NewsX World: Zelensky Heads to Saudi Arabia for Talks with Crown Prince

I am pleased to share the link to yesterday’s 10-minute interview with NewsX World (India) about the negotiations that began today between a senior Ukrainian delegation and Team Trump led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. In this we concentrated attention of the pressure that has been applied by the USA preparatory to this meeting, which I believe served to underline Donald Trump’s remark to Zelensky in the Oval Office that without U.S. military aid at the start of the war the Ukrainians would not have been able to hold their own against the Russians for no more than a few days to a maximum of two weeks.  

Now, the withholding of further arms shipments to Ukraine and still more importantly, the cut-off of intelligence needed for targeting purposes and for their air defense, should shake the Ukrainians from their dreams of invincibility and bring them down to some form of realism when they set out their peace terms.

Note that this afternoon News X World reopened the question, asking for my thoughts on how the negotiations in Jedda may end.  I will post this video here when the link is sent to me by the broadcaster. But I use this opportunity to say that I am not very hopeful of constructive results, judging by what Marco Rubio told reporters yesterday evening or this morning, namely that he believes that the Ukrainians are bringing an interesting proposal for a temporary partial cease fire to halt long range missile and drone strikes as well as to open the sea channels in the Black Sea.  Regrettably this sounds very much like the proposal that Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron prepared for the Ukrainians to take to Jedda and it is absolutely useless because it does not at all take into account Russian thinking, as if the Russians do not exist. Such an offer will elicit immediate rejection by the Russians, as Sergei Lavrov made clear in recent days. 

Moscow has no interest in a temporary cease fire whether full or partial. Moreover, Rubio’s remarks that neither side can win this war and that the Ukrainians may have to give up some territory to achieve peace are very mealy-mouthed.  Why can no side win?   When Rubio says that the Russians cannot take the whole of Ukraine, he is repeating the propaganda line of Joe Biden over the past year and of the Europeans today.  The Russians have no interest in taking all of Ukraine, and never did. They seek to take and hold only the territory where their presence is welcomed by the local population, which means Ukraine up to the Dnepr River, no further. And that objective is fully within their capabilities.

And what if the Russians reject the truce offer advanced by the Ukrainians?  Will Trump then try to bring them to agree by imposing still more sanctions on Russia?  Here again, we are in the realm of delusionary thinking.  The United States has already applied all economic and military pressure on Russia that it dared apply lest the Russians unleash a deadly attack on the U.S. mainland and set off WWIII.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Is Belgian politics about anything more than the spoils of power?

The question is rhetorical.  We all know that here in Belgium, as in nearly all other Member States of the EU, where governments are formed behind closed doors by coalitions of minority parties distributing portfolios among themselves to secure a majority in parliament, winning and holding power is nearly the entirety of politics. The Policy platforms of the parties are sacrificed without a moment’s hesitation if a ministerial appointment is in the offing. The indifference of the broad population to general elections is largely justified by this reality.

Note the facts. It took from early June 2024, when the last parliamentary elections were held in Belgium, until late February 2025 for a new ruling coalition to be formed. This kind of lengthy period without an acting government happens regularly here in Belgium which is why Belgium may be said to be a global leader in what is, after all, a kind of institutionalized corruption.

What was new in the formation of the new cabinet this time could be construed as being dramatic:  the head of the party with the largest single number of deputies and new Prime Minister, Bart De Wever, is the man who was for the last 10 years the grey eminence behind the last two governments but had not taken the reins himself because of the unseemliness of a nationalist, marginally separatist minded Flemish party, the N-VA, taking an oath of loyalty the king and thus to the established constitutional order which they deeply wish to change, in the direction of co-federalism, meaning a de facto if not de jure split into two countries.

For the first 5 years, going back to 2014, we had a French-speaking head of government, Charles Michel, from the Liberal party MR, which has its power base in Brussels. And for the last 5 years, we had the Flemish-speaking Alexander De Croo as head of government from the Open Flemish Liberals and Democrats. Aside from the fact that each PM was essentially the public face for Bart De Wever, they had the commonality of both being scions of political clans – read dynasties in this country, the equivalent of the Bushes or the Clintons in the USA.

