Yesterday evening’s 25-minute long ‘Spotlight’ program on Press TV put me together with a well prepared activist, fellow panelist Ken Stone, from Hamilton, Canada. The discussion was skillfully led by one of Press TV’s senior presenters, Bardia Honardar.

I note in particular that the Russian side to the resolution condemning unilateral sanctions on Iran was led by Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Ryabkov, who is the leading ‘tough guy’ in the Ministry with respect to the United States. It was Ryabkov who in December 2021 presented the Russian ultimatums to the USA and NATO over rollback of NATO to its 1994 borders.

My main point in the discussion is that presently the Trump Administration is very busy fighting on all fronts domestically and in relations with Europe while it roots out the Deep State and its policies of never ending wars. Otherwise its attention is primarily focused on ending the Russia-Ukraine war for the sake of a reset of global governance, secondarily on preventing return of war in Gaza. Only after these issues progress will it be possible for Washington to devote due attention to reconfiguring relations wih Iran.

https://www.urmedium.net/c/presstv/132998

I am pleased to share this link with the community. This 26 minute panel discussion is at a high level and raises issues you will not find elsewhere in international news outlets

Postscript: As I mentioned yesterday, there were two interviews with NewsX, one, a panel discussion, in the late afternoon which is posted above and the other in the morning when I had 10 minutes to myself. The broadcaster has just sent that link which I copy below

As I have said on a number of occasions, I am grateful to the unscheduled periodic requests I receive from several Indian global broadcasters and from Iran’s Press TV for keeping me on my toes, pushing me to follow more closely than I otherwise would what mainstream is saying about breaking news and preparing in my mind my thoughts on where they get it wrong and what is actually going on before our eyes that is historic and should be so presented to my community even if that means multiple postings on a given day.

So it was today when India’s News X World twice reached out to me, first for a solo 10 minute interview in the morning and then again in the early afternoon to join a panel discussion with two Indian professors and one Indian former ambassador. In both instances the topic was yesterday’s response by Vladimir Putin to the temporary cease-fire agreed by Team Trump and Vladimir Zelensky’s hand picked group of negotiators that the American President was now strongly urging Putin to sign on to.

As I had forecast the day before, Putin’s answer was a ‘Yes, but…’ He generously thanked Donald Trump for all his efforts to bring about a peace, but noted that others, including the BRICS leaders, have been similarly engaged and spent valuable time trying to help find a way out of the crisis. He also explained that there are many open questions about the implementation of such a cease-fire to ensure that it is not used by Kiev just to buy some time to rotate its soldiers, bring in newly mobilized troops and otherwise get a respite from the bashing they are now receiving at Russian hands, most notably by their forcible expulsion from Kursk in which they left behind some of the most advanced military hardware they had received from the USA, the correspondence they had with their generals, their small arms as they fled for their lives in disarray.

What is most remarkable in the day that has passed since Putin made his position clear at a press conference in Moscow following talks with the visiting President of Belarus Lukashenko is that there has been almost no condemnation of Russia in major media for turning its back on peace. Surely the White House has signaled to the press that such negativism would not be helpful when future allocation of presidential time to journalists is decided. For his part, we may assume that Volodymyr Zelensky was warned by Washington to just shut up. All that he could say to the press was that Vladimir Putin was ‘being manipulative.’ Gosh, isn’t that what pre-negotiation maneuvering is all about? Does anyone mean to say that Donald Trump is not ‘manipulative’?

The Financial Times reporting this morning on Putin’s response was mostly factual and without much ‘spin.’ Putin’s arguments against acceptance of the cease-fire without reworking the terms were reproduced rather faithfully.

Of course, CNN was less objective. It sneaked into its report from the first sentences the reminder that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had been an act of ‘unprovoked’ aggression. It tried to present President Putin’s conditions for proceeding as representing something new and unhelpful, whereas as we all know Putin has in recent days not added any new conditions to ending the war than he had set out very clearly back in June 2024 when addressing Russia’s ambassadors at an annual gathering in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs headquarters. And yet, the tone was still respectful, not venomous.

In my participation in the News X panel discussion, the link to which I hope to be able to present here later today or tomorrow, depending on how efficient the production team in India works, I was especially pleased to set out my view that the mildly positive position on the cease-fire taken by Putin is explained by what other talks are ongoing in great secrecy with the Trump administration, and most particularly in the time that Trump envoy Steve Witkoff spent in Moscow yesterday. We know nothing about this and, to be sure, at this stage we have no right to know since the parties are at the very start of a difficult discussion. But there is reason to believe that the substance of Witkoff’s mission was not to go into lines on the map representing the future borders of Ukraine and Russia after a peace treaty is signed. My peers have rightly said that such military affairs are entirely out of the competence of real estate developer Witkoff. But he surely has the ability to take forward Donald Trump’s plans for a thorough reset of Russian -American relations in what will become a new governing board of the world at which Russia, the USA, China and India have seats. Note: for the first time since 1945 Europe will have no seat at the table. The EU countries have totally discredited themselves as a force for peace in the world.

I recommend to the community what one or another of the Indian panelists had to say about India being a potential provider of ‘peace-keeping troops’ or ‘monitors’ dispatched to Ukraine upon conclusion of any cease-fire/ peace treaty. The distinction in what these outsiders will be called is of great importance. Let us be perfectly clear: the idea of sending ‘peace-keepers’ to Ukraine is predicated on the assumption of Russian aggression which has to be deterred by a suitably capable outside military force on the ground. Why exactly Russia would violate the cease-fire terms and Ukraine would peaceably abide by them is something that no one wants to open up to discussion.

On the other hand, a monitor group would be doing an essential service to the cause of peace, and the idea was already hinted at by Vladimir Putin in his remarks at his press conference yesterday. This new group of monitors would do what the OSCE was supposed to do in monitoring the Minsk – 2 agreements but never properly performed because of the countries involved were mealy-mouthed Europeans and their rapporteurs did not dare report what they witnessed, since it would be taken as prejudicial to Ukraine.. BRICS countries will certainly have no reason to hush up who actually starts any violations of the agreements. And since the assumption will be that either side is capable of violations, they will be strictly monitors, not a fighting force for deterrence.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Wladimir Putins „Ja, aber …“-Antwort auf Trumps Waffenstillstand: Wie es am Morgen danach aussieht

Wie ich bereits mehrfach gesagt habe, bin ich dankbar für die außerplanmäßigen Anfragen, die ich regelmäßig von mehreren indischen globalen Sendern und vom iranischen Press TV erhalte, weil sie mich auf Trab halten und mich dazu drängen, genauer als sonst zu verfolgen, was die Mainstream-Medien über aktuelle Nachrichten sagen, und mir Gedanken darüber zu machen, wo sie falsch liegen und was tatsächlich vor unseren Augen vor sich geht, was historisch ist und meiner Gemeinschaft so präsentiert werden sollte, auch wenn das bedeutet, dass ich an einem bestimmten Tag mehrere Beiträge veröffentlichen muss.

So war es auch heute, als mich der indische Nachrichtensender News X World zweimal kontaktierte, zuerst für ein 10-minütiges Solointerview am Morgen und dann erneut am frühen Nachmittag, um an einer Podiumsdiskussion mit zwei indischen Professoren und einem ehemaligen indischen Botschafter teilzunehmen. In beiden Fällen ging es um die gestrige Reaktion von Wladimir Putin auf den vorübergehenden Waffenstillstand, auf den sich das Team Trump und Wladimir Zelenskys handverlesene Verhandlungsgruppe geeinigt hatten und zu dessen Unterzeichnung der amerikanische Präsident Putin nun nachdrücklich aufforderte.

Wie ich am Tag zuvor vorausgesagt hatte, lautete Putins Antwort „Ja, aber …“. Er dankte Donald Trump großzügig für all seine Bemühungen, Frieden zu schaffen, merkte jedoch an, dass andere, darunter die BRICS-Führer, sich ebenfalls engagiert und wertvolle Zeit damit verbracht hätten, einen Ausweg aus der Krise zu finden. Er erklärte auch, dass es viele offene Fragen zur Umsetzung eines solchen Waffenstillstands gibt, um sicherzustellen, dass er von Kiew nicht nur dazu genutzt wird, Zeit zu gewinnen, um seine Soldaten auszutauschen, neu mobilisierte Truppen einzusetzen und anderweitig eine Atempause von den Schlägen zu bekommen, die sie derzeit von russischer Seite erhalten, insbesondere durch ihre gewaltsame Vertreibung aus Kursk, bei der sie einige der modernsten militärischen Ausrüstungsgegenstände zurückließen, die sie von den USA erhalten hatten, die Korrespondenz, die sie mit ihren Generälen geführt hatten, ihre Handfeuerwaffen, als sie in Unordnung um ihr Leben flohen.

Das Bemerkenswerteste an dem Tag, der vergangen ist, seit Putin seine Position auf einer Pressekonferenz in Moskau nach Gesprächen mit dem zu Besuch weilenden belarussischen Präsidenten Lukaschenko klargestellt hat, ist, dass es in den großen Medien fast keine Verurteilung Russlands dafür gab, dass es dem Frieden den Rücken gekehrt hat. Sicherlich hat das Weiße Haus der Presse signalisiert, dass eine solche negative Haltung nicht hilfreich wäre, wenn über die zukünftige Zuweisung von Zeit des Präsidenten für Journalisten entschieden wird. Was Volodymyr Zelensky betrifft, können wir davon ausgehen, dass er von Washington gewarnt wurde, einfach den Mund zu halten. Alles, was er der Presse sagen konnte, war, dass Wladimir Putin „manipulativ“ sei. Meine Güte, ist das nicht genau das, worum es bei Manövern vor Verhandlungen geht? Will irgendjemand behaupten, dass Donald Trump nicht „manipulativ“ ist?

Die Financial Times berichtete heute Morgen größtenteils sachlich und ohne viel „Spin“ über Putins Antwort. Putins Argumente gegen die Annahme des Waffenstillstands ohne eine Überarbeitung der Bedingungen wurden ziemlich getreu wiedergegeben.

CNN war natürlich weniger objektiv. In seinem Bericht wurde bereits in den ersten Sätzen daran erinnert, dass die Invasion Russlands in der Ukraine ein Akt „unprovozierter“ Aggression gewesen sei. Es wurde versucht, die Bedingungen von Präsident Putin für das weitere Vorgehen als etwas Neues und Unnützes darzustellen, obwohl Putin, wie wir alle wissen, in den letzten Tagen keine neuen Bedingungen für die Beendigung des Krieges hinzugefügt hat, die über das hinausgehen, was er bereits im Juni 2024 sehr deutlich gemacht hatte, als er vor den russischen Botschaftern bei einer jährlichen Versammlung im Hauptquartier des Außenministeriums sprach. Und dennoch war der Tonfall respektvoll und nicht gehässig.

Bei meiner Teilnahme an der Podiumsdiskussion von News X, deren Link ich hoffentlich später heute oder morgen hier präsentieren kann, je nachdem, wie effizient das Produktionsteam in Indien arbeitet, habe ich mich besonders gefreut, meine Ansicht darzulegen, dass die leicht positive Haltung Putins zum Waffenstillstand durch die anderen Gespräche erklärt werden kann, die unter großer Geheimhaltung mit der Trump-Administration geführt werden, insbesondere während der Zeit, die der Trump-Gesandte Steve Witkoff gestern in Moskau verbracht hat. Wir wissen nichts darüber und haben zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt auch kein Recht, etwas darüber zu erfahren, da die Parteien erst am Anfang einer schwierigen Diskussion stehen. Es gibt jedoch Grund zu der Annahme, dass Witkoffs Mission nicht darin bestand, sich auf Linien auf der Landkarte zu einigen, die die zukünftigen Grenzen der Ukraine und Russlands nach der Unterzeichnung eines Friedensvertrags darstellen. Meine Kollegen haben zu Recht gesagt, dass solche militärischen Angelegenheiten völlig außerhalb der Kompetenz des Immobilienentwicklers Witkoff liegen. Aber er hat sicherlich die Fähigkeit, Donald Trumps Pläne für eine grundlegende Neugestaltung der russisch-amerikanischen Beziehungen in einem neuen Verwaltungsrat der Welt voranzutreiben, in dem Russland, die USA, China und Indien Sitze haben werden. Anmerkung: Zum ersten Mal seit 1945 wird Europa keinen Sitz am Tisch haben. Die EU-Länder haben sich als Friedensmacht in der Welt völlig diskreditiert.

Ich empfehle der Community, was der eine oder andere indische Diskussionsteilnehmer darüber gesagt hat, dass Indien ein potenzieller Anbieter von „Friedenstruppen“ oder „Beobachtern“ sein könnte, die nach Abschluss eines Waffenstillstands-/Friedensvertrags in die Ukraine entsandt werden. Die Unterscheidung, wie diese Außenstehenden genannt werden, ist von großer Bedeutung. Um es ganz deutlich zu sagen: Die Idee, „Friedenstruppen“ in die Ukraine zu entsenden, basiert auf der Annahme einer russischen Aggression, die durch eine entsprechend fähige externe Streitmacht vor Ort abgewehrt werden muss. Warum genau Russland die Waffenstillstandsbedingungen verletzen sollte und die Ukraine sich friedlich an diese halten würde, ist etwas, das niemand zur Diskussion stellen möchte.

Andererseits würde eine Beobachtergruppe einen wesentlichen Beitrag zum Frieden leisten, und die Idee wurde bereits von Wladimir Putin in seinen Ausführungen auf seiner gestrigen Pressekonferenz angedeutet. Diese neue Gruppe von Beobachtern würde das tun, was die OSZE bei der Überwachung der Minsk-2-Abkommen tun sollte, aber nie richtig getan hat, weil die beteiligten Länder verlogene Europäer waren und ihre Berichterstatter sich nicht trauten, über das zu berichten, was sie gesehen haben, da dies als nachteilig für die Ukraine angesehen worden wäre. Die BRICS-Staaten werden sicherlich keinen Grund haben, zu vertuschen, wer tatsächlich Verstöße gegen die Abkommen begeht. Und da davon ausgegangen wird, dass beide Seiten zu Verstößen fähig sind, werden sie streng überwachen und nicht als abschreckende Streitmacht auftreten.

Transcript submitted by a reader

Napolitano: 0:31
Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for “Judging Freedom”. Today is Thursday, March 13th, 2025. Professor Gilbert Doctorow will be here with us in just a moment. [commercial message]

1:54
Professor Doctorow, good day to you, my friend, and welcome here. I want to speak to you at some length on your views about the so-called ceasefire, the secret and unseen agreement Marco Rubio, the American Secretary of State seems to have extracted from the Ukrainians.

But before we get there, you have some very interesting observations on the attitude of the Belgian public, you living in Belgium now, both the sort of blue collar, hard working folks and the elites, about the war in Ukraine. What are those attitudes that those folks have manifested?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
Well, for some time I was confident that I had an understanding of where the elites are because I’m a member of an elite, the elite royal club of French speakers in Brussels. And they have monarchists, they have people who serve the monarchy.

They have simply successful businessmen and now women because they’re admitting 50-50 women presently. I attend their meetings, that’s my main contact with society, because when you come into a country as I did, of middle age, and It’s not the time when you make new friends. It’s even difficult to acquire acquaintances. So I judged Belgium by the people I see around me at the gatherings at table talk, because the biggest thing that Belgian men do at a social club is eat. So we have table talk.

3:33
And I heard a big change in thinking, going back to when I joined this club five years ago, when it was really a center of moderation, tolerance for all views, and with a backward nostalgia to the days when Peter the Great visited Spa when he traveled around the low countries. That disappeared. And what I saw in the recent past was very sharp hostility towards Russia among most of my peers, with a few exceptions.

But the mood had changed dramatically. I remarked that. But I had no feel or I didn’t have any confidence in saying what ordinary people on the street are thinking, because you don’t just guess at that. However, I have an additional side to my life here. We have family here. My daughter’s here, my grandchildren are here, and my daughter is a school teacher in secondary school. So she has a lot of social contacts, both as a professional with her peers and with the parents of students because they meet the parents of students as is the custom, but also with her children.

She has two teenage kids, 14 and 16. And at that age, they have friends and their friends have parents and they get together. So her social circle in middle-class or lower middle-class Belgium is quite broad. And she has been very disturbed, very troubled in the last few months by the clear feeling of patriotism, cheap patriotism, wanting to go to war, wanting to send your kids to military training.

5:26
I mean, Belgium doesn’t have much of a military history. I think they lasted about a week or 10 days in World War II. They didn’t do too much better in World War I. So in a country like this, with no martial history, with no parade culture, to have parents say that they want to see training, paramilitary training for their kids at the end of secondary school. And if they do not object to introduction of a draft or to send their kids to fight against Russia, this is striking.

Napolitano: 5:58
How do you account for this? A peace-loving, non-militaristic country suddenly manifesting such a degree of animosity towards the Russians that people would talk about a draft? I mean, do they go to bed at night expecting an invasion the next morning?

Doctorow:
Almost so. Look, there has been non-stop propaganda of the Atlanticist variety on all of the media. Not to mention the fact that when you tune in Europe’s widest viewed television news, Euronews, you’re getting a voice of Ursula von der Leyen 24 on 24.

[It] has been a very heavy indoctrination. And it has had a result. The result is what I just described. There are no parades here, military parades in Belgium, but the attitude has changed, and parents, even speaking about sending their sons off to fight against Russia.

Napolitano: 7:05
How do the young men feel about this? The human beings that could actually be drafted, sent to the front lines, and as you have written, Professor, in a week be blown to bits by the Russian military.

Doctorow:
Oh definitely. Like I said, these two teenage sons, one of them is 16, well in a year he’ll be out of secondary school and he would be facing his draft. I can assure you that he’s not enthusiastic about it. But that is a personal matter which I would be unwise to discuss.

I only say that what the parents are saying may be rather different from the sons are saying. If I recall back in the 1960s, there was such a division between what my parents’ generation was saying about the Vietnam War and what my peers were saying.

Napollitano: 8:01
Wow. By the way, it’s Belgium. It’s not exactly Alabama. Would they draft women?

Doctorow:
Not to my knowledge. No. This is, so far it’s, the gender issue hasn’t gone that extreme in Belgium. And as to the question of what kind of society this is, let me be perfectly clear about it.

When I walk the streets of downtown Brussels, I see 99% heterosexual couples. I see a lot of little kids. And I see 1% of the circle of marginals who have been raised to the level of iconic level in the States. So the country, it may have fallen out of love for the church definitely, the feeling here is anti-clerical, but it hasn’t gone to the extremes and Satanism, which is taking hold of Paris, has not made it in more provincial, shall we say, Belgium.

Napolitano 9:11
Okay. Switching gears, Professor Doctorow, to Secretary of State Rubio and his announcements. Actually, before I ask you about it, Chris, I want the clip. I don’t remember what the number is of it where Secretary Rubio, the one we were viewing a few minutes ago, Chris, where Secretary Rubio and Mike Waltz are together. Can you run that, please?

Rubio:
Today we made an offer that the Ukrainians have accepted, which is to enter into a ceasefire and into immediate negotiations to end this conflict in a way that’s enduring and sustainable.

We’ll take this off for now to the Russians and we hope that they’ll say yes, that they’ll say yes to peace. The ball is now in their court.

Waltz:
We also got into substantive details on how this war is going to permanently end. We have a named delegation in terms of next steps from the Russian side. We have a named delegation in terms of next steps from the Ukrainian side.

I will talk to my Russian counterpart in the coming days. Secretary Rubio will be with G7 foreign ministers in the next couple of days. We have the NATO Secretary General in the White House on Thursday, and we’ll take the process forward from there.

Napolitano: 10:37
What do we not know about this so-called ceasefire agreement? I mean, have you had an opportunity to read it? Has anybody except those two folks had an opportunity to read it?

Doctorow:
Well, I don’t blame them for keeping the secret. It would go nowhere. Who knows to what extent the delegation put together by Zelensky is of the same opinion as Zelensky himself, that the country will cede no territory to Russia. He said that in the last couple of days.

If that were the view, then this peace negotiation is going absolutely nowhere. So we don’t know. Rubio has been very diplomatic. I was admiring his language in the several different times that he came before cameras. Last one, I think, was on his visit to Ireland yesterday.

And he was very careful saying, oh, but are you going to punish Russia if they say no? And he was very wise in saying, look, you don’t issue threats before the decision–

Napoltano:
You know what? Let me play that clip, because my own view is the opposite of yours. I thought he seemed tentative and insecure, but let’s watch him and let you comment and let our viewers comment. Chris, cut number one.

Questioner: 12:21
Are you truly prepared to apply pressure on Russia should it be recalcitrant and not agree to the terms of the ceasefire? There’s been no concrete action that this administration has taken to punish Russia since it’s come to office.

Rubio:
Well, just a couple points. To be clear, as far as I am aware, the United States has not provided armaments to Russia. The United States is not providing assistance to Russia.

Every single sanction that has been imposed on Russia remains in place. Every single sanction the President inherited has remained in place.

Questioner:
They’ve inherited previous sanctions.

Rubio:
Right. But, well, I mean, they’re pretty sanctioned up. I mean, there’s a lot of sanctions on already. So my point being is that there’s been no steps taken to relieve any of these things. These things continue to be in place, but we don’t think it’s constructive for me to stand here today and begin to issue threats about what we’re going to do if Russia says no. Let’s hope they say yes.

Napolitano: 12:54
What cards does he have to play, with my new friend, Sergey Lavrov?

Doctorow:
None. None. But I admit, I admire his refusal to say what Trump said a week ago, Oh, I’m gonna double down on the sanctions. We’re going to– No. He was saying what you and I and others have been discussing on this program: thut there’s nothing more to sanction them with.

So he was being honest and upfront and not being propagandistic. That is a hopeful sign. He knows what’s end is up. He’s being cautious in not releasing any content of the agreements with the Ukrainians, only the procedures: that they’ve named a working group, and blah blah blah. Let’s say, what I anticipate is that Putin will say, Yes, but… And the “but” is important.

13:51
He will certainly avoid giving the satisfaction to Zelensky and to the Russia bashers in the States and Europe that he said no. But he will not say yes. He will say, first of all, they’re not moving one inch on any ceasefire until the last Ukrainian has been killed or driven out of Kursk. That is 100 percent. And the fact that Putin was there yesterday, precisely yesterday, wearing military fatigues and telling the command, telling Gassimov, finish it up right now.

14:28
And they’re close to finishing it up right now, because of the most extraordinary exploit of the Russian stormtroopers in passing 16 kilometers through an underground gas pipeline to emerge in the middle of Suja, a main settlement or urban conglomeration in the part of Kursk that was occupied initially by the Ukrainians.

And they caught everyone unaware. It was like a modern version of the Trojan horse, only multiplied several times over, because these were 800 troops. This was an exploit of historic nature, whether it should have been done is another story. Being somewhat claustrophobic, the idea of spending 48 hours in this pipeline, which could be reflooded with gas at any time, that was not my idea–

Napolitano: 15:27
Right, right, right. Your comments about saying “yes”, or saying “yes, but”, or saying “no”, or “no, but” reminds me of that one-liner from Churchill. I’m not a fan of Churchill’s but he did have brilliant one-liners. The art of diplomacy is not saying yes or no, it’s saying “yes–” and “no, but”. Is the US a neutral, morally capable of being the intermediary here, when in reality it’s a co-belligerent, financing the war on one of the two sides?

Doctorow:
No, I agree completely with what you just said. It is not neutral. It is not an honest broker in any sense of the word. So it’s a rather peculiar situation. Yes, financing it and providing what it just demonstrated is of critical importance by withholding for a couple of days the satellite intelligence, the real-time intelligence that guides the Ukrainians on the battlefield and their air defense.

16:31
This participation in the war by the United States makes it impossible to view Trump’s position as that of an outside honest broker. He is a participant in the war.

Napolitano:
I want to play a little clip for you from John Bolton, who was, of course, US ambassador to the United Nations, but more recently and infamously Donald Trump’s national security advisor. And of course, they had a major, major falling out, and they still take pot shots at each other.

Here’s John. I call him John. I worked with him for a couple of years. I know him very well. Here’s John’s latest shot at Trump. But it’s very interesting the observation he makes. It’s only about half a minute long. Chris, cut number three.

Bolton:
Unlike Trump, who thinks that he and Putin are friends, Putin sees Trump as an easy mark. And using his KGB learning and experience, he has become very successful at manipulating Trump to the point that Trump doesn’t even know it’s happening.

I think that was evident after the election. And it’s paid off in terms of the Ukraine conflict, because Trump has given, even before negotiations began, given the Kremlin virtually every one of their major points that they want to see in a final agreement.

Napolitano: 17:52
Share that view, Professor Doctorow?

Doctorow:
Not anything that Bolton says has a personal animus towards Trump, and he’s using anything he can possibly get his hands on to clobber Trump. I don’t believe what he’s saying for a minute. Trump was not bending to Putin’s will. Trump was simply being a realist. Without accepting these basic conditions of the victor in the war, they will never sit at the table. So that was not something that Trump was personally persuaded because of the charm of Putin. That’s rubbish.

18:32
It was “Either you do want to do this, or you don’t want to do this. If you want to do it and you accept these basic conditions of Russians or you’re wasting everybody’s time.

Napolitano:
If Foreign Minister Lavrov is looking at clips as recently as six or eight months old of then-Senator Rubio speaking about Vladimir Putin, Russia, and Ukraine, might he conclude that Rubio himself inwardly, personally, and privately wants Ukraine to prevail in the war?

Doctorow:
I can’t judge him, what goes through Lavrov’s mind. From my observation of Rubio, he has been sincere to the mission he’s been given. What his personal views might be about this, I don’t know, they’re probably as you say, that he was sympathetic to Ukraine, why not? He was saying things of that nature for years. But he was not hired to pursue his personal vision; he was hired to pursue the vision of his boss. So I don’t– the question of “Is the Trump team trustworthy?”, that is essential and concerns all elements of it.

19:47
In the ways that are easy to do, Trump has been sending clear signals to Moscow that he wants a big change in relationship. This extends in all sorts of things that are not reported in the mainstream media. For example, the American veto on language in a, now being prepared collective statement of the G7 at its next gathering. The veto was on the notion that Russian shadow fleet should be monitored and should be stymied, frustrated. The United States vetoed that. The United States has done many of these little things, which are sending quiet signals to Moscow, “Hey, we want to get along.” Oh yes, in Syria, cooperates in Syria.

Napolitano: 20:33
Okay. I agree that Trump in his heart wants a Great Reset. You know, I just spent a week, nearly a week in Moscow, and rubbed shoulders and engaged in small talk as well as video recorded serious talk with Foreign Minister Lavrov himself. There’s no question in my mind that they want a Great Reset.

They want an amicable, cultural, social, and commercial relationship with Russia to resume. The reason I ask you about what they really think about Rubio is do they trust the Americans? Do they trust him? And of course, that remains to be seen.

Let’s look at the other side of this coin. In your view, is Volodymyr Zelensky free to engage in negotiations and sign a ceasefire, or does he know he’s a dead man, literally a dead man if he does so?

Doctorow: 21:37
Well, I think he has been very wise to put, to stand aside from the actual negotiations. He’s put up his, Yermak, the man who everyone says has been running the show from behind the throne, he’s put up these people. And they’re the ones who will have to accept or reject the real-world terms of the peace treaty.

Therefore, he may be saving his neck by passing it along to others. That’s not something to reproach him with. It’s simply a statement of fact. They have a delegation. The delegation will either proceed to a peace with the Russians or not, but if they proceed, they’ll have to accept terms, which will be quite painful for Ukraine. And if anyone gets lynched, they’ll be the ones who are lynched, not Mr. Zelensky. He’s not that stupid.

Napolitano:
What incentive do the Russians have to negotiate? I mean, five hours after I left a residential neighborhood in Moscow, it was attacked by drones. Why would the Ukrainian military be doing that at the same time the American Secretary of State is metaphorically on his knee begging the Russians to come to the table?

Doctorow:
Well, a lot of things are going on simultaneously. It was also the day of the gathering of Ramstein under the chairmanship of the Brits, but with Hegseth present. So in a typical way that Ukraine has used its arms for public relations purposes rather than for actual military purposes, that’s what they did with raining down 300 drones on Russia, 100 of them being in the Moscow city and Moscow oblast area, and creating the kind of havoc that was reported when you were there.

23:33
Now, the Russians were being, as Putin was being under, put under pressure by hardliners, by real superpatriots, to respond immediately by sending Russian missiles down on Kiev. And I don’t mean little drones or something, no, no, to use the Oreshnik and to smash up and probably kill everybody around in the Ukrainian parliament and government offices. He didn’t do that, though I don’t think it can be taken off the table. If the Russians do not proceed, decide not to proceed with peace talks, then they’ll be under no obligation to be nice and they may just do what the Patriots want as a proper revenge for what happened while you were there in that drone attack on Moscow. There’s a lot that can go on. As I said, the bottom line is that until the mopping up operation in Kursk is completed, the Russians will stall for time.

Napolitano: 24:45
Professor Doctorow, it’s a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you for all of your insight, particularly that from your daughter and her colleagues. Very, very telling to understand the pervasive level of propaganda on the streets in a place like Brussels, but very courageous of you to reveal it and generous of you to share it with us. We hope you’ll come back and join us again next week.

Doctorow:
Okay, I’ll just tell you that Denmark is even worse. We have friends in Denmark, and the level of propaganda in the general population is even higher than here.

Napolitano:
Well, or then before we go, whose propaganda and for what? That they should vote to join the United States or that they should fear a Russian invasion and institute a military draft?

Doctorow: 25:36
Well, in a sense of their prime minister, who said that for Ukraine now, the peace would be worse than during the war. It is viciously anti-Russia. And she was shaken totally by Trump and his bid to take over Greenland, like it or not. She lost her moorings, and now she’s railing out at Russia. So the general feeling in Denmark, which is a very calm country, much like Belgium, very happily taking care of by social benefits, but the feeling now is very hostile, very warlike.

Napolitano: 26:16
Very interesting. Professor Doctorow, thank you, my dear friend. Have a good day. We’ll see you next week.

Doctorow:
Well, bye-bye.

Napolitano:
Sure: Coming up at 11 o’clock this morning on all of this, Colonel Douglas McGregor. At 3 o’clock this afternoon on all of this, Professor John Mearsheimer, and at four o’clock this afternoon on all of this, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson.

26:39
Judge Napolitano for “Judging Freedom”.

Today’s session opened with a discussion of the warlike positions that have taken hold among all strata of the Belgium population. Parents want paramilitary education added to the curriculum in the last year of secondary school. They want a military draft to be introduced and they say they are ready to send their sons to war against Russia!   In a country which has no military parades, which has no military valor to celebrate since several of their generals participated in Napoleon’s wars and invasion of Russia, this is striking.  I think the country’s armed forces held out for a week or two at the start of WWII, and more than 150,000 Belgians fled to England in the opening days.    And yet, today they are all lions!   But then no one seems to have asked the 18 year old boys how they feel about it.

After this we went on to discuss the cease fire that Rubio and Witkoff are now trying to sell to the Russians but about which we know very little.

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

„Judging Freedom“-Ausgabe vom 13. März: Ein geheimer Waffenstillstand?

Die heutige Sitzung begann mit einer Diskussion über die kriegerischen Positionen, die sich in allen Schichten der belgischen Bevölkerung festgesetzt haben. Eltern wollen, dass der Lehrplan im letzten Jahr der Sekundarstufe um eine paramilitärische Ausbildung erweitert wird. Sie wollen die Einführung einer Wehrpflicht und sagen, sie seien bereit, ihre Söhne in den Krieg gegen Russland zu schicken! In einem Land, in dem es keine Militärparaden gibt und in dem es nichts zu feiern gibt, was mit militärischem Heldenmut zu tun hat, da mehrere ihrer Generäle an den Kriegen Napoleons und der Invasion Russlands beteiligt waren, ist dies bemerkenswert. Ich glaube, die Streitkräfte des Landes haben zu Beginn des Zweiten Weltkriegs ein oder zwei Wochen durchgehalten, und in den ersten Tagen flohen mehr als 150.000 Belgier nach England. Und doch sind sie heute alle Löwen! Aber anscheinend hat noch niemand die 18-jährigen Jungs gefragt, was sie davon halten.

Danach sprachen wir über den Waffenstillstand, den Rubio und Witkoff nun den Russen verkaufen wollen, über den wir aber nur sehr wenig wissen.

In my essay several days ago about the strongly pro-Ukraine position being stated publicly by Theo Francken Belgium’s newly appointed Defense Minister, I emphasized that this very capable lawyer with more than a decade of experience as parliamentarian at the federal level is betraying his past incarnation of a speaker of Truth to Power.  After all, in the midst of the immigration crisis of 2015 and for years thereafter, Francken had rather bravely denounced lies and prevarication from the Belgian, German, Swedish and other EU governments that enabled a chaotic illegal flood of young men into the EU, people who were in fact economic migrants, not refugees from war and persecution.

I suggested that Francken is now prostituting himself by toeing the party line on the young and vital Ukrainian democracy being mauled by the Russian aggressor for the sake of the two nice, fat ministerial portfolios he has been given in the Belgian coalition government.

However, after taking into account the latest information that has come my way, anecdotal but still powerful and compelling information, I begin to imagine that Francken is not saying just what is politically convenient within his party or within the country’s Atlanticist elites. He may be saying what a majority of Belgian citizens now believe as they accept the notion of preparation for war with Russia that the EU Commission has made its major political cause.

Allow me to explain myself.

As a ‘senior’ living in an adopted country, Belgium, I freely admit that my social contacts in this country are quite limited. As you age, it becomes ever harder to make new friends, even to accumulate new acquaintances.  In my case, my finger on the pulse is my membership in a prestigious ‘royal’ French-speaking club, where I have the opportunity to sit at table with other members for the periodic, even weekly gatherings. My own preferred sub-club is the Cinema group which gathers at least once monthly for projection of some vintage film which may be American, or French, or whatever. After the screening we take seats on a random basis for a shared dinner.  Table talk wanders in all directions. Not often do folks talk politics, because it is by nature so divisive. But when they do, it is perfectly clear that the overwhelming majority of members are now pro-Ukrainian and anti-Russian. Given that this club has long been a haven of tolerance for divergent opinions, and when I joined five years ago they still celebrated the visit of Peter the Great to Spa during his European travels, this solidity behind the NATO position on Russia is striking.

I had assumed from all this that the elites are aligned with the government on non-stop aid to defend Ukraine. But what about the hoi polloi, the ‘common people’?  About them I never wagered a guess with any confidence due to my limited contacts.

However, our daughter in her work as a school teacher in a Belgian secondary school is well immersed in the hoi polloi.  They are her fellow teachers, they are the parents of her students with whom she meets periodically. And as the mother of two teen-age boys, she gets together socially with the parents of their friends.

What I am hearing from her is very clear:  this hoi polloi has been properly indoctrinated, properly brain washed and now strongly favors defending Ukraine, strongly favors the establishment of a military draft in this country and say they are ready to send their sons to war against Russia.  In fact, in some Belgian public schools today preparations are being made to introduce courses in paramilitary training for the final year of secondary education. This patriotic movement cuts across the country’s language divide.

Of course, no one has asked the sons of these Belgian patriots how they feel about being drafted into the army and being sent to the front against Russian forces where they will be blown to bits in a matter of days, just as the Ukrainian recruits are today experiencing.

I will not comment here on the advice I would give my grandsons should the draft be introduced in Belgium.  Read my lips…

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Die Belgier wollen Krieg!

In meinem Essay vor einigen Tagen über die stark pro-ukrainische Position, die Theo Francken, der neu ernannte Verteidigungsminister Belgiens, öffentlich vertritt, habe ich betont, dass dieser sehr fähige Anwalt mit mehr als einem Jahrzehnt Erfahrung als Parlamentarier auf Bundesebene seine frühere Rolle als Sprecher der Wahrheit gegenüber der Macht verrät. Schließlich hatte Francken mitten in der Einwanderungskrise von 2015 und in den Jahren danach ziemlich mutig die Lügen und Ausflüchte der belgischen, deutschen, schwedischen und anderer EU-Regierungen angeprangert, die eine chaotische illegale Flut junger Männer in die EU ermöglichten, Menschen, die in Wirklichkeit Wirtschaftsmigranten und keine Flüchtlinge vor Krieg und Verfolgung waren.

Ich habe angedeutet, dass Francken sich jetzt prostituiert, indem er sich der Parteilinie anschließt, wonach die junge und vitale ukrainische Demokratie vom russischen Aggressor zerfleischt wird, und zwar um der zwei netten, fetten Ministerposten willen, die er in der belgischen Koalitionsregierung erhalten hat.

Nach den neuesten Informationen, die mir zugetragen wurden, anekdotische, aber dennoch aussagekräftige und überzeugende Informationen, komme ich jedoch zu der Vermutung, dass Francken nicht nur das sagt, was innerhalb seiner Partei oder innerhalb der atlantischen Eliten des Landes politisch opportun ist. Er könnte das sagen, was eine Mehrheit der belgischen Bürger jetzt glaubt, da sie die Idee der Vorbereitung auf einen Krieg mit Russland akzeptieren, die die EU-Kommission zu ihrer wichtigsten politischen Aufgabe gemacht hat.

Lassen Sie mich das näher erläutern.

Als „Senior“, der in einem anderen Land, nämlich Belgien, lebt, muss ich zugeben, dass meine sozialen Kontakte in diesem Land recht begrenzt sind. Mit zunehmendem Alter wird es immer schwieriger, neue Freunde zu finden oder auch nur neue Bekanntschaften zu schließen. In meinem Fall ist meine Mitgliedschaft in einem renommierten „königlichen“ französischsprachigen Club, bei dem ich die Möglichkeit habe, bei regelmäßigen, sogar wöchentlichen Treffen mit anderen Mitgliedern am Tisch zu sitzen, mein Finger am Puls der Zeit. Mein eigener Lieblings-Unterclub ist die Filmgruppe, die sich mindestens einmal im Monat trifft, um einen alten Film zu zeigen, der amerikanisch, französisch oder was auch immer sein kann. Nach der Vorführung nehmen wir nach dem Zufallsprinzip für ein gemeinsames Abendessen Platz. Die Tischgespräche schweifen in alle Richtungen. Es kommt nicht oft vor, dass über Politik gesprochen wird, weil das Thema von Natur aus sehr spaltend ist. Aber wenn es doch einmal vorkommt, ist völlig klar, dass die überwältigende Mehrheit der Mitglieder jetzt pro-ukrainisch und anti-russisch eingestellt ist. Da dieser Club seit langem ein Hort der Toleranz gegenüber abweichenden Meinungen war – als ich vor fünf Jahren beitrat, feierten sie noch den Besuch von Peter dem Großen in Spa während seiner Europareise –, ist diese Einigkeit hinter der NATO-Position gegenüber Russland bemerkenswert.

Ich war davon ausgegangen, dass die Eliten mit der Regierung einer Meinung sind, was die ununterbrochene Hilfe zur Verteidigung der Ukraine angeht. Aber was ist mit dem gemeinen Volk, dem „einfachen Volk“? Über sie habe ich aufgrund meiner begrenzten Kontakte nie eine fundierte Vermutung angestellt.

Unsere Tochter ist jedoch in ihrer Arbeit als Lehrerin an einer belgischen Sekundarschule gut in das gemeine Volk eingebunden. Es sind ihre Lehrerkollegen und es sind die Eltern ihrer Schüler, mit denen sie sich regelmäßig trifft. Und als Mutter von zwei Teenagern trifft sie sich auch privat mit den Eltern ihrer Freunde.

Was sie mir berichtet, ist sehr deutlich: Dieses Hoi Polloi wurde ordentlich indoktriniert, ordentlich einer Gehirnwäsche unterzogen und befürwortet nun nachdrücklich die Verteidigung der Ukraine, befürwortet nachdrücklich die Einführung der Wehrpflicht in diesem Land und sagt, dass sie bereit sind, ihre Söhne in den Krieg gegen Russland zu schicken. Tatsächlich werden in einigen öffentlichen Schulen Belgiens derzeit Vorbereitungen getroffen, um Kurse in paramilitärischer Ausbildung für das letzte Jahr der Sekundarstufe einzuführen. Diese patriotische Bewegung überschreitet die Sprachgrenzen des Landes.

Natürlich hat niemand die Söhne dieser belgischen Patrioten gefragt, was sie davon halten, in die Armee eingezogen und an die Front gegen russische Streitkräfte geschickt zu werden, wo sie innerhalb weniger Tage in Stücke gerissen würden, so wie es die ukrainischen Rekruten heute erleben.

Ich möchte hier nicht darauf eingehen, welchen Rat ich meinen Enkeln geben würde, sollte die Wehrpflicht in Belgien eingeführt werden. Hört mir gut zu …

Further thoughts on the Ukraine cease fire

“We don’t know enough to say anything…”

I have always been critical of the many who decline to express an opinion about some major domestic or international development, saying that the decision-makers on high know far more than we do, so that our under-informed opinion is irrelevant.

However, if we wait for all the information behind the events of our day to become known, for all the archives to be opened, we will likely all be dead before the truth comes out, at which point the facts become irrelevant. The ongoing interest in opening the files relating to the Kennedy assassination are a case in point.  We knew then that it was the CIA, and we were right.  Any tidbits that are tossed to us from the archives today do not change the situation materially.

I raise this issue because this time, for once, I must admit that there are likely aspects to the agreement reached in Jedda between Team Trump headed by Marco Rubio and the Ukrainian delegation which we simply do not know and, not knowing them it is truly difficult to make sense of what is happening.

Last evening I remarked that Rubio was clearly satisfied with what was agreed in Jedda. The immediate U.S. decision to restore Ukrainian access to U.S. intelligence and to restart deliveries of arms to Ukraine seemed to confirm this. Of course, this very decision makes the U.S. bid to play the role of honest broker all the more problematic. American assistance to Kiev in these matters makes it a co-belligerent and that normally excludes claims to be a neutral observer.

Why did it take 6 hours of negotiations to end up with what Western media said was the end result of the meeting in Jedda?  Wouldn’t about 20 minutes have been enough to get the Ukrainians to agree to broaden their proposed partial 30 day cease fire into a total cease fire for 30 days?  And why would there be any optimism about this going forward now that ‘the ball was in the Russians’ court’ given that President Putin and RF Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had in recent days said that Russia has no interest in a cease fire as such?

Let us stretch our imagination a bit. Let us be fairer to Team Trump.  On reconsideration, I believe there must be more to what was agreed than was stated publicly.

The first hint is in the statement that was kept from view in most Western reporting:  that during the cease fire there would be an immediate start to negotiations over a durable peace.

This by itself also would not make much sense as an incentive to bring in the Russians.  We must assume that some discussions took place over what concessions the Ukrainians are prepared to make to arrive at a peace with Russia, and that these concessions represent a big step forward from all the nonsensical ‘peace plans’ put forward by Zelensky over the past couple of years, all of which amounted to Russian capitulation.

I make these guesses so as to better understand what may motivate Vladimir Putin to respond positively to the American-Ukrainian cease fire proposal. 

The problem in Moscow now is that for Putin to agree to a cease fire after having repeatedly excluded this step without Ukrainian withdrawal from the 4 oblasts of Donbas-Novaya Rossiya that are now part of the Russian Federation would be very hard for him to explain to his own hardliners among Russian patriots. We will see in the coming days if there are any leaks coming from Moscow on what is new on the table in the American proposal to justify a change of heart.

At the same time, the Kremlin is facing another dilemma. The massive Ukrainian drone attack on Russia, including more than 100 drones against residential targets in Moscow and the Moscow oblast which was made on the eve of the Jedda talks, enraged Russian elites and there were calls for an immediate attack on Kiev using the unstoppable Oreshnik hypersonic missiles.  A motion to this effect was tabled in the State Duma.  But if Russia does make such a revenge counter-attack, that will put in danger anything that may have been achieved at the negotiating table in Jedda yesterday.

We will be watching very closely.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Weitere Gedanken zum Waffenstillstand in der Ukraine

„Wir wissen nicht genug, um etwas zu sagen …“

Ich habe die vielen, die es ablehnen, ihre Meinung zu wichtigen nationalen oder internationalen Entwicklungen zu äußern, immer kritisiert und gesagt, dass die Entscheidungsträger in hohen Positionen viel mehr wissen als wir, sodass unsere unzureichend informierte Meinung irrelevant ist.

Wenn wir jedoch darauf warten, dass alle Informationen über die Ereignisse unserer Zeit bekannt werden und alle Archive geöffnet werden, werden wir wahrscheinlich alle tot sein, bevor die Wahrheit ans Licht kommt, und dann werden die Fakten irrelevant. Das anhaltende Interesse an der Öffnung der Akten im Zusammenhang mit der Ermordung Kennedys ist ein typisches Beispiel dafür. Wir wussten damals, dass es die CIA war, und wir hatten Recht. Die Informationen, die uns heute aus den Archiven zugespielt werden, ändern nichts an der Situation.

Ich spreche dieses Thema an, weil ich zugeben muss, dass die in Dschidda erzielte Vereinbarung zwischen dem Team Trump unter der Leitung von Marco Rubio und der ukrainischen Delegation diesmal wahrscheinlich Aspekte enthält, die wir einfach nicht kennen, und da wir sie nicht kennen, ist es wirklich schwierig, die Geschehnisse zu verstehen.

Gestern Abend habe ich angemerkt, dass Rubio mit den Vereinbarungen von Dschidda offensichtlich zufrieden war. Die unmittelbare Entscheidung der USA, der Ukraine wieder Zugang zu US-Geheimdienstinformationen zu gewähren und die Waffenlieferungen an die Ukraine wieder aufzunehmen, schien dies zu bestätigen. Natürlich macht genau diese Entscheidung das Bestreben der USA, die Rolle eines ehrlichen Maklers zu spielen, umso problematischer. Die amerikanische Unterstützung für Kiew in diesen Angelegenheiten macht das Land zu einem Kriegsbeteiligten, was normalerweise den Anspruch auf eine neutrale Beobachterrolle ausschließt.

Warum hat es sechs Stunden Verhandlungen gebraucht, um zu dem zu gelangen, was die westlichen Medien als Endergebnis des Treffens in Dschidda bezeichneten? Hätten nicht etwa 20 Minuten ausgereicht, um die Ukrainer dazu zu bringen, einer Ausweitung ihres vorgeschlagenen teilweisen 30-tägigen Waffenstillstands auf einen vollständigen 30-tägigen Waffenstillstand zuzustimmen? Und warum sollte man jetzt optimistisch sein, dass es weitergeht, wo doch „der Ball im Feld der Russen liegt“, wenn man bedenkt, dass Präsident Putin und der Außenminister der Russischen Föderation, Sergej Lawrow, in den letzten Tagen gesagt haben, dass Russland kein Interesse an einem Waffenstillstand als solchem hat?

Lassen Sie uns ein wenig unsere Vorstellungskraft anstrengen. Seien wir fairer gegenüber Team Trump. Bei nochmaliger Betrachtung glaube ich, dass es mehr geben muss als das, was öffentlich vereinbart wurde.

Der erste Hinweis findet sich in der Erklärung, die in den meisten westlichen Medienberichten nicht erwähnt wurde: Während des Waffenstillstands würden sofort Verhandlungen über einen dauerhaften Frieden aufgenommen werden.

Dies allein würde auch nicht viel Sinn als Anreiz machen, die Russen mit ins Boot zu holen. Wir müssen davon ausgehen, dass einige Gespräche darüber stattgefunden haben, welche Zugeständnisse die Ukrainer bereit sind zu machen, um einen Frieden mit Russland zu erreichen, und dass diese Zugeständnisse einen großen Schritt nach vorne darstellen, verglichen mit all den unsinnigen „Friedensplänen“, die Selenskyj in den letzten Jahren vorgelegt hat und die alle auf eine Kapitulation Russlands hinausliefen.

Ich stelle diese Vermutungen an, um besser zu verstehen, was Wladimir Putin dazu motivieren könnte, positiv auf den amerikanisch-ukrainischen Waffenstillstandsvorschlag zu reagieren.

Das Problem in Moskau besteht nun darin, dass Putin, wenn er einem Waffenstillstand zustimmt, nachdem er diesen Schritt wiederholt ausgeschlossen hat, ohne dass die Ukraine sich aus den vier Oblasten von Donbas-Nowaja Rossija zurückzieht, die jetzt Teil der Russischen Föderation sind, dies seinen eigenen Hardlinern unter den russischen Patrioten nur schwer erklären könnte. Wir werden in den kommenden Tagen sehen, ob aus Moskau etwas über die neuen Vorschläge im amerikanischen Vorschlag durchsickert, um einen Sinneswandel zu rechtfertigen.

Gleichzeitig steht der Kreml vor einem weiteren Dilemma. Der massive ukrainische Drohnenangriff auf Russland, bei dem am Vorabend der Jedda-Gespräche mehr als 100 Drohnen gegen Wohngebiete in Moskau und im Moskauer Oblast eingesetzt wurden, hat die russischen Eliten in Rage versetzt und es wurden Rufe nach einem sofortigen Angriff auf Kiew mit den unaufhaltsamen Oreschnik-Hyperschallraketen laut. Ein entsprechender Antrag wurde in der Staatsduma eingebracht. Sollte Russland jedoch einen solchen Vergeltungsangriff starten, würde dies alles gefährden, was gestern am Verhandlungstisch in Dschidda erreicht wurde.

Wir werden die Situation sehr genau beobachten.

The Financial Times’ photo of Marco Rubio leaving the negotiating session today with Ukrainians in Jedda projects the satisfaction of a job well done as he buttons his jacket. However, the text suggests that somehow Rubio has dropped the ball and is missing the big picture.

The American side claims to be so encouraged by the results of the day that they are immediately reinstating Ukrainian access to American intelligence for targeting and air defense as well as restarting delivery of the military hardware to Kiev.

What do they think they achieved?  It would appear that they believe they have moved the Ukrainians beyond the notion of a partial ceasefire for 30 days which they brought with them to Jedda to a full cease fire for the same period.  The only problem with this ‘progress’ is that the Russians have made it crystal clear that they are uninterested in any cease fire and seek direct move to peace negotiations.

Logically what will happen next following the Russian nyet is that the White House will impose new sanctions on Russia and the war will continue indefinitely – until the Russians smash the Ukrainian forces into submission.

A great deal was made in Western media over how the Russians had staged big air strikes on Ukrainian during the couple of days it was blinded by lack of US intel, and also how Russia had expanded its recovery of villages in the still partially occupied Kursk oblast.

The Russian side to the successes now underway in Kursk is rather different and deserves mention here. Namely it was the incredible bravery and pluck of Russian ground forces who sent 800 storm troopers into the now nonfunctioning gas pipeline that passes through the largest urban area in Kursk under Ukrainian control, the town of Sudzha.  They crawled 16 km through the pipeline, and were accompanied by three war correspondents from the Rossiya 1 television station who recorded the feat. At a certain moment, these storm troopers emerged from the pipes in the center of Sudzha and caught the Ukrainian forces there by surprise, so that many of the enemy just fled for their lives. The Russian capture of Sudzha is imminent.

Dear Messrs Trump and Rubio:  please note that your cutoff of this or that to Ukraine plays no role in the steady and accelerating advance of Russian troops.  Do what you will now to ‘punish’ Russia and you will neither stop them nor even slow them down. You only will gamble away the chance for a global settlement with Russia on decent terms for the USA in its plans for a new world order.

The Ukrainians are not capable of negotiating an end to the war on loser’s terms. The consequence can only be their complete destruction, as Trump himself has foretold.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation into German below (Andreas Mylaeus)

Team Trump hat es vermasselt

Auf dem Foto von Marco Rubio, das die Financial Times heute beim Verlassen der Verhandlungssitzung mit den Ukrainern in Dschidda zeigt, sieht man, wie er zufrieden seine Jacke zuknöpft, als hätte er gute Arbeit geleistet. Der Text deutet jedoch darauf hin, dass Rubio es irgendwie vermasselt und das große Ganze aus den Augen verloren hat.

Die amerikanische Seite gibt an, dass sie von den Ergebnissen des Tages so ermutigt ist, dass sie den ukrainischen Zugang zu amerikanischen Geheimdienstinformationen für Ziel- und Luftverteidigungssysteme sofort wiederherstellt und die Lieferung von militärischer Ausrüstung an Kiew wieder aufnimmt.

Was glauben sie, erreicht zu haben? Es scheint, als ob sie glauben, dass sie die Ukrainer von der Vorstellung eines teilweisen Waffenstillstands für 30 Tage, den die nach Dschidda mitgebracht hatten, hin zu einem vollständigen Waffenstillstand für den gleichen Zeitraum bewegt haben. Das einzige Problem bei diesem „Fortschritt“ ist, dass die Russen unmissverständlich klargestellt haben, dass sie an einem Waffenstillstand nicht interessiert sind und direkt zu Friedensverhandlungen übergehen wollen.

Logischerweise wird das Weiße Haus nach dem russischen Nein neue Sanktionen gegen Russland verhängen und der Krieg wird auf unbestimmte Zeit weitergehen – bis die Russen die ukrainischen Streitkräfte in die Knie zwingen.

In den westlichen Medien wurde viel darüber berichtet, wie die Russen in den Tagen, in denen die USA keine Informationen zur Verfügung stellten, groß angelegte Luftangriffe auf die Ukraine geflogen haben und wie Russland die Rückeroberung von Dörfern im noch teilweise besetzten Oblast Kursk ausgeweitet hat.

Die russische Seite der Erfolge, die jetzt in Kursk stattfinden, ist etwas anders und verdient hier Erwähnung. Es war nämlich die unglaubliche Tapferkeit und der Mut der russischen Bodentruppen, die 800 Mann der Sturmtruppen in die jetzt nicht mehr funktionierende Gaspipeline geschickt haben, die durch das größte Stadtgebiet in Kursk unter ukrainischer Kontrolle, die Stadt Sudzha, verläuft. Sie krochen 16 km durch die Pipeline und wurden dabei von drei Kriegsberichterstattern des Fernsehsenders Rossiya 1 begleitet, die die Heldentat aufgezeichnet haben. Zu einem bestimmten Zeitpunkt tauchten diese Sturmtruppen im Zentrum von Sudzha aus den Rohren auf und überraschten die dort stationierten ukrainischen Streitkräfte, sodass viele der Feinde einfach um ihr Leben rannten. Die russische Eroberung von Sudzha steht unmittelbar bevor.

Sehr geehrte Herren Trump und Rubio, bitte beachten Sie, dass Ihre Entscheidung, der Ukraine dieses oder jenes zu verweigern, keine Rolle für den stetigen und immer schneller werdenden Vormarsch der russischen Truppen spielt. Wenn Sie jetzt etwas tun, um Russland zu „bestrafen“, werden Sie die russischen Truppen weder aufhalten noch auch nur verlangsamen können. Sie verspielen damit nur die Chance auf eine globale Einigung mit Russland zu annehmbaren Bedingungen für die USA in ihren Plänen für eine neue Weltordnung.

Die Ukrainer sind nicht in der Lage, ein Ende des Krieges zu Bedingungen eines Verlierers auszuhandeln. Die Folge kann nur ihre vollständige Vernichtung sein, wie Trump selbst vorausgesagt hat.

https://odysee.com/@unRhodes-ian:6/2025-03-11—-Zelensky-in-Saudi-Arabia:7

Transcript submitted by a reader

NewsX: 0:00
Let us open up this conversation to Gilbert Doctorow joining us on the broadcast from Brussels. Dr., thanks and appreciate your time. What do you make of the environment in which this conversation in Saudi Arabia is about to happen? Have we ameliorated the situation post the Washington visit?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 0:23
I think we have to look to a broader context, and that is precisely what the United States has done in the last four or five days, starting with the suspension of all military aid on its way to Ukraine, or being warehoused in Poland. That was stopped, suspended, until it’s clear that the Ukrainians are ready to negotiate in good faith and with some sense of realism.

More important still was what happened two days ago when the United States withheld or cut all intelligence access for satellite and other forms of targeting information and defense information, that is, a notification of incoming aircraft, which the Ukrainians had enjoyed up until then. This is still more massive pressure on Ukraine to face the realities of the situation as they enter to negotiations, and to put behind them all of the brave or bravado talk about imposing conditions that essentially would take from the Russians, who are the victors, all of their gains and would present them as the losers in this kind of–

NewsX: 1:48
Okay, so Mr. Doctorow, how do you expect this to play out? Because obviously a ceasefire negotiation will have to be an agreement both– met with the Ukrainians and the Russians. The Russians are not [at] the table in Saudi Arabia, so how does the intermediary conversation play out?

Doctorow:
Well, the Russians are the winning side. That they will agree to anything that resembles a fair end to the war is obvious. The Ukrainians have been living in a world of irreality, which has been encouraged first by the Biden administration and then by all the European allies up to yesterday. They’re all speaking as if Ukraine can continue the war indefinitely.

2:29
Now, let’s go back to the Oval Office, pra cas. What happened there? There was an exchange between Zelensky and Trump, which directly relates to the United States’ latest actions cutting off Ukraine to the intelligence it needs to both engage in offensive attacks on Russia and to defend itself against incoming aircraft. In that exchange, President Trump told Zelensky that, you know, my friend, if you had not received American military aid at the start of the war, you Ukrainians could not have fought for more than a few days and perhaps a maximum of two weeks, to which Zelensky responded, [“Oh no, not at all. We have heard that talk coming from Putin”], suggesting that Mr. Trump is a dupe of Putin, which is not a very good way to get on with the American president.

3:33
But personal relations aside, the matter here is that the Ukrainians have refused to recognize reality. They pretend that they are winning, and they pretend that they can enjoy the winner’s spoils, and that Russia should succumb to their demands to withdraw and to pay reparations and whatever else. This, I think, the test coming up in Riyadh will be for the American negotiators to see if the Ukrainian negotiating side has come down to earth, faces reality, and understands that they are losing this war, and if they don’t conclude a peace quickly, there’ll be nothing left of their country.

NewsX: 4:16
All right. Of course, the Ukrainians will have some enlightened self-interest on several of these items as well. They would like to secure their country’s future as well. And I can imagine it’s going to be a difficult conversation, but at least the conversation is beginning to find a conclusion to this, rather than just the rhetoric and hyperbole of one upmanship that we have seen over the past couple of years.

4:40
Gilbert Doctorow, for your thoughts on that, thank you for joining us.