteres Schwergewicht, Colonel Larry Wilkerson, ehemaliger Stabschef des Außenministers Colin Powell, und Wilkerson weiß einiges über den Nahen Osten und über die wichtigsten Entscheidungsträger im Kreis der amerikanischen Präsidenten.
Was keine der beiden Seiten dieses Streits in Frage stellen wird, ist die offensichtliche Tatsache, dass die Israel-Lobby großen Einfluss auf den US-Kongress hat. Und genau deshalb sage ich, dass Trumps starke Unterstützung für Israel, die sogar so weit geht, dass er die Erneuerung des Völkermords in Gaza ermöglicht und Jerusalem glauben lässt, dass Washington bereit sei, sich auf den Iran zu stürzen, dem Zweck dient, Trump die notwendige Rückendeckung durch diese Israel-Lobby zu verschaffen. Diese Unterstützung ist für Trump von entscheidender Bedeutung, während er versucht, mit der grundlegenden Russland-Russland-Russland-Politik des Kalten Krieges zu brechen, die die Rolle Amerikas auf der Weltbühne in den letzten 80 Jahren bestimmt hat.
Ich habe auch noch mehrere andere Gründe, warum ich nicht glaube, dass Trump wirklich beabsichtigt, den Iran anzugreifen. Erstens ist nicht abzusehen, wie Russland reagieren wird, wenn die Drohungen Washingtons gegen Teheran über Worte hinaus in Taten umgesetzt werden. Wie Alastair bereits erwähnt hat, ist der Iran für Russland aufgrund seines logistischen Nord-Süd-Korridors von großer Bedeutung. Die Gründe, die gegen einen amerikanischen Angriff sprechen, liegen jedoch woanders. Da ist China, das derzeit 30 % seines Öls aus dem Iran bezieht und im Gegensatz zur restlichen Welt in der Lage ist, den Vereinigten Staaten einen Gegenschlag zu versetzen, wenn diese Versorgung durch den geplanten Angriff auf Teheran gefährdet wird. Und dann kommt die Welt im Allgemeinen ins Spiel, da jede amerikanische Aktion dazu führen würde, dass der Iran die Straße von Hormus blockiert, das arabische Öl von den Weltmärkten abschneidet und die Erdölpreise in neue Höhen treibt, was allen Volkswirtschaften, einschließlich der USA, schweren Schaden zufügen würde.
Wer hat Recht, was Trumps wahre Absichten gegenüber dem Iran und Russland angeht, Alastair oder ich? In einigen Wochen werden wir es alle wissen, denn die Zeitachse, die Trump sowohl für die Lösung der Beziehungen zum Iran als auch für die Lösung der Beziehungen zu Russland vorgegeben hat, liegt in diesem Zeitrahmen.
***
Bevor ich zum Schluss komme, möchte ich noch ein paar Anmerkungen zu den russisch-amerikanischen Gesprächen machen, die heute in Riad stattgefunden haben, und dazu, was die russische Klatschpresse über die jüngsten Entwicklungen in Europa gesagt hat.
Es sollte betont werden, dass sich die Gespräche in Saudi-Arabien zwischen den Arbeitsgruppen der USA und Russlands auf die Ausweitung der Waffenstillstandsbedingungen auf die Freiheit der Schifffahrt im Schwarzen Meer konzentrieren. Die Gespräche haben viele Stunden gedauert, weil die Themen heikel sind. Diejenigen in der Ukraine, in Großbritannien, Frankreich und in den europäischen Institutionen, die sagen, dass Wladimir Putin auf Zeit spielt und es ihm nicht ernst ist mit der Beendigung des Krieges, betreiben bösartige Propaganda, mehr nicht.
Die „Nuancen“, die Wladimir Putin erwähnte, als er auf die US-Forderung nach einem Waffenstillstand mit einem „Ja, aber“ geantwortet hat, sind in der Tat ernst zu nehmen und erfordern eine vollständige Einigung, wenn der Waffenstillstand echt sein soll, wenn er ein Sprungbrett für abschließende Friedensverhandlungen sein soll und nicht nur eine PR-Übung, um die Umgruppierung der ukrainischen Streitkräfte vor Ort und erneute Waffenlieferungen der Europäer an Kiew zu vertuschen. Ohne eine detaillierte Arbeit jetzt würde es zu weit verbreiteten, unkontrollierten Verstößen durch die ukrainische Seite kommen, wie wir gerade bei der Zerstörung des Gaspipeline-Knotens in Sudzha, Oblast Kursk, gesehen haben, kurz nachdem die ukrainische Seite die Stadt evakuiert hatte und nachdem das Verbot von Angriffen auf die Energieinfrastruktur vereinbart worden war.
Was die Talkshows betrifft, möchte ich auf die Sendung „Sonntag Abend mit Vladimir Solovyov“ von gestern hinweisen, in der der einzige anwesende Militärexperte, ein pensionierter Oberst, der häufig zu Gast ist, den völligen Unsinn von Keir Starmer’s jüngsten Äußerungen über die Robustheit der britischen Verteidigung und die Bereitschaft, es mit den Russen aufzunehmen, erklärte. Starmer hatte die Diskussion ganz leise von Bodentruppen in der Ukraine auf die Entsendung von Luft- und Seeunterstützung für die Ukrainer verlagert. Jemand von ihrer Marine pries die Fähigkeiten ihrer Trident-U-Boote an, die, wie er sagte, Atomsprengköpfe abfeuern könnten, um 40 russische Städte zu zerstören.
Wie der russische Experte im Radio erklärte, verfügen die Briten über 4 Trident-U-Boote, die jeweils 16 Raketen tragen. Im Prinzip würde das ihre Behauptungen stützen. ABER in der Praxis waren die Briten bisher nur in der Lage, jeweils eines ihrer U-Boote in den aktiven Dienst zu stellen. Außerdem haben sie keine Kontrolle über die Raketen, die in den USA gebaut wurden und für deren Abschuss die Zustimmung Washingtons erforderlich ist, ebenso wie die F-16 und andere nuklearfähige Flugzeuge auf NATO-Stützpunkten in Europa die Zustimmung Washingtons benötigen, um die auf ihren Luftwaffenstützpunkten gelagerten US-Atomwaffen zu transportieren und auszuliefern.
Kurz gesagt, abgesehen von Frankreich, das seine nukleare Force de frappe nie der NATO unterstellt hat, ist Europa bei jedem Angriff auf Russland vollständig von der Beteiligung der USA abhängig, damit dieser stattfinden kann. Unter den gegenwärtigen Bedingungen der von Washington erhofften Annäherung an Moskau könnte all dieses Material genauso gut nicht existieren.
‘Looking back at what I and others have been saying in recent weeks about Donald Trump’s outreach to President Putin to find common ground to end the Ukraine war sooner rather than later, I see that I/we have used the term ‘reset’ to describe what Trump is doing without ever taking the time to explain ‘reset’ itself.
If ‘reset’ seems to you to be a self-evident concept, think again. I just looked up in Wikipedia the ‘Russian reset’ that was attempted already in 2009 – 2010 by the Barack Obama administration and I was astonished to find that this widely accepted encyclopedia of our day gets it all wrong.
They open with ‘Symbolic reset’ and remind us about the humorous and telling incident at the very start of what looked like an Obama peace initiative when then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presented to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov a ‘reset button’ for them both to press. Thanks to sloppy work by Hillary’s assistants, the Russian text on the button stood for ‘overload’ (перегрузка) rather than the intended ‘reset’ (перезагрузка).
Wikipedia then moves on to what they call the ‘Substantive reset’ which in their view comes down to improving the public rhetoric, making it more respectful than it had been in the bitter last year of the Bush administration in the aftermath of the Russian-Georgian war. What they miss entirely by distracting us with Public Relations gestures is the true and only substantive content of Obama’s reset: preparing the way for Senate approval of the New START treaty limiting the strategic weapons arsenals of both countries, namely the numbers of ICBMs. warheads, launchers, etc. When that objective was realized, the reset was finished and the business of Russia-bashing resumed at full speed, leading to Obama’s disparagement of Russia as a ‘regional power’ and to Senator McCain’s characterization of Russia as a ‘gas station masquerading as a country.’
Everything apart from the New START treaty itself was just for show, for atmospherics, because Obama & Company had no interest in improved relations with Russia, no interest in hearing what the Russians wanted or expected from their relationship. Washington only pursued what the USA wanted, namely a treaty putting a cap on the arms race.
This was so, because foreign policy under Obama was, just as it had been under every president, with one possible exception, going back to the Ford administration, led by ideologues who in one way or another were bonded with what we now call neo-Conservatism and/or neo-Liberalism. Up to the fall of the USSR, they were believers in America’s mission to head the ‘Free World.’ After the fall of the USSR, they were believers in America’s mission to govern the whole world, to be the global hegemon.
The possible exception I have in mind is Ronald Reagan, who allowed himself at times to be led by human emotions rather than cant, and who genuinely wanted a peace, even a nuclear free peace, with Gorbachev’s Russia not an armed stand-off. What his cabinet stood for, is another story and gave us, under Reagan’s successor, Bush Sr. the treacherous betrayal of the peace Reagan had hoped for.
Note: I took this sad story back as far as Gerald Ford. However, the preceding presidency was an entirely different case. Richard Nixon was the one and only Realist president in American history in the second half of the 20th century. His direct successor in that sense today is…Donald J. Trump.
When Richard Nixon spoke about what we today call ‘reset’ it was called ‘détente’ and it embraced all possible state-to-state, business-to-business and people-to-people relations. What Trump has in mind is an updated version of détente, embracing all issues that are of mutual interest to the United States and Russia. ALL ISSUES.
In my latest essays on the Trump-Putin phone call, I used ‘educated speculation’ to fill in the missing content, the content that is rightly being withheld from us because it is very delicate and must be discussed behind closed doors only. My best guess has been that the Russians have been heartened and have assumed a relationship of trust with Donald Trump because he shared with Putin his vision of all the directions in which a cooperative U.S. – Russian relationship may go. The only concrete indication that this was so came when President Trump said they had discussed among other things the Middle East. The Middle East? What connection does that have with the Ukraine war? There is no direct connection other than Trump’s obvious hope that the Russians can be useful to American diplomacy in that region in selected geography, such as in Syria. But it is indicative of the likely far-reaching discussions they held in two hours and twenty-eight minutes.
It is curious, of course, that Donald Trump’s usual point of reference in Republican hagiography is Ronald Reagan. But by his actions at present, I believe it is more relevant to say he is modeling himself on Richard Nixon, the greatest Realist in his party’s history.
„Neustart“ in den Beziehungen zu Russland: Worüber reden wir eigentlich?
Wenn ich mir ansehe, was ich und andere in den letzten Wochen über Donald Trumps Versuch gesagt haben, mit Präsident Putin eine gemeinsame Basis zu finden, um den Ukraine-Krieg eher früher als später zu beenden, dann stelle ich fest, dass ich/wir den Begriff „Neustart“ („reset“) verwendet haben, um zu beschreiben, was Trump tut, ohne uns jemals die Zeit zu nehmen, „Neustart“ selbst zu erklären.
Wenn Ihnen „Neustart“ ein selbstverständlicher Begriff zu sein scheint, dann sollten Sie noch einmal darüber nachdenken. Ich habe gerade in Wikipedia nachgeschlagen, was es mit dem „russischen Neustart“ auf sich hat, der bereits 2009–2010 von der Regierung Barack Obamas versucht wurde, und war erstaunt, dass diese weit verbreitete Enzyklopädie unserer Zeit alles falsch versteht.
Sie beginnen mit „Symbolischer Neustart“ und erinnern uns an den humorvollen und aufschlussreichen Vorfall ganz am Anfang einer scheinbaren Friedensinitiative Obamas, als die damalige Außenministerin Hillary Clinton dem russischen Außenminister Sergej Lawrow einen „Reset-Knopf“ überreichte, den beide drücken sollten. Aufgrund der schlampigen Arbeit von Hillarys Assistenten stand der russische Text auf dem Knopf für „Überlastung“ (перегрузка) und nicht für das beabsichtigte „Zurücksetzen“ (перезагрузка).
Wikipedia geht dann auf das ein, was sie den „substanziellen Neustart“ nennen, der ihrer Ansicht nach darauf hinausläuft, die öffentliche Rhetorik zu verbessern und sie respektvoller zu gestalten als im bitteren letzten Jahr der Bush-Regierung nach dem russisch-georgischen Krieg. Was sie völlig übersehen, indem sie uns mit PR-Gesten ablenken, ist der wahre und einzige wesentliche Inhalt von Obamas Neustart: den Weg für die Zustimmung des Senats zum New START-Vertrag zu ebnen, der die strategischen Waffenarsenale beider Länder, nämlich die Anzahl der Interkontinentalraketen, Sprengköpfe, Abschussvorrichtungen usw., begrenzt. Als dieses Ziel erreicht war, war der Neustart abgeschlossen und das Russland-Bashing ging mit voller Kraft weiter, was dazu führte, dass Obama Russland als „Regionalmacht“ herabstufte und Senator McCain Russland als „Tankstelle, die sich als Land ausgibt“ bezeichnete.
Alles außer dem New-START-Vertrag selbst war nur Show, nur für die Atmosphäre, denn Obama & Co. hatten kein Interesse an verbesserten Beziehungen zu Russland, kein Interesse daran, zu hören, was die Russen wollten oder von ihrer Beziehung erwarteten. Washington verfolgte nur das, was die USA wollten, nämlich einen Vertrag, der dem Wettrüsten ein Ende setzt.
Der Grund dafür war, dass die Außenpolitik unter Obama, wie unter jedem Präsidenten, mit einer möglichen Ausnahme, die bis zur Ford-Regierung zurückreicht, von Ideologen geleitet wurde, die auf die eine oder andere Weise mit dem verbunden waren, was wir heute Neokonservatismus und/oder Neoliberalismus nennen. Bis zum Fall der UdSSR glaubten sie an die Mission Amerikas, die „Freie Welt“ anzuführen. Nach dem Fall der UdSSR glaubten sie an die Mission Amerikas, die ganze Welt zu regieren und der globale Hegemon zu sein.
Die einzige Ausnahme, an die ich dabei denke, ist Ronald Reagan, der sich manchmal von menschlichen Gefühlen leiten ließ und nicht von Heuchelei, und der wirklich einen Frieden wollte, sogar einen atomwaffenfreien Frieden mit Gorbatschows Russland, und keine bewaffnete Konfrontation. Was sein Kabinett vertrat, ist eine andere Geschichte und führte unter Reagans Nachfolger, Bush Sr., zu dem verräterischen Verrat an dem Frieden, den Reagan sich erhofft hatte.
Anmerkung: Diese traurige Geschichte reicht bis zu Gerald Ford zurück. Die Präsidentschaft davor war jedoch ein ganz anderer Fall. Richard Nixon war der einzige Realist unter den Präsidenten in der amerikanischen Geschichte in der zweiten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts. Sein direkter Nachfolger in diesem Sinne ist heute … Donald J. Trump.
Als Richard Nixon von dem sprach, was wir heute als „Neustart“ bezeichnen, nannte man das damals „Entspannungspolitik“, und sie umfasste alle möglichen Beziehungen zwischen Staaten, Unternehmen und Menschen. Trump hat eine modernisierte Version der Entspannungspolitik im Sinn, die alle Themen umfasst, die für die Vereinigten Staaten und Russland von gegenseitigem Interesse sind. ALLE THEMEN.
In meinen jüngsten Essays über das Telefonat zwischen Trump und Putin habe ich „fundierte Spekulationen“ angestellt, um die fehlenden Inhalte zu ergänzen, die uns zu Recht vorenthalten werden, weil sie sehr heikel sind und nur hinter verschlossenen Türen diskutiert werden dürfen. Ich vermute, dass die Russen ermutigt wurden und ein Vertrauensverhältnis zu Donald Trump aufgebaut haben, weil er Putin seine Vision davon mitgeteilt hat, in welche Richtungen eine kooperative Beziehung zwischen den USA und Russland gehen könnte. Der einzige konkrete Hinweis darauf, dass dies der Fall war, kam, als Präsident Trump sagte, sie hätten unter anderem über den Nahen Osten gesprochen. Der Nahe Osten? Welche Verbindung besteht zwischen dem Nahen Osten und dem Ukraine-Krieg? Es gibt keine direkte Verbindung, außer Trumps offensichtlicher Hoffnung, dass die Russen der amerikanischen Diplomatie in dieser Region in ausgewählten Gebieten, wie z.B. in Syrien, nützlich sein könnten. Aber es ist ein Hinweis auf die wahrscheinlich weitreichenden Diskussionen, die sie in zwei Stunden und achtundzwanzig Minuten geführt haben.
Es ist natürlich merkwürdig, dass Donald Trumps üblicher Bezugspunkt in der republikanischen Hagiographie Ronald Reagan ist. Aber aufgrund seiner derzeitigen Handlungen glaube ich, dass es relevanter ist zu sagen, dass er sich an Richard Nixon orientiert, dem größten Realisten in der Geschichte seiner Partei.
NewsX: 0:05 Welcome back. You are watching NewsX. My name is Vineet Malhotra. Well, Ukraine and Russia have in fact agreed to a ceasefire and this is something which, not an actual ceasefire, but this is something that has been worked upon for a very, very long time. And in that sense, both the countries have also listened to the United States.
They have tried to make their stakeholders understand that these attacks need to be paused on the energy infrastructure. And this obviously happened after a call between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky. This was after Trump held similar conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, but [it] stopped short of a US proposal for a temporary truce. After a roughly hour-long call with Trump, both leaders said that it went well. Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky said that, and I quote, “technical talks in Saudi Arabia, this weekend would seek to resolve what types of infrastructure would be protected under the agreement”. During their call, Trump suggested that Zelensky should consider giving the US ownership of Ukraine’s power plants to ensure their long-term security.
1:30 A ceasefire for energy targets would not only benefit Ukraine, which has struggled for years with Russia’s repeated attacks on its energy grid. It would also come as a relief to the Kremlin. Ukraine has conducted extensive strikes on oil and gas facilities deep into the Russian heartland, jeopardizing Moscow’s most crucial stream of state revenue.
Meanwhile, Russia and Ukraine have exchanged 372 soldiers in a prison swap brokered by the United Arab Emirates. A new shipment of western F-16 fighter jets has arrived in Ukraine also is what we are learning. And the Ukrainian president Zelensky stated that several F-16s had arrived but did not reveal the exact number of jets that were delivered.
We will talk about this with our guest joining us on the show is Mr. Prabhu Dayal, former diplomat. Also joining us on the show is Gilbert Doctorow, Russian affairs expert. Ruslan Bortnik, director of Ukrainian Institute of Politics also joins us on the program. And last but by no means the least Mr. Robinder Sachdev, foreign affairs expert with us on the program as well. Thank you gentlemen for being a part of this conversation.
Mr. Dayal, I will begin with you sir. So what do you make of this? You know in fact what the feeling so far is that this seems to be a good start, this seems to be the beginning of the end of the war, but both the sides have recklessly accused each other of not honoring any hint of ceasefire which was agreed upon in the past as well. How can the world be confident because obviously consequently the world has also suffered as a result of this war sir. How can the world be confident that this is not mere posturing?
Dayal: 3:16 Well, first of all thanks for having me in your show. As you rightly said it’s a good development because if we can move towards peace, then I think the whole world will heave a sigh of relief. And the government of India has been very supportive of all efforts made towards securing peace. And in fact, Prime Minister Modi has very clearly said it’s not the era of war.
Now, as regards the present status of the talks, let me mention that from what I have read in the media, the three parties, that is the United States, Ukraine, and Russia, have slightly different views about what the understanding entails. The White House has said that energy and infrastructure would be covered. That means they would not be attacked. The Kremlin has said that the agreement referred to only the infrastructure, the energy infrastructure. That is to say the rest of the infrastructure is not covered by the understanding.
4:28 And of course, Zelensky is insisting that not only does it cover the energy infrastructure but [things] like railways and ports to be protected. So there is presently a lack of clear understanding, but then there are technical talks which are supposed to be held in Saudi Arabia this weekend, and I hope that these talks would be a step forward in resolving this matter and working out what types of infrastructure would be protected under the agreement.
NewsX: 5:02 Mr. Bortnik, what are your impressions of this effort also that America seems to be making? More than Vladimir Putin or Volodymyr Zelensky, it’s Donald Trump who seems to be showing a lot of alacrity, a lot of aspirations when it comes to this peace between these two countries.
Bortnik: Hello colleagues. Because United States want to be a leader in this moment in peacemaking in Ukraine. And of course, Donald Trump wants to look much better in contrary with the previous American administration, which spent a lot of money on Ukrainian-Russian war and hasn’t achieved any significant result for this mock. But I want to share some of my thoughts about this possible truce, because it’s not easy. For me, it looks like the all sides are trying to resolve one main problem, lack of trust between the sides. So this step-by-step truce, this model, which was proposed for the first time by the president of France, Emmanuel Macron, or the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, a few weeks ago, even before Ukrainian-United States negotiation in Jedda, this model, it’s an attempt to find this trust by small parts, through the small parts.
6:34 But also it will take a lot of time, because this step-by-step approach will take a lot of time to find the final solution, to find even the ceasefire in the end. And during this time, there are significant risks of a war in this negotiation process and worsening relations between the sides, especially between the United States and Russia. And this may be a goal of some powers in this process also.
NewsX: 7:07 Okay, all right. You’ve made a valid point. Let me also open Mr. Gilbert into this conversation. Mr. Gilbert, How are you looking at this initiative? It’s obviously a good sign, but nothing compares to the idea and the feeling of absolute peace between these two nations. Is that affordable? Is that possible in the next few weeks, months, maybe not years?
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: I would put it in the time horizon of months. There are a lot of technical issues at every stage of amelioration of the ceasefire until it becomes something that is broad and comprehensive and understandable to the public.
7:51 But I’d like to put this in the context. When Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin spent two hours and 28 minutes several days ago on their telephone call, you can be certain that the specifics of the ceasefire, temporary, or otherwise, were only a tiny portion of the time they spent. I believe that most of the time they spent was on what the future American-Russian relations will look like in the context of solving the Ukrainian crisis. The Ukrainian crisis is a subset of the general security crisis in Europe and in the world at large.
Mr. Trump is often denounced as an isolationist. I believe that’s an entirely wrong reading of the man. He is denounced as a businessman who is only interested in transactions. That is also an artificial and wrong understanding of the man.
8:45 He and his team have a vision for reordering the world order based on something like Yalta 2. That’s to say, large powers, and India is one of them, India, Russia, the United States, China, as being the major occupants of seats at the governing board of the world. And the alliances that the United States relied upon to control large parts of the Earth will no longer have any relevance. This takes a lot of work, and it is in direct opposition to Europe. I see now a reconstruction of World War II between the Axis powers and the Allied powers.
The Allied powers, two of the Allied powers in World War II, were the United States and Russia. The Axis powers today are Germany, Britain, and France. That is to say, I believe that the nature of discussion between Trump and Putin was about how to counter the attempts at sabotage of the peace in Ukraine that are now being raised by Mr. Merz, by Macron, by Starmer and by von der Leyen in Europe.
NewsX: 10:00 Mr. Sachdev, what are your thoughts on what’s happening at this point in time? According to Mr. Zelensky, he does not trust Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin feels that regardless of what Mr. Zelensky is going to say, his ambitions and aspirations to be a part of NATO [are] also responsible for what we have seen in the last couple of years.
Sachdev: 10:25 Thank you so much. A pleasure to be with you and the distinguished panel. Probably in terms of, let’s pick one by one, let’s say. Let’s look at first the so-called 30-day ceasefire which is being talked about; and then there is a overall peace in the long term which is being talked about. I would think that even this ceasefire, the 30-day ceasefire does not seem, I mean it should happen I would think, it would happen, could happen. But it’s not going to be an easy path, even this 30-day ceasefire.
10:59 We’ve seen the conditions which Russia is putting even for this 30-day ceasefire: no weapons from the West or US or Europe to Ukraine, no intelligence sharing, no recruiting or mobilization of troops by Ukraine; and then the matter of even this 30-day ceasefire being monitored etc. So even this 30-day to my mind is a challenge, and then of course we’ll come to the longer-term issues like NATO and security guarantees for Ukraine and all.
But stepping back into the immediate I think as one of the colleagues I think Ruslan mentioned or others, I see this also as a piece by piece approach, not the peace that is absence of conflict, but a piece by piece, a bit by bit approach by Trump. First, and by the way, this I think approach in a way has been seeded by Zelensky himself. Last year in October when Zelensky came out with I think a five point victory plan which the West and NATO were asking him, okay, what would you do?
11:58 He laid out a five-point plan in which the fifth point or one of the points was that you know West and your American companies can come and invest in Ukrainian you know resources assets etc and thereby they can get the you know resources as well as it would ensure the security of that particular mine or plant etc., right. I think the seed started there. When Trump came to power, I think he seized upon it or he focused on it and found it a very practical approach for him himself.
So one, you have the mineral deal. Now we do not know the details of the mineral deal but in the mineral deal the idea is that you know American companies would invest and you know get the production running maybe and once they get the production running at least those mineral assets would be secured from attacks by Russia that’s one, right.
12:47 Now second, Trump is saying energy of course yes there was this there’s this huge gap. I mean, the White House says energy and infrastructure. Russia was saying only energy, whatever it be, even if it’s energy plants. Right. It would mean, okay, American, you know, investors or whatever, they come in and the energy plants of Ukraine are protected from attacks so this is going bit by bit to prevent attacks in certain segments, but this does not mean a ceasefire.
Okay or it would not mean a ceasefire to my point because a ceasefire is I mean the soldiers are fighting in the trenches okay maybe the next point in this would be no drone attacks by either party. Okay Russia and by the way it has to be reciprocal right, even if no energy attacks on energy infrastructure then I mean Ukraine is agreed, Russia has agreed. So maybe that’s agreed, right? No attacks on energy infrastructure, power plants and all, and the nuclear plants, MPPs, et cetera.
13:41 But on the other hand, the conflict is ongoing. I mean in the trenches, in the grounds, I mean tanks are rolling, armored columns are rolling, individual soldiers are backing and forthing etc. So even this 30-day conflict cessation or a pause, definitely looks very complicated to me. But yes, what would happen, what could happen, Putin will push back to the point that he can still retain the goodwill of Trump and not irritate Trump, and not hurt the ego of Trump.
So Putin will bit by bit, step by step, yes, give some concessions. Like in this first Putin-Trump call, you know, we do not know the exact details. It was a two-hour call. I mean, we only know the, you know, bits and bytes which came out through the official releases. They must have discussed n number of things and here, yes, I would understand what Mr. Doctorow, Gilbert is saying, that the bigger game that Russia is playing Russia wants to subsume lower the gravity and the context of the Ukraine conflict and is positioning it as, itself as a repair or back to tracks of America-Russia relations
15:03 So therefore if you see amongst the first breakthroughs in Saudi Arabia and all was that okay both countries will open up their missions in each other countries’ embassies right.
So Russia is looking at that, and then yes of course Ukraine. I mean Russia is trying to minimize the “importance” quote unquote if you may say of the Ukraine conflict in the global theater or in the global eye.
NewsX: OK. All right, let’s see if you know Mr. Prabhu Dayal also feels this way. Mr. Dayal, do you think this is you know a very curated outlook by Russia that they do not want Ukraine to be taken seriously? They are trivializing a lot of aspects. It is a good pointer that Mr. Sachdev has brought out.
Dayal: 15:44 Well, Mr. Sachdev is right. You see, when these two countries, Russia and Ukraine, have been warring it out for so long, bridging the gaps in their positions is a very uphill task. Full credit to President Trump that he is trying to end the Russia-Ukraine war as well as the Israel-Hamas war, but both these are proving more challenging than perhaps he had identified at the beginning.
Now coming back to the Russia-Ukraine issue and the talks that were held between President Trump and Zelensky on one side and President Trump and President Putin on the other side. You know, Putin made it clear to Trump that there must be a cessation of foreign military aid and intelligence sharing as part of any deal. But according to what the White House press secretary Karoline Leaviit said afterwards, the US intelligence sharing in defense of, in terms of defense for Ukraine would continue.
17:02 So while the Russians are saying that there would be a cessation of military aid and intelligence sharing, the Americans are saying that the intelligence sharing would continue. So there are various issues on which there are still big gaps. Both I and Mr. Robindra Sachdev mentioned that there is this very big gap between what the three sides are saying regarding infrastructure. And as we both pointed out what the White House is saying that energy and infrastructure would be covered. Kremlin is saying that the agreement referred more narrowly to energy infrastructure, not energy and infrastructure.
17:54 And Zelensky is of course widening the whole idea and saying that not just energy infrastructure, but railways and ports would also be protected. So there are big gaps, but as I said in my first intervention, hopefully the talks which will be held and in which the three sides will be taking part. I don’t know whether all three will sit together at the table or whether the Americans will be talking separately with the Russians and the Ukrainians, but nonetheless I expect some forward movement in these talks which will be held this weekend in Saudi Arabia.
NewsX: 18:28 Mr. Bortnik, are you positive about these talks converting into a affirmative and positive systematic, you know, stop or rather slowing down of this war?
Bortnik: 18:44 You know, colleagues, I still have a lot of doubts about the future or the ending of the war in Ukraine, because we, now we are far away even from this full ceasefire. And moreover, even the ceasefire, it’s not enough to stop the war, because Ukraine and Russia had a ceasefire between 2014 and 2022, few ceasefires even. And it hasn’t avoided us to the full-scale war game. So it’s not enough even to make ceasefire, all fragments ceasefire. We need to find a solution about the new geopolitical balance, the geoconomical balance around Ukraine.
In other case, the war will be again, will be back again in Ukraine. In some times after that, in the end of the presidential term of Trump or in the beginning of the potential company in Russia. But it will be a question of maximum few years and war will happen again. We need to rebuild and restore the geopolitical and geoeconomical balance in Ukraine if we’re willing to achieve the stable long-term peace.
20:06 Talking about Jedda, I’m almost sure that Ukraine and Russia will accept that partial agreement on the ceasefire or immunity toward the energy infrastructure because all the sides, Ukraine, Russia, United States are willing to continue this diplomatic play, this diplomatic game. It’s very useful. It looks very nice from the public opinion inside all the countries. But we are still far away from the real peace.
NewsX: 20:46 Okay, we are almost out of time. I am going to ask Gilbert to give us concluding thoughts, and then we will wrap up. Gilbert.
Doctorow: I agree substantially with what the previous speaker just said. I would like to emphasize that the ceasefire is not an objective by itself. The ceasefire is a part of a trust-building exercise for the purpose of the final result, which is a lasting, durable piece that all sides agree to. I think that is within reach.
That is not necessarily going to happen, but it is at this moment within reach. And I think that some of the talks, which are behind closed doors, as they well should be, are presently about the contours of the final settlement, which are being discussed in parallel with the specifics, the technicalities of the ceasefire. That is all to the good. We can only wish this venture well because it is very important for world peace, and of course for the lives of all the people on the ground in the region.
NewsX: All right. I appreciate everybody who joined us. Thank you so much for these important perspectives.
21:55 We’ll take a short break; we’ll be right back.
NewsX: 0:01 Russian authorities have reported a massive Ukrainian drone attack on the Engels Air Base in Saratov Oblast, with Russia’s defence ministry claiming to have downed 54 drones over the area. Windows were also blown out at a nearby hospital where one woman was injured, as well as two kindergartens and a school. The Ukrainian military general staff claimed responsibility for the attack in a social media post, saying the operation was a collaboration with the Security Service of Ukraine and the country’s Special Operations Forces. Engels, situated more than 465 miles from the Ukrainian border, is a major strategic bomber base from which Russian aircrafts have launched long-range missile strikes through the three-year-old war. It has been attacked several times by Ukraine, most recently in January.
0:42 Joining us now is Gilbert Doctorow, international relations and Russian affairs expert. Thank you very much for being with us on NewsX. How do you view this latest offensive in the Russian-Ukraine conflict?
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: The war isn’t over until it’s over. The agreements that have been reached between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, are for only a partial ceasefire, which at this given moment is said to exclude attacks on oil and gas facilities and on energy generation in Ukraine.
1:26 These attacks were immediately halted by President Putin after his phone call with Donald Trump. Ukrainians have been slower to react, but I assume they also are implementing this limitation on attacks. What we saw yesterday and what you have just reported is, of course, not covered by any agreements at present on a ceasefire. Therefore it is fair game for Ukraine to have a drone attack on the Engels air base. Let me also mention though, that this has been reported in western media; it is not generally announced in russian news. The news tickers this morning say nothing about it, and it’s understandable the russians are keen not to inflame public opinion by announcing what attacks the Ukrainians are making. This is the fog of war.
NewsX: 2:29 You know, as far as the US and Ukraine are concerned, that minerals deal is on the anvil. Do you believe it could be signed soon?
Doctorow: Yeah, I think it will be signed. But I pay greater attention to the discussion of the United States taking over the nuclear power stations in Ukraine, because those are tangible identifiable assets which are very important for the Ukrainian economy, given that non-nuclear, meaning the gas and oil-fired electric generating plants, have been largely destroyed in the last two years of bombing by the Russians.
So the nuclear power plants, which are largely still viable, although the single largest one, Zaporizhzhia, will take some repairs. Nonetheless, these are important sources of electricity to Ukraine during the several years it will take to rebuild their non-nuclear-generating capacity. As for the rare earths, that is highly speculative. No one knows for sure the value of it or the commercial exploitation value of such deposits as may exist.
3:44 So the mineral rights agreement will be signed as a matter of principle to show the United States has a long-term commitment to the security of Ukraine by its participation in important economic activities, business activities on the ground in Ukraine.
NewsX: 4:05 Right. Also, I have to ask you about, you know, Gilbert, the mediation process in the US, of course, taking that over as well. How do you view the impact the phone calls, both with Putin and Zelensky [is] going to have on the mediation efforts for the conflict going ahead? What do you make of these first conversations that have happened, of course, most significantly with Putin, but then also the follow-up with Zelensky and where you see the mediation process then going?
Doctorow: The mediation process is well underway. There is a lot of detailed work to be done. Let us note that in the meetings that will take place in Saudi Arabia on Monday, the Russian foreign ministry is not taking part. Who is taking part? Technical people, security people.
4:53 The United States is sending CIA. The Russians are sending FSB. They’re equivalent, because the issues here are technical, detailed, and require substantive work on the ground. And that is what’s about to happen. So this is not blah, blah. This is very important detailed work to make a ceasefire and a long-term peace agreement viable and implementable.
Therefore, it is on track, but not in a very short period of time. It will take weeks, if not months, for the full details of a secure ceasefire and peace agreement to be put in place, including provisions for monitors. The work that has been discussed so far by the Western Europeans was in terms of peacekeepers. That is off limits. The Russians don’t accept it, and it only serves to continue the war indefinitely.
5:50 What is in the cards is provision for monitors. In the past, going back to Minsk 2, monitors were provided by the OSCE, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Although they performed their job badly, because they were all Europeans and they were afraid to open their mouths and say what they actually saw, lest it be interpreted by their bosses back in Western Europe as being pro-Russian remarks. What will happen now will be non-European monitors invited, and I imagine that India will be a major participant in any such monitoring effort which makes the peace workable.
NewsX: 6:31 Yes. So what do you make of India’s role now going forward in the peace efforts as well? Our role has, of course, been acknowledged by both sides as being significant.
Doctorow: Yes, it’s definitely the case. And not just in the immediate question of Ukraine, which is, of course, foremost in everybody’s thinking, but in a broader issue of global security as the world evolves to multipolarity, having left behind American global hegemony.
India will be a big player. There’s no question about it. And Mr. Modi is positioning himself precisely for that by attending the festivities on May 9 in Moscow to mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, the war in Europe. That is significant.
7:20 It will be an opportunity to meet three, the three of the world’s biggest and most important powers, Russia, China, and India. And I would bet that Mr. Trump will be there as well. So India’s role is central today and will be even more important in a new and evolving power structure, the governing board of the world, which supersedes the World War II arrangements of the UN, in which India did not have a seat.
NewsX: 7:53 All right, let me leave it at that. Thank you very much for joining us with your perspective on that big story.
Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)
Das heutige Solo-Interview auf NewsX, Indien: Massiver ukrainischer Drohnenangriff auf den russischen Luftwaffenstützpunkt Engels | 54 abgeschossene Drohnen | Eskalation des Krieges
Dieses achtminütige Interview heute Morgen begann mit einer Diskussion über den gestrigen Drohnenangriff der Ukraine auf den Luftwaffenstützpunkt Engels in Zentralrussland, über den in westlichen Medien, wie beispielsweise auf CNN, ausführlich berichtet wurde, der jedoch in den russischen Nachrichten kaum erwähnt wurde, die sich stattdessen auf den verheerenden Drohnenangriff auf Odessa im gleichen Zeitraum konzentrierten.
Ich würde diese Ereignisse nicht als Eskalation bezeichnen, sondern als „business as usual“ in diesem schrecklichen Krieg.
Jüngsten Berichten zufolge werden die USA am Montag in Dschidda parallel zu den russischen und ukrainischen Arbeitsgruppen Gespräche führen. Die Tatsache, dass Russland erwähnt, wen es zu den Gesprächen entsendet, deutet darauf hin, dass es sich um eine sehr konkrete und detaillierte Ausarbeitung der Bedingungen für den Waffenstillstand und den anschließenden Frieden handeln wird. Seltsamerweise haben die westlichen Medien nicht aufgegriffen, dass einer der beiden wichtigsten russischen Unterhändler ein hoher FSB-Offizier (KGB) ist, der für die Beziehungen zu den ehemaligen Sowjetrepubliken zuständig war. Ich glaube, die Logik dahinter ist, dass Wladimir Putin Menschen zu den Gesprächen schickt, deren Loyalität gegenüber den nationalen Interessen Russlands über jeden Zweifel erhaben ist.
Abschrift des heutigen Einzelinterviews auf NewsX, Indien
Abschrift eingereicht von einem Leser
NewsX: 0:01 Die russischen Behörden haben einen massiven ukrainischen Drohnenangriff auf den Luftwaffenstützpunkt Engels im Oblast Saratow gemeldet, wobei das russische Verteidigungsministerium behauptet, 54 Drohnen über dem Gebiet abgeschossen zu haben. In einem nahe gelegenen Krankenhaus, in dem eine Frau verletzt wurde, sowie in zwei Kindergärten und einer Schule wurden Fenster herausgesprengt. Der Generalstab der ukrainischen Streitkräfte bekannte sich in einem Social-Media-Post zu dem Angriff und gab an, dass die Operation in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Sicherheitsdienst der Ukraine und den Spezialeinheiten des Landes durchgeführt wurde. Engels, das mehr als 750 Kilometer von der ukrainischen Grenze entfernt liegt, ist ein wichtiger strategischer Bombenstützpunkt, von dem aus russische Flugzeuge während des seit drei Jahren andauernden Krieges Langstreckenraketenangriffe gestartet haben. Die Stadt wurde mehrmals von der Ukraine angegriffen, zuletzt im Januar.
0:42 Zu uns gesellt sich jetzt Gilbert Doctorow, Experte für internationale Beziehungen und Russlandfragen. Vielen Dank, dass Sie bei uns auf NewsX sind. Wie sehen Sie diese jüngste Offensive im russisch-ukrainischen Konflikt?
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: Der Krieg ist erst vorbei, wenn er vorbei ist. Die Vereinbarungen, die zwischen Wladimir Putin und Donald Trump, zwischen Donald Trump und Wolodymyr Selensky getroffen wurden, sehen nur einen teilweisen Waffenstillstand vor, der zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt Angriffe auf Öl- und Gasanlagen sowie auf die Energieerzeugung in der Ukraine ausschließen soll.
1:26 Diese Angriffe wurden von Präsident Putin nach seinem Telefonat mit Donald Trump sofort eingestellt. Die Ukrainer haben langsamer reagiert, aber ich gehe davon aus, dass auch sie diese Beschränkung der Angriffe umsetzen. Was wir gestern gesehen haben und worüber Sie gerade berichtet haben, ist natürlich nicht durch die derzeitigen Vereinbarungen über einen Waffenstillstand abgedeckt. Daher ist es für die Ukraine legitim, einen Drohnenangriff auf den Luftwaffenstützpunkt Engels durchzuführen. Ich möchte jedoch auch erwähnen, dass dies in westlichen Medien berichtet wurde; in russischen Nachrichten wird dies nicht allgemein bekannt gegeben. Die Nachrichtenticker von heute Morgen sagen nichts darüber, und es ist verständlich, dass die Russen die öffentliche Meinung nicht durch die Bekanntgabe von Angriffen der Ukrainer aufhetzen wollen. Dies ist der Nebel des Krieges.
NewsX: 2:29 Sie wissen, dass der Mineralienhandel zwischen den USA und der Ukraine kurz vor dem Abschluss steht. Glauben Sie, dass er bald unterzeichnet werden könnte?
Doctorow: Ja, ich denke, er wird unterzeichnet werden. Aber ich schenke der Diskussion über die Übernahme der Kernkraftwerke in der Ukraine durch die Vereinigten Staaten größere Aufmerksamkeit, denn dabei handelt es sich um konkrete identifizierbare Vermögenswerte, die für die ukrainische Wirtschaft sehr wichtig sind, da die nichtnuklearen, d.h. die mit Gas und Öl betriebenen Stromerzeugungsanlagen, in den letzten zwei Jahren durch die Bombardierungen der Russen weitgehend zerstört wurden.
Die Kernkraftwerke sind größtenteils noch funktionsfähig, aber das größte von ihnen, Saporischschja, muss erst einmal repariert werden. Dennoch sind sie für die Ukraine wichtige Stromquellen, solange der Wiederaufbau der nichtnuklearen Stromerzeugungskapazitäten noch mehrere Jahre dauern wird. Was die Seltenen Erden betrifft, so ist das höchst spekulativ. Niemand kennt den Wert dieser Erze oder den kommerziellen Nutzungswert solcher Vorkommen, falls es sie gibt, mit Sicherheit.
3:44 Das Abkommen über die Schürfrechte wird also aus Prinzip unterzeichnet, um zu zeigen, dass sich die Vereinigten Staaten durch ihre Beteiligung an wichtigen wirtschaftlichen Aktivitäten und Geschäftstätigkeiten vor Ort in der Ukraine langfristig für die Sicherheit der Ukraine einsetzen.
NewsX: 4:05 Richtig. Außerdem muss ich Sie, Gilbert, natürlich auch zu dem Vermittlungsprozess in den USA befragen. Wie sehen Sie die Auswirkungen der Telefonate mit Putin und Selensky auf die Vermittlungsbemühungen für den bevorstehenden Konflikt? Was halten Sie von diesen ersten Gesprächen, die natürlich vor allem mit Putin stattgefunden haben, aber auch von den Folgegesprächen mit Selensky, und wie sehen Sie die weitere Entwicklung des Vermittlungsprozesses?
Doctorow: Der Vermittlungsprozess ist in vollem Gange. Es gibt noch viel Detailarbeit zu leisten. Wir sollten beachten, dass das russische Außenministerium an den Treffen, die am Montag in Saudi-Arabien stattfinden werden, nicht teilnimmt. Wer nimmt teil? Techniker, Sicherheitsleute.
4:53 Die Vereinigten Staaten schicken die CIA. Die Russen schicken den FSB. Sie sind gleichwertig, denn die Probleme hier sind technischer und detaillierter Natur und erfordern eine gründliche Arbeit vor Ort. Und genau das wird passieren. Das ist also kein Blabla. Es handelt sich um sehr wichtige Detailarbeit, um einen Waffenstillstand und ein langfristiges Friedensabkommen realisierbar und umsetzbar zu machen.
Es ist also auf dem richtigen Weg, aber nicht in sehr kurzer Zeit. Es wird Wochen, wenn nicht Monate dauern, bis alle Einzelheiten eines sicheren Waffenstillstands und eines Friedensabkommens festgelegt sind, einschließlich der Bestimmungen für Beobachter. Die Arbeit, die bisher von den Westeuropäern diskutiert wurde, betraf die Friedenstruppen. Das ist tabu. Die Russen akzeptieren das nicht, und es dient nur dazu, den Krieg auf unbestimmte Zeit fortzusetzen.
5:50 Was vorgesehen ist, ist die Bereitstellung von Beobachtern. In der Vergangenheit, bis hin zu Minsk 2, wurden Beobachter von der OSZE, der Organisation für Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit in Europa, gestellt. Obwohl sie ihre Arbeit schlecht gemacht haben, weil sie alle Europäer waren und Angst hatten, den Mund aufzumachen und zu sagen, was sie tatsächlich gesehen haben, aus Angst, dass dies von ihren Vorgesetzten in Westeuropa als pro-russische Äußerungen ausgelegt werden könnte. Was jetzt passieren wird, ist, dass nicht-europäische Beobachter eingeladen werden, und ich kann mir vorstellen, dass Indien sich maßgeblich an solchen Bemühungen beteiligen wird, die den Frieden ermöglichen.
NewsX: 6:31 Ja. Was halten Sie von Indiens Rolle bei den weiteren Friedensbemühungen? Unsere Rolle wurde natürlich von beiden Seiten als bedeutend anerkannt.
Doctorow: Ja, das ist definitiv der Fall. Und nicht nur in der unmittelbaren Frage der Ukraine, die natürlich für alle im Vordergrund steht, sondern auch in der umfassenderen Frage der globalen Sicherheit, da sich die Welt in Richtung Multipolarität entwickelt und die globale Hegemonie der USA hinter sich gelassen hat.
Indien wird ein wichtiger Akteur sein. Daran besteht kein Zweifel. Und Herr Modi positioniert sich genau dafür, indem er an den Feierlichkeiten am 9. Mai in Moskau zum 80. Jahrestag des Endes des Zweiten Weltkriegs, des Krieges in Europa, teilnimmt. Das ist von Bedeutung.
7:20 Es wird eine Gelegenheit sein, drei der drei größten und wichtigsten Mächte der Welt zu treffen, Russland, China und Indien. Und ich würde wetten, dass Herr Trump auch dabei sein wird. Indiens Rolle ist heute also von zentraler Bedeutung und wird in einer neuen und sich entwickelnden Machtstruktur, dem Verwaltungsrat der Welt, der die Arrengements der UNO nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg ablöst, in denen Indien keinen Sitz hatte, noch wichtiger sein.
NewsX: 7:53 In Ordnung, lassen wir es dabei bewenden. Vielen Dank, dass Sie uns Ihre Sichtweise auf diese große Geschichte mitgeteilt haben.
In the past several weeks, I have written a couple of essays on how Belgians are viewing Russia and its war in and over Ukraine.
In one article, I put the spotlight on the newly installed Minister of Defense, Theo Francken, who a decade ago was bold and exposed the government and media lies about the illegal migrants who overwhelmed Europe, including Belgium, in 2015, but now has been promoting the government and media lies about ‘democratic’ Ukraine struggling for its life against its aggressive neighbor, Russia. In another article, I discussed how not only Belgian elites but also Belgian middle classes have been brainwashed by official anti-Russian propaganda to the point where they say they approve the introduction of the military draft and are ready to send their sons to fight the Russians on the front lines.
Now, based on today’s news in Politico, which surely many of you read, I wish to leaven our thoughts about how much Belgians want war by calling attention to an article that may have escaped you:
It appears that the Belgian Prime Minister, Bart De Wever, Theo Francken’s boss, has commented to journalists following yesterday’s gathering of heads of European governments here in Brussels, saying that ‘seizing frozen Russian assets is an act of war’ and should not be considered at all.
In actual fact, confiscation of the enemy’s assets usually follows rather than precedes a declaration of war, but that is a minor detail. Perhaps the link between the two is the reason why Russia never formally declared war on the United States and on certain EU Member States after identifying them as de facto co-belligerents last summer over their targeting assistance to Ukrainian long range missile strikes within the Russian Federation.
Why would a Belgian PM have anything to say on the subject? Because of the 300 billion euros of Russian Central Bank assets that countries in the West have seized, 200 billion is sitting here in Euroclear, a financial institution based in Brussels.
De Wever went on to say that confiscation of the Russian assets would endanger the entire global financial system, and it would prompt counter measures by Russia that should be avoided.
And so, as it turns out, not all of the European leaders who gathered here yesterday have lost their minds, even if the biggest loudmouths – including Emmanuel Macron, Friedrich Merz, Ursula von der Leyen and the now ubiquitous Kaja Kallas are good candidates for padded cells in mental institutions.
Nicht alle Machthaber in Europa sind verrückt geworden: eine ermutigende Nachricht aus … Belgien
In den letzten Wochen habe ich einige Essays darüber geschrieben, wie die Belgier Russland und seinen Krieg in und um die Ukraine sehen.
In einem Artikel hatte ich den neu ernannten Verteidigungsminister Theo Francken ins Rampenlicht gerückt, der vor einem Jahrzehnt mutig war und die Lügen der Regierung und der Medien über die illegalen Migranten aufgedeckt hatte, die Europa, einschließlich Belgien, im Jahr 2015 überrannten, aber jetzt die Lügen der Regierung und der Medien über die „demokratische“ Ukraine fördert, die um ihr Leben gegen ihren aggressiven Nachbarn Russland kämpfe. In einem anderen Artikel habe ich erörtert, wie nicht nur die belgischen Eliten, sondern auch die belgische Mittelschicht durch die offizielle antirussische Propaganda einer Gehirnwäsche unterzogen wurden, sodass sie die Einführung der Wehrpflicht befürworten und bereit sind, ihre Söhne an die Front zu schicken, um gegen die Russen zu kämpfen.
Aufgrund der heutigen Nachrichten in Politico, die sicherlich viele von Ihnen lesen, möchte ich unsere Gedanken darüber, wie sehr die Belgier den Krieg wollen, auflockern, indem ich auf einen Artikel aufmerksam mache, der Ihnen vielleicht entgangen ist:
Es scheint, dass der belgische Premierminister Bart De Wever, der Vorgesetzte von Theo Francken, nach dem gestrigen Treffen der europäischen Regierungschefs hier in Brüssel gegenüber Journalisten geäußert hat, dass die Beschlagnahme eingefrorener russischer Vermögenswerte ein kriegerischer Akt sei und keinesfalls in Betracht gezogen werden sollte.
Tatsächlich folgt die Beschlagnahme der Vermögenswerte des Feindes in der Regel einer Kriegserklärung und geht ihr nicht voraus, aber das ist nur eine Kleinigkeit. Vielleicht ist die Verbindung zwischen beiden der Grund dafür, dass Russland den Vereinigten Staaten und bestimmten EU-Mitgliedstaaten nie offiziell den Krieg erklärt hat, nachdem es sie im vergangenen Sommer als de facto-Kriegsteilnehmer identifiziert hatte, weil sie die Ukraine bei ihren Langstreckenraketenangriffen innerhalb der Russischen Föderation unterstützt hatten.
Warum sollte ein belgischer Premierminister etwas zu diesem Thema zu sagen haben? Aufgrund der 300 Milliarden Euro an Vermögenswerten der russischen Zentralbank, die Länder im Westen beschlagnahmt haben, befinden sich 200 Milliarden hier bei Euroclear, einer Finanzinstitution mit Sitz in Brüssel.
De Wever fuhr fort, dass die Beschlagnahme der russischen Vermögenswerte das gesamte globale Finanzsystem gefährden und Gegenmaßnahmen Russlands auslösen würde, die vermieden werden sollten.
Wie sich herausstellt, sind also nicht alle europäischen Staats- und Regierungschefs, die gestern hier versammelt waren, verrückt geworden, auch wenn die größten Großmäuler – darunter Emmanuel Macron, Friedrich Merz, Ursula von der Leyen und die mittlerweile allgegenwärtige Kaja Kallas – gute Kandidaten für eine Unterbringung in einer Gummizelle in einer psychiatrischen Anstalt wären.
Prof. Glenn Diesen: 0:00 Hi everyone and welcome! I am joined today again by Gilbert Doctorow, an international affairs analyst and historian, for the purpose of discussing the US-Russia diplomatic developments to end the proxy war in Ukraine. And my main thought was: will this end with diplomacy or on the battleground?
But before we get to this, there’s been some … an interesting development. That is, before Trump’s phone call with Putin, he said that he would discuss territories and power plants, also a reference to dividing up assets. Now, [the] key dispute obviously has been the Zaporizhzhye nuclear power plant, which is the largest nuclear power plant in Europe, which is on international recognized Ukrainian territory.
0:53 But as we know, it’s under Russian control for many years now. And also the territory itself has been annexed by Russia, so it’s contested territory effectively. Now, while both Ukraine and Russia claim ownership to this, which will be one of the issues which has to be resolved, the most recent development is that the US suggests that it should take over ownership of Ukraine’s power plants. So, yes, how can we make sense of this? How are you reading this situation?
Leaviit: … Ukraine’s electrical supply and nuclear power plants. He said that the United States could be very helpful in running those plants with its electricity and utility expertise. American ownership of those plants would be the best protection for that infrastructure and support for Ukrainian energy infrastructure. President Zelensky also thanked President Trump for continuing to push humanitarian concerns.
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: I’m astonished that this proposal was made by Donald Trump, because it, for me it suggests that he has some very clever people in his entourage who are doing the thinking of how to resolve the very complex thorny issues surrounding the war.
2:09 We’ve had very smart people with Yale degrees, with Harvard degrees, who were in the entourage of Joe Biden. I think Jake Sullivan was a case in point. Tony Blinken was a case in point. But they all had no experience. It’s strange to say. They had no understanding of how the world works. They had no practical brains. They and the people around them were typical of the intellectuals who have always been drawn to foreign policy discussions in the States, who are … again, who have no real life experience. We’re in a very serious issue here between real life experience and academic experience. Now, you have an academic degree, I have an academic degree, and I’m not intending to in any way question the value of an academic degree for what it intends to do.
3:13 But for most of us, It does not intend to run the world. And there you have the question, is a businessman the right person to run the world, or is an academic with a Yale law degree the right person to run the world? I vote for the former, not the latter. There’s been so much said about Donald Trump — that he’s just transactional. He doesn’t have any strategic vision. He has no foreign policy concept. The actions that he does or takes credit for are horrendous, like the recent green light to Netanyahu to resume bombing in Gaza or the attacks on the Houthis. These things are taken separately. People get outraged. They decide that Donald Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing.
I disagree completely. I am an academic who went into business. I had 25 years in business. I saw a lot of nitwits at the top of corporations. So let’s not make any mistakes about it. No one discipline or role in life has a monopoly on intelligence and others are stupid. No, you have stupidity everywhere. There’s a old Russian expression, I think it was back to Pushkin, But for one wise man, there’s a lot of simplicity. And that was true 300 years ago; it’s true today.
4:37 There are very few wise men, and the question is to identify who’s the wise man and who’s the fool. It’s not as obvious as it seems. Donald Trump is not a genius. He’s a man who has some problems reading, so forth. Nonetheless, I know I’m going some distance away from your direct question, but I have every intention of coming back to it.
I was impressed with this proposal for at least three reasons. The proposal of the United States to take possession of the, take possession doesn’t necessarily mean operate three of the several nuclear power plants in Ukraine, of which the outstanding one is the one you mentioned, Zaporizhzhye, that is under Russian control. There are several others which are in Ukrainian-controlled territory. Trump, I think, was talking about all of them. The logic, what is the logic?
5:30 It is a good substitute for the expectations of rare earths, which were touted by Zelensky several months ago and were picked up by the administration as being a way to compensate the United States for its contributions to Ukrainian defense running between 100 billion dollars and $350 billion, depending on whom you want to believe. Well the rare-earths venture, I think, will peter out. The Russians, the Soviets had among the world’s best scientists and practitioners of exploiting the Earth’s wealth. They never found anything worth bothering with in Ukraine, and I think they were not wrong. But that’s a separate issue.
6:31 In taking charge, in taking ownership of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants, the United States would [be] receiving real assets, which are not just worth what the cost of building and replacing them is, but are worth a lot in the future because they are the main and can be the main standby of Ukraine for several years, during which time Ukraine has to rebuild its non-nuclear power plants, which have been destroyed in the last two years of bombing by the Russians.
Let’s face it, Russia has taken on– they didn’t touch the nuclear power plants for obvious reasons, that’s internationally sanctioned to touch them– but they did destroy in the last two years, and I specify two years, because the first year of their bombing was only on distribution, not on generation. But in the last two years, they destroyed generators, and that cannot be replaced in a few months. That’ll take years to replace. However, the nuclear power plants are all functional, because they were not touched.
7:40 The Zaporizhzhye plant is an exception; it was touched. It was bombed by the Ukrainians who tried to blame the Russians for this. And for that reason, it lost its own generating necessary to maintain the operation of the nuclear components. Therefore, it is now idle, but it could rather quickly be brought back on line. And what is the value of this?
Well, let’s say it replaces or at least substitutes for a large part of the missing Ukrainian generating capacity. Generating capacity is important in general, and specifically if AI is to proceed in Ukraine, which is highly demanding on energy. If energy, the earth, rare earths is to proceed, I mean, who knows, maybe there is something worth exploiting, that all takes a lot of energy. So the United States, in taking control of these power plants, would have a very important role in the Ukrainian economy. It would provide a feeling of continuity of American presence and support for the Ukrainian economy even after the United States stops being a provider of money and materiel for the war.
9:01 In this sense, it removes the necessity for the awful plans being hatched by Mr. Starmer and Mr. Macron and Mr. Merz and Ursula von der Leyen to put boots on the ground in Ukraine, which is utterly unacceptable to the Russians and which if implemented would push us well towards the start of World War III. So there you have two very important reasons why this idea is _genial_, is brilliant, addressing very concrete challenges that the further movement on a ceasefire slash peace treaty requires.
Diesen: 9:49 But the actual, yeah, the power plants within the Ukrainian-controlled territory could fall under this idea of more or less a US security guarantee. Again, as you said, this is also the logic which is applied to the rare-earth minerals. That is, it would give the US a presence, it would link its national interest to that of Ukraine and more or less it would make the Russians think twice before attacking this. But with the focus on the Zaporizhzhye nuclear power plant, given that this is under what now Russia considers to be its Russian territory, That is, it seems very unlikely as well that they would give up any of its territory in a peace agreement. Indeed, they would likely push towards full control of all the four Oblasts they annexed. So how do you see this being worked out?
Doctorow: 10:48 You’re touching on a fundamental issue. Each of these actions, initiatives by Trump, each of these crimes committed by Trump as in the Middle East if taken in isolation and weighed by itself, it has a certain value, often quite negative. Taken in combination with the overall vision that Trump has, which is a global reset of Russian-American relations. And that reset is only a small part of his vision for a new internationalism, which is basically carving up the world in the Yalta sense.
When you take it in that global understanding, of course there have to be compromises. The Russians can’t have it all their way. I don’t think that Vladimir Putin in any way expects to force the issue of territorial gains above the issue of a global settlement that provides security in Europe and the globe. So in that sense, this would be a small sacrifice. Now let’s look at the technical issue which I omitted.
11:56 The first Ukrainian reaction is, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Of course the United States can’t do that. The United States does not run Russian, Soviet nuclear power plants. Rosatom does. He wants to prevent the United States from subcontracting the continued operation of those plants to the same people who have been operating them.
It is in Russia’s interests that the Zaporizhzhye power plant be in safe hands. That’s why they took it. That’s why they’ve held it. Now, why would that be important to Russia? Well, because right outside the plant is the graveyard of used nuclear fuel.
That used nuclear fuel, which the Ukrainians attempted to bomb at one point or another, is the material for a dirty bomb. That’s no secret. The Russians want that plant secured. That is far more important than the territorial issue of how much of Zaporizhzhia they hold. It can be secured by the United States. The United States would not allow any of the madmen who are in these civilian and military elites of Ukraine in a revanchist move to seize this very dangerous radioactive material that is all around the nuclear power plant in Zaporizhzhia.
13:30 Well, yeah, I thought it was an interesting discussion that this was actually a theme being discussed because, well, it came as a surprise, but it does make sense that the power plant issues and of course, especially with nuclear power plants, this is something that has to be resolved.
But what do you see in the wider diplomatic front? Where do we need to get in order to actually bring an end to this war? Now I know it’s usually condemned that it’s the Russians and Americans who are negotiating this that the Ukrainians and Europeans aren’t in the room, but this is to a large extent a proxy war.
14:10 So I think it does make sense that big players of Russia and the US resolve some of the issues between them before they move on. And also a lot of the issues are not really only up to Ukraine. For example, NATO expansion, this is not only a Ukrainian issue. Security guarantees from American troops is not only an Ukrainian issue. So there are other things to be dealt with that is the European security architecture. But that being said, What do you think has to be resolved to get an end to the war and where will the most, what will the most difficult parts be?
Doctorow: 14:54 I think that the Ukrainians and the Europeans are not at the table because they are on the menu. That is not something that’s happening as a consequence of their not being at the table. It is the reason why they are not at the table. What I see, let me explain my vision of the reset and why I think that the discussion between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump took place, this telephone call of two hours and 28 minutes, was so heartening to the Russians.
15:33 I believe that most of it– I say “believe”. Let’s be open: this is speculation. Nobody, absolutely nobody among the general public or experts has received a transcript of that phone call and they never will, I mean in the foreseeable future, 50 years from now perhaps, not now. Because what they likely discussed was of such a delicate nature, there’s no way it could be revealed. My guess, and this is speculation, I do not say it’s more than that, but I think it’s educated speculation, is they are discussing a reset in terms that nobody’s talking about.
16:15 It is a revisiting World War II alliances in which the new allies are the old allies, partially; the allies are the United States and Russia. And the new Axis powers are Germany, England, and France. And that’s how it is. The United States and Russia have a common interest in defeating the Axis powers. Now Mr. Merz said it all three days ago in the Bundestag when he said “Germany is back!”
You bet it’s back, just as it was before. We are speaking of the continuation of the Russia-hating Germany that gave us World War II, And that’s where we are today. That’s where Baerbock is, whom Merz has now in the most astonishing way put up as a candidate to lead the General Assembly of the United Nations to its end and doom. We are speaking about Mr. Macron and Mr. Starmer, who are arguably, and I would happily make the argument, criminally insane.
17:24 We had people who were delusional in the Biden administration. They were operating in a bubble. They had no sense of what was really going on or care. They had no concern about what was the facts because we were in a post-factual world.
In the case of Macron and Stammer, they know what they’re doing. They are intent on defeating and sabotaging Trump and his plans for peace. They are intent together with Ursula von der Leyen on turning Europe into a war project, which it’s well on its way to being. And for that reason, I think any understanding that Trump and Putin may have had in their phone conversation would have been founded on their common understanding of where Europe is today.
Diesen: 18:22 Many people might think that looking at the Europeans as an enemy might be hyperbolic, but there is a lot of crazy statements coming out of Europe. I mean– by the way, you mentioned Medvedev, it is being the, well, on the Russian side that this is, you know, Europeans, they’re not [at] the table, they’re on the menu. He actually sent out a tweet more or less outlining this specifically. But with Merz, it’s worth noting that the incoming German Chancellor now he made a speech in the German Parliament, Bundestag, where he argued that Russia is not only [at] war with Ukraine, they’re at war with all of Europe. They’ve gone to war with us and then calling for hundreds of billions to be spent on military. It is a war against Europe and not just a war against the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
Merz: 19:05 [English subtitles] The circumstances, and this is what colleague Klingbeil just pointed out here, the circumstances are mainly determined by Putin’s attack war against Europe. It is a war against Europe and not just a war against the territorial integrity of Ukraine. It is, even if you see it differently there and there, it is also a war against our country, which takes place every day.
Diesen: 19:31 There’s not that many ways you can really interpret this. And you have Starmer insisting [on] putting troops on the ground and planes in the sky, even though it wouldn’t have American support and they would end up in a direct conflict with the Russians. Even Macron said that he doesn’t care what Russia thinks about putting French soldiers in Ukraine, even though he knows that they, or been warned that they would be considered a legitimate target. So we are moving in a very extreme direction.
Keep in mind that only not that long ago the main argument was that Europe was not part of this conflict. Now, this is obviously out the window. And there is also the idea that the Europeans are making themselves into enemies of the United States. It’s not as controversial as one would think any more. Indeed, if you see the intervention, the way the US has been well, cheering, I guess, for AfD in the election in Germany, Elon Musk keeps going out in Twitter and suggesting let’s get out of NATO.
The EU is over-bureaucratic and authoritarian. This also [is] reflected to some extent in the comments of Vance. That’s [not making US] anti-Europeans. It just means that they don’t like the path the Europeans are on. So there is a huge shift obviously coming. But you see the US and the Europeans getting into conflict?
Well we’re already in an economic conflict I guess, but over what can be interpreted as Europeans’ efforts to sabotage America’s efforts to end the war and reorient itself to have this great power rebalancing.
Doctorow: 21:18 The unreality on the part of Starmer and Macron and Merz and von der Leyen is: they don’t understand, to put it in Donald Trump’s terms from his talk with Zelensky, they don’t hold the cards. The United States holds the cards. They can talk big until the moment of truth.
Donald Trump would probably like to exit NATO, but that is not something that would receive approval within the Senate. He knows that. And so I think what he’s doing is allowing the Europeans to do it for him. By their open defiance, by their plans to set the stage for World War III, I think he is just biding his time till the opportune moment comes to tell them, “Ladies and gentlemen, do as you like with Russia. You don’t have our support any more. You don’t have our nuclear umbrella any more. Good luck to you and _do svidaniya_ [good-bye]. I think we’re coming to that point.
So in terms of will it be a military conflict or something? No, of course not. Will Donald Trump invade Denmark? Of course not. These are otherworldly, the scenes for somebody’s movie. But in the world in which we live, it will only take the reminder from Trump of who holds the cards, who doesn’t, to put an end to this nonsense.
22:57 And I think those who are the most exposed, like the three gentlemen and lady whom I mentioned, they will have no room for retreat. The die is cast, and their only option will be at some point in the near future to resign. Because the policies– they are ruining European defense. When Pistorius– you mentioned the speech by Merz– Pistorius’ speech in the Bundestag was even worse. And these people are saying they’re putting up one trillion euros for re-creation of the European German military machine and to destroy the euro in effect, because that will be it and to raise gold to new unbelievable heights.
23:54 These will be the direct consequences of their policies that have been passed through the Bundestag in the last few days. They are setting the stage for Europe’s demise. Now, how long the general public will put up with this– because it is a disaster for the standard of living in Europe– that remains to be seen, but I cannot imagine that will go on very long.
These people will be out. Trump has a chance to triumph. I have– these are all possibilities. They are not probabilities. And I don’t say, I don’t characterize anything I’ve said as more than speculation, because none of us can be based on solid facts, when the solid facts are being discussed behind closed doors, where they should be. But looking at where the feet are moving, this is what I see.
Diesen: 24:53 Yeah, well, I would have supported the Europeans developing some military independence to have some political autonomy, but this is something very different, though, because when you’re talking about hundreds of billions in the rearmament, and this is at the same time as the foreign policy chief says she refused to even talk to the Russians and is sitting on stage talking about how great it would be if Russia’s defeated so we can break it into many smaller countries.
25:23 Yeah, European leaders talking about “We have to prepare for a war with Russia.” There’s not that many ways you can interpret this. This is very, I’m not saying this could be just beating their chest, it doesn’t mean that they actually want a war or they’re planning for it to be a likelihood, but nonetheless, the rhetoric is very, very dangerous at the moment.
So just to blow this off, it seems also extremely dangerous. But if we go down this path and the Americans decide that, well, you can’t work with the Europeans any more. And I think you’re kind of spot on because when America decided to, that they wanted to get away from Ukraine, they did say they didn’t have to convince the Europeans to take over the project. The Europeans jumped on it. They saw Ukraine fully failing and they wanted to get rid of the ownership and Europeans immediately jumped on it.
26:25 And you see the same now, a few statements from Trump and the Europeans are already talking about a post-NATO Europe. And the rhetoric has a tendency to overwhelm the Europeans and push them all in one direction. So yeah, I can’t be dismissive of what you’re saying either because it does appear we’re moving somewhat in that direction. But if diplomacy…
Doctorow: It is foolhardy. What is impossible to fathom is how they think they can say that in 10 years they’re ready for war, and Russia will not listen to them, and Russia will not react. The … idea of investing one trillion euros in the German military machine, that will take 10 years before it gives results that would be valuable on the battlefield or otherwise. And we live today. We don’t live 10 years from now.
27:24 Today, if the United States stepped back from NATO, Europe is defenseless. How do they expect when Trump says “no help from us” to face the Russians having just made these violent threats against Russia?
Diesen: If it’s all, yeah, chest beating will be one thing, but the fact that it’s not backed up or balanced out with any diplomacy, this is my greatest concern. That there is no diplomatic pathway, that they keep making these really maximalist demands. But, and I think this is also why, as you said, why the Europeans are making themselves irrelevant, because how can you have a seat at the table when you’re seen as being unrealistic and also unreliable?
But I guess my last question, though is: if diplomacy will fail, if it doesn’t work, if Trump doesn’t get what he wants and the Russians don’t get what they want, how will this end? What do you see happening on the battlefield at the moment? Because as you said very correctly, this war won’t look like this in 10 years. I know that the Ukrainian military chief, Budanov, he reportedly said in January that if the war doesn’t end by the summer, then the existence of Ukraine could be threatened. He later walked this back or said that, challenged the statement that he hadn’t made it, because it had caused too much problems. But obviously things aren’t going well. So how do you see, how long can this thing go on in your opinion?
Doctorow: 29:01 Well, the critical issue here is whether or not Donald Trump would do the logical thing should the talks fail because of the Ukrainians. And that is the logical thing is to stop all US military and financial aid and intelligence aid to Ukraine. This would be a devastating blow to Ukraine and it would compromise their chances of maintaining themselves in the battlefield for more than a few months while the US-delivered arms are still in stock.
In which case we’re talking about a capitulation. I don’t think the Russians want a capitulation as their first objective. I think their first objective is precisely a negotiated settlement such as Trump is trying to bring about, because it would end the sanctions, it would end the legal challenges to their occupation of the lands that they have taken on the field of battle. It would certainly give them full legal title to Crimea as a first step. These are all objectives of great importance.
30:18 Let’s keep in mind what Russians are saying now on their talk shows. They have three years to finish up with the security problems in Europe. Why three years? Remaining time of Trump in power. No one can say with any confidence that his successor as J.D. Vance will win the next elections. If the Democrats come in, then we’re back to ground zero and it starts all over again. In the case of the Russians, Mr. Putin is not going to be there forever. So there is a limited time horizon for solving this from a Russian perspective. And if that means making compromises, I am certain they are ready to make compromises for the sake of the bigger goal.
Diesen: 31:05 Yeah, well, my great concern as a European residing in Europe is irrespective of what was said in this phone call or in this phone call, the fact that we’re making ourselves almost, the fact of declaring war on Russia while also making an enemy out of the United States. We’re putting ourself in a very, very vulnerable position. So to again, look back at this tweet by Medvedev, because I thought this was quite telling when he argued that what’s on the menu is the French, the British, the Ukrainians. It’s worth taking this seriously I think.
So anyways, Dr. Doctorow, I do appreciate your time as always. Thank you so much for your insights. It’s been very interesting.
This eight-minute interview this morning opened with discussion of Ukraine’s drone attack yesterday on the Engels air base in Central Russia which was widely reported in Western media, as for example on CNN, but has hardly been mentioned on Russian news, which focused instead on their devastating drone attack on Odessa in the same time frame.
I would not characterize these events as an escalation, just ‘business as usual’ in this horrendous war.
Latest reports indicate that the U.S. will be conducting talks in parallel with Russian and Ukrainian working groups in Jedda on Monday. Russia’s mention of whom it is sending to the talks indicates that this will be very concrete and detailed elaboration of terms for the cease fire and follow-on peace. Curiously, Western media have not picked up the fact that one of the two key Russian negotiators is a high FSB (KGB) officer who has been in charge of relations with the former Soviet republics. I believe the logic here is that Vladimir Putin is sending to the talks people whose loyalty to Russia’s national interests is above question.
Another interesting ‘Big Debate’ on NewsX: Russia & Ukraine Swap 372 POWs As Trump Pitches U.S Control of Zaporizhzhia
Yesterday’s ‘Big Debate’ brought me together with two high value Indian panelists and a remarkably reasonable Ukrainian. One of the Indians was Prabhu Dayal, a former Consul General in New York City from 2009 to 2014. The other, Robinder Sachdev, is the founder president of the Imagindia Institute. His page on their website informs us that he is an expert on geopolitics, diplomacy and the affairs of the Indian Diaspora. He has lived and worked in the U.S., Russia, Kazakhstan and Dubai, and is currently based in New Delhi. The Ukrainian was Ruslan Bortnik, Director of the Ukrainian Institute of Politics.
The low visitor numbers on this video are not to be taken negatively. NewsX and its companion channel NewsX World are just months old and are building their audience from zero. As I know from my very first appearances on their panel discussions, they had a very difficult time attracting serious participants. In particular this was true of their Ukrainian guests who were initially low-level propagandists. This is no longer true, as you may judge for yourself.
Gilbert Doctorow 