During this period, the N-VA pulled the strings, but very discretely, except for the one time that it countermanded the plans of PM Michel to go to a UN organized gathering to vote for a resolution favoring open borders and free immigration. At that one time, the N-VA member who brought down the house was a certain Theo Francken, who had responsibility for asylum and related questions. Francken was a vehement opponent of open borders and his opposition to Michel’s travel plans forced the collapse of the ruling coalition and new elections.

Going back to that period, in 2018 this Theo Francken published a fascinating book entitled Continent sans frontière (Continent without a border) in which he denounced the lies disseminated by the Belgian. German, Swedish and other EU governments, with full-throated support from the Left-Liberal media, to present the massive illegal migration into Europe of 2015 as consisting of poor mothers and their children seeking refuge from the horrors of the civil war in Syria, when the reality that was known to many officials, and certainly to all those who processed the arriving ‘refugees’ in Belgium, was very different. Indeed, the large majority of the arrivals in Belgium were young single men who came from Western Africa, Afghanistan and other Middle Eastern countries where they were under no threat. Put in simple language, they were economic refugees who seized the opportunity to stream into Europe without passing through the long-existing screening processes.

Francken sounded the alarm on the ‘open borders’ ideology that had taken hold in the ruling elites of Western Europe, though it was heavily criticized by the East European countries of the ‘Vyshegrad Four,’ and already in 2015 spread the seeds of dissension and disaffection within the EU, as well as the shift of voters in Europe to the populist parties of the Right who openly opposed open borders and still do today.

I recommend my lengthy critical review of Francken’s book in its French language edition.

Immigration! A review of Theo Francken, “Continent sans frontière”

My main take-away was that Theo Francken is one of the most intellectually gifted and energetic politicians on the Continent. He has a lawyer’s education and he presents his case with full, verifiable documentation.

Times move on. Francken served in the Belgian parliament from 2010 to 2025.  His next move into the government just came in February when De Wever appointed him as Minister of Defense and Foreign Trade. The logic of the joint ministerial portfolios becomes clear when you watch news of his trip a week ago to India on behalf of the Belgian military industry. But as you also see in this interview, Francken is saying that Belgium will support Ukraine 100%, etc.

Interview with WION:  https://www.facebook.com/WIONews/videos/we-will-stand-with-ukraine-belgians-defence-minister-to-wion/641690058560901/

I introduce Theo Francken, Minister of Defense, Belgium to you today not just to demonstrate that a well-educated and very smart chap can rise to a top position in government even in structurally corrupt Belgium.  Rather my point is to demonstrate that such a person can swallow all of the EU-wide lies about Ukraine and how this young and vibrant democracy must be defended against Russian aggression.

There is no mental deficiency visible in Mr. Francken. He is not a well-educated fool like Tony Blinken or a certifiable dimwit like Keir Starmer. He has stood up and challenged the lying states of Europe over illegal immigration. But today it is much more comfortable for him to be a purveyor of lies and disinformation now that he has two ministerial portfolios under his arm.

Let us hope that he rues this decision when he is out on the street following the collapse of Ukraine on the battlefield and the undeniable failure of the policies now leading EU to disgrace and irrelevancy on the world stage.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Geht es in der belgischen Politik um mehr als nur um die Beute der Macht?

Die Frage ist rhetorisch. Wir alle wissen, dass hier in Belgien, wie in fast allen anderen Mitgliedstaaten der EU, Regierungen hinter verschlossenen Türen von Koalitionen aus Minderheitsparteien gebildet werden, die die Ressorts unter sich aufteilen, um eine Mehrheit im Parlament zu sichern. Macht zu gewinnen und zu behalten, ist fast die gesamte Politik. Die politischen Programme der Parteien werden ohne zu zögern geopfert, wenn eine Ernennung zum Minister in Aussicht steht. Die Gleichgültigkeit der breiten Bevölkerung gegenüber allgemeinen Wahlen ist weitgehend durch diese Realität gerechtfertigt.

Man beachte die Fakten. Von Anfang Juni 2024, als in Belgien die letzten Parlamentswahlen stattfanden, bis Ende Februar 2025 dauerte es, bis eine neue Regierungskoalition gebildet wurde. Diese Art von langer Zeit ohne amtierende Regierung kommt hier in Belgien regelmäßig vor, weshalb Belgien als weltweit führend in einer Art institutionalisierter Korruption bezeichnet werden kann.

Die Bildung des neuen Kabinetts war diesmal insofern neu, als sie als dramatisch angesehen werden könnte: Der Vorsitzende der Partei mit der größten Anzahl an Abgeordneten und neue Premierminister, Bart De Wever, ist der Mann, der in den letzten 10 Jahren die graue Eminenz hinter den letzten beiden Regierungen war, aber nicht selbst die Zügel in die Hand genommen hatte, weil es unschicklich war, dass eine nationalistische, marginal separatistisch gesinnte flämische Partei, die N-VA, einen Treueid auf den König und damit auf die bestehende verfassungsmäßige Ordnung ablegen musste, die sie zutiefst ändern wollen, und zwar in Richtung eines Ko-Föderalismus, was de facto, wenn nicht sogar de jure, eine Teilung in zwei Länder bedeutet.

In den ersten fünf Jahren, seit 2014, hatten wir mit Charles Michel von der liberalen Partei MR, die ihre Machtbasis in Brüssel hat, einen französischsprachigen Regierungschef. Und in den letzten fünf Jahren hatten wir den flämischsprachigen Alexander De Croo als Regierungschef von den Offenen Flämischen Liberalen und Demokraten. Abgesehen davon, dass jeder Premierminister im Wesentlichen das öffentliche Gesicht von Bart De Wever war, hatten sie gemeinsam, dass sie beide Sprösslinge politischer Clans waren – in diesem Land Dynastien, das Äquivalent zu den Bushs oder Clintons in den USA.

In dieser Zeit zog die N-VA die Fäden aber sehr diskret, mit Ausnahme des einen Mal, als sie die Pläne von Premierminister Michel durchkreuzte, zu einer von der UNO organisierten Versammlung zu reisen, um für eine Resolution zu stimmen, die offene Grenzen und freie Einwanderung befürwortete. Bei dieser einen Gelegenheit war das N-VA-Mitglied, das das Haus zu Fall brachte, ein gewisser Theo Francken, der für Asyl und damit zusammenhängende Fragen zuständig war. Francken war ein vehementer Gegner offener Grenzen und sein Widerstand gegen Michels Reisepläne führte zum Zusammenbruch der Regierungskoalition und zu Neuwahlen.

Um auf diese Zeit zurückzukommen: 2018 veröffentlichte Theo Francken ein faszinierendes Buch mit dem Titel „Continent sans frontière“ (Kontinent ohne Grenzen), in dem er die Lügen anprangerte, die von den belgischen, deutschen, schwedischen und anderen EU-Regierungen mit voller Unterstützung der linksliberalen Medien verbreiteten Lügen anprangerte, die massive illegale Migration nach Europa im Jahr 2015 als eine Gruppe armer Mütter und ihrer Kinder darzustellen, die vor den Schrecken des Bürgerkriegs in Syrien Zuflucht suchen, obwohl die Realität, die vielen Beamten und sicherlich allen, die die ankommenden „Flüchtlinge“ in Belgien bearbeiteten, bekannt war, ganz anders aussah. Tatsächlich handelte es sich bei der großen Mehrheit der in Belgien ankommenden Personen um junge alleinstehende Männer aus Westafrika, Afghanistan und anderen Ländern des Nahen Ostens, in denen sie keiner Bedrohung ausgesetzt waren. Einfach ausgedrückt handelte es sich um Wirtschaftsflüchtlinge, die die Gelegenheit ergriffen, nach Europa zu strömen, ohne die seit langem bestehenden Prüfverfahren zu durchlaufen.

Francken schlug Alarm wegen der Ideologie der „offenen Grenzen“, die sich in den herrschenden Eliten Westeuropas durchgesetzt hatte, obwohl sie von den osteuropäischen Ländern der „Vyšehrad-Gruppe“ heftig kritisiert wurde, und bereits 2015 den Keim für Zwietracht und Unzufriedenheit innerhalb der EU sowie für die Abwanderung von Wählern in Europa zu den populistischen Parteien der Rechten legte, die sich offen gegen offene Grenzen aussprachen und dies auch heute noch tun.

Ich empfehle meine ausführliche kritische Rezension von Francken’s Buch in der französischen Ausgabe.

Meine wichtigste Erkenntnis war, dass Theo Francken einer der intellektuell begabtesten und energischsten Politiker auf dem Kontinent ist. Er hat eine juristische Ausbildung und präsentiert seinen Fall mit vollständigen, überprüfbaren Unterlagen.

Die Zeiten ändern sich. Francken war von 2010 bis 2025 im belgischen Parlament tätig. Sein nächster Schritt in die Regierung erfolgte erst im Februar, als De Wever ihn zum Minister für Verteidigung und Außenhandel ernannte. Die Logik der gemeinsamen Ministerportfolios wird deutlich, wenn man sich die Nachrichten über seine Reise nach Indien im Auftrag der belgischen Militärindustrie vor einer Woche ansieht. Aber wie Sie auch in diesem Interview sehen, sagt Francken, dass Belgien die Ukraine zu 100 % unterstützen wird usw.

Interview mit WION:  https://www.facebook.com/WIONews/videos/we-will-stand-with-ukraine-belgians-defence-minister-to-wion/641690058560901/

Ich stelle Ihnen heute Theo Francken, den belgischen Verteidigungsminister, vor, nicht nur um zu zeigen, dass ein gut ausgebildeter und sehr kluger Mann selbst im strukturell korrupten Belgien in eine Spitzenposition in der Regierung aufsteigen kann. Vielmehr möchte ich zeigen, dass eine solche Person alle EU-weiten Lügen über die Ukraine schlucken kann und wie diese junge und lebendige Demokratie gegen die russische Aggression verteidigt werden muss.

Bei Herrn Francken ist keine geistige Behinderung erkennbar. Er ist kein gebildeter Dummkopf wie Tony Blinken oder ein nachweislicher Schwachkopf wie Keir Starmer. Er hat sich erhoben und die verlogenen Staaten Europas wegen illegaler Einwanderung herausgefordert. Aber heute ist es für ihn viel bequemer, ein Verbreiter von Lügen und Desinformation zu sein, jetzt, da er zwei Ministerposten inne hat.

Hoffen wir, dass er diese Entscheidung bereut, wenn er nach dem Zusammenbruch der Ukraine auf dem Schlachtfeld und dem unbestreitbaren Scheitern der Politik, die die EU jetzt in die Schande und Bedeutungslosigkeit auf der Weltbühne führt, auf der Straße steht.

What are the Russians saying about Trump?

Donald Trump has been one of the main topics for discussion, if not the topic on the leading Russian political talk shows that I follow most closely.

On the Vladimir Solovyov evening shows, the talk about Trump has been more personal than substantive. A lot of attention was given to explaining how Zelensky had got on Trump’s nerves from the very start of their joint appearance before journalists in the Oval Office. It was Zelensky’s clothes, his defiant refusal to follow protocol and wear a suit. It was his mugging expressions, his raising his voice to speak over Trump, his lack of deference for someone thirty years his senior.

There is nothing wrong with all of the above, but it is just kitchen talk rather than serious geopolitical analysis. The closest that talk came to geopolitics on the Solovyov show was the observation last night that Keir Starmer has nil chance of influencing Trump to change his position on post-peace security guaranties for Ukraine, and also that King Charles’ warm reception for Zelensky at his Sandringham estate was an obvious slap in the face for Trump and ensures that the American President will not be going to dinner  with Charles.

Regrettably the latest Solovyov shows have been weighed down by the endless criticisms of the Central Bank by Deputy Babakov which we have heard so many times before in the past year or more. Given the historic times we are living through, the showtime should be fresher and more serious. And there is the endless bickering between Solovyov and Communist Duma deputy Kalashnikov, over irrelevancies. Kalashnikov is just a damned fool who is invited onto the show to be the boxer’s dummy.

Fortunately, Vyacheslav Nikonov and his more select pool of panelists at The Great Game have risen to the occasion and provide each day some additional bits of information supporting a very optimistic reading of Trump and of his sincerity in working for peace as well as for a general reset of relations with Russia. Often these bits of information are not presented in Western mainstream media though they are quite important in explaining why the Europeans are now running around like headless chickens.

Today one such information point presented on The Great Game was that the United States and Russia are today working jointly in the UN Security Council to table resolutions regarding the outbreak of violence in Syria. Meanwhile the European Council members, who uncritically back Damascus, are said to be in utter confusion over how to respond. The second news item that you will not find in The New York Times or The Financial Times is that the United States has just vetoed language in a policy statement being prepared within the G7 that would have sought to monitor and take action against Russia’s ‘shadow fleet’ of oil tankers. They also removed from the statement all mention of Russia as an aggressor.

To be sure these are small steps on the way to normalization of relations between Russia and the USA, but they are noticed and well appreciated by Moscow as a token of the changing world order to come.

The Kremlin is watching very closely the pressure being applied to Kiev to bring it around to negotiating a peace in good faith. As they see it, Washington is compelling Kiev to make compromises if it is to have any chance of receiving renewed American support.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Was sagen die Russen über Trump?

Donald Trump war eines der Hauptthemen, wenn nicht sogar das Thema in den führenden russischen politischen Talkshows, die ich am meisten verfolge.

In den Abendshows von Wladimir Solowjow war das Gespräch über Trump eher persönlicher als inhaltlicher Natur. Es wurde viel Aufmerksamkeit darauf verwendet zu erklären, wie Selensky Trump von Beginn ihres gemeinsamen Auftritts vor Journalisten im Oval Office an auf die Nerven gegangen war. Es waren Zelenskys Kleidung, seine trotzige Weigerung, sich an das Protokoll zu halten und einen Anzug zu tragen. Es waren seine grimmigen Gesichtsausdrücke, seine laute Stimme, mit der er Trump übertönte, sein Mangel an Respekt gegenüber jemandem, der dreißig Jahre älter ist als er.

An all dem ist nichts auszusetzen, aber es handelt sich eher um Küchenklatsch als um ernsthafte geopolitische Analysen. Das einzige, was in der Solowjow-Sendung am ehesten an Geopolitik erinnerte, war die Feststellung von gestern Abend, dass Keir Starmer keine Chance hat, Trump dazu zu bewegen, seine Position zu Sicherheitsgarantien für die Ukraine nach dem Friedensschluss zu ändern, und dass der herzliche Empfang von Zelensky durch König Charles auf seinem Anwesen in Sandringham eine offensichtliche Ohrfeige für Trump war und sicherstellt, dass der amerikanische Präsident nicht mit Charles zu Abend essen wird.

Leider wurden die letzten Solowjow-Shows durch die endlose Kritik des Abgeordneten Babakow an der Zentralbank belastet, die wir im vergangenen Jahr oder länger schon so oft gehört haben. Angesichts der historischen Zeiten, die wir durchleben, sollte die Show frischer und ernster sein. Und dann ist da noch der endlose Streit zwischen Solowjow und dem kommunistischen Duma-Abgeordneten Kalaschnikow über Belanglosigkeiten. Kalaschnikow ist einfach ein verdammter Idiot, der in die Show eingeladen wird, um als Boxattrappe zu dienen.

Glücklicherweise haben sich Vyacheslav Nikonov und seine erlesene Gruppe von Diskussionsteilnehmern bei Das Grosse Spiel der Situation gewachsen gezeigt und liefern jeden Tag einige zusätzliche Informationen, die eine sehr optimistische Sicht auf Trump und seine Aufrichtigkeit bei der Arbeit für den Frieden sowie für eine allgemeine Neuausrichtung der Beziehungen zu Russland stützen. Oft werden diese Informationen nicht in den westlichen Mainstream-Medien präsentiert, obwohl sie sehr wichtig sind, um zu erklären, warum die Europäer jetzt wie kopflose Hühner herumlaufen.

Heute wurde in einem dieser Informationspunkte in Das Grosse Spiel berichtet, dass die Vereinigten Staaten und Russland derzeit im UN-Sicherheitsrat gemeinsam an der Vorlage von Resolutionen zum Ausbruch der Gewalt in Syrien arbeiten. Unterdessen herrscht bei den Mitgliedern des Europäischen Rates, die Damaskus unkritisch unterstützen, völlige Verwirrung darüber, wie sie reagieren sollen. Die zweite Nachricht, die Sie weder in The New York Times noch in The Financial Times finden werden, ist, dass die Vereinigten Staaten gerade ihr Veto gegen eine Formulierung in einer politischen Erklärung eingelegt haben, die im Rahmen der G7 vorbereitet wurde und die darauf abzielte, die „Schattenflotte“ von Öltankern Russlands zu überwachen und Maßnahmen gegen sie zu ergreifen. Sie haben auch alle Erwähnungen Russlands als Aggressor aus der Erklärung entfernt.

Dies sind zwar nur kleine Schritte auf dem Weg zur Normalisierung der Beziehungen zwischen Russland und den USA, aber sie werden von Moskau als Zeichen für eine sich ändernde Weltordnung wahrgenommen und geschätzt.

Der Kreml beobachtet sehr genau, wie Druck auf Kiew ausgeübt wird, damit es sich zu Friedensverhandlungen in gutem Glauben bereit erklärt. Aus ihrer Sicht zwingt Washington Kiew zu Kompromissen, wenn es eine Chance haben soll, erneut amerikanische Unterstützung zu erhalten.

Trump’s supposedly one-sided support for Russia over Ukraine

In the past two days, major media have highlighted what they call Donald Trump’s blatant favoritism towards Russia by his withdrawal of U.S. materiel and intel assistance to Kiev. The morning news brings accounts of the damage caused to Ukrainian energy infrastructure, hotels and residential housing by the latest massive Russian attacks, which were facilitated, they say, by the lack of relevant intel warnings to Kiev of impending attacks.

Granted that these measures cutting Kiev off from vital supplies are seen as pressure to bring Kiev to the negotiating table, they still allow the anti-Trump mainstream broadcasters to renew old accusations against Trump from the 2016 electoral campaign and then from his first term as being a friend of Putin, if not a dupe of Putin. After all, no such massive pressure is being directed at Russia, even if sanctions are threatened. Indeed, when asked by a reporter yesterday whether Putin was not taking unfair advantage of the U.S. cut-off of intel support, Trump said that Putin was just doing what anyone would do under the circumstances, fighting his fight with the greatest energy to end the war as soon as possible.

The BBC and CNN are presenting on air so-called experts, including the impossibly partisan, anti-Trump former security adviser John Bolton, to inform us of the assumed personal dimension to state-to-state relations in which President Trump is acting arbitrarily.

And what are alternative media saying about the favoritism being shown by Washington to Moscow over Kiev in the softening-up process ahead of peace talks?  Frankly speaking, nothing.  There are alternative media experts who have always been cheerleaders for Russia and they accept the present American policy reversal as normal, if belated recognition that the entire proxy war led by Joe Biden was imposed by the Deep State, which is finally getting its comeuppance as Trump and Musk wield a wrecking ball on traditional policies and institutions to solidify their own hold on power.

There are also more sophisticated experts in the alternative media who are pleased to see the positive policy threads in what the Trump administration is doing, including the massive pressure now being applied to Kiev, but do not see past the verbal contradictions and bluster of Trump’s daily appearances before the public and do not credit him with having a prioritized scenario for ending the war justifying the term ‘brilliant.’

As readers of these pages know, I do see what Trump is doing to be ‘brilliant’ because the confusion he is creating is intended to disarm his opponents, of whom there are many on Capitol Hill, as well as many in foreign capitals who are surely acting in collusion with Trump’s domestic foes.

However, in this brief essay, I put aside these issues and ask what is the objective rather than just subjective explanation of Trump’s latest moves against Kiev and mere tap on the wrist to Moscow while it blasts away generally on the battlefield and now enters into a big offensive in Kursk to encircle a large contingent of Ukrainian elite forces and to destroy others in the shrinking territory that they still control.

Trump, of course, is doing more than just shutting down the supply of weapons and war materiel to Kiev, cutting Ukraine’s access to U.S. satellite and other intelligence essential for targeting offensive missiles and drones into Russia and for its air defense. It is likely that in the coming days, Kiev will lose its access to Musk’s Starlink network of satellites that presently assure field communications. That will be devastating for the Ukrainian war effort and is not really replaceable by anything that the Europeans possesss.

There are two key explanations of what this is about.

The first is to remove the United States from its position as de-facto co-belligerent with Ukraine in the war. Though the Russians never chose to press this point, de jure they had every right to declare war on the United States over its indirect but critical participation in the war. Moreover, Trump’s claim to be an honest broker in ending the war makes sense only if the United States is not a participant aiding one side in the way it has been until now.

The second reason is to smash the false narrative of Ukraine’s ability to carry on by itself which Zelensky used in his dispute with Trump in the Oval Office.  Let us recall:  Donald Trump had told Zelensky that from the very start of the war, the Ukrainians could not have held their own against the Russians for more than a few days or a maximum of two weeks had they not received American military support.  Zelensky vehemently denied that and said that he had heard the same from Putin.

By withholding U.S. support today and letting the Russians proceed with their offensives as they wish, Donald Trump is holding Zelensky’s feet to the fire in the expectation that they will be more realistic, humbler in the peace talks which are to come. Otherwise, the Ukrainians would persist in presenting their demands for a peace that deprives Russia of what it won on the battlefield, thereby sabotaging the peace process.

In the meantime, the Europeans are doing their very best to sabotage the talks by offering material and financial aid to Kiev to continue the war indefinitely. Their problem is that they do not really have the goods to deliver on these promises.

In his own way, Trump is also messaging to the Europeans to come to their senses and acknowledge their impotence without U.S. participation. Yesterday, Washington announced that it will not participate in planning any joint military exercises with the NATO countries for the coming year.  And Defense Secretary Hegseth indicated that more than 30,000 troops will be withdrawn from Germany and reassigned to Hungary, another clear indication that those European countries which remain defiant will be punished by the Americans without delay and without hesitation. Further European defiance can only lead to the total loss of the U.S. security umbrella.

Do these measures seem to be arbitrary and issued at the personal whim of a narcistic President? Not if you are serious about your vocation as a geopolitical analyst.

©Gibert Doctorow, 2025

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Trumps angeblich einseitige Unterstützung für Russland gegenüber der Ukraine

In den letzten zwei Tagen haben große Medien die ihrer Meinung nach eklatante Bevorzugung Russlands durch Donald Trump hervorgehoben, indem er die materielle und nachrichtendienstliche Unterstützung der USA für Kiew zurückgezogen hat. In den Morgennachrichten wird über die Schäden berichtet, die durch die jüngsten massiven russischen Angriffe an der ukrainischen Energieinfrastruktur, an Hotels und Wohngebäuden verursacht wurden. Diese seien, so heißt es, durch das Fehlen relevanter nachrichtendienstlicher Warnungen an Kiew vor bevorstehenden Angriffen begünstigt worden.

Zwar werden diese Maßnahmen, die Kiew von lebenswichtigen Versorgungsgütern abschneiden, als Druckmittel angesehen, um Kiew an den Verhandlungstisch zu bringen, doch sie ermöglichen es den Anti-Trump-Mainstream-Sendern, alte Vorwürfe gegen Trump aus dem Wahlkampf 2016 und dann aus seiner ersten Amtszeit als Freund Putins, wenn nicht gar als dessen Marionette, wieder aufleben zu lassen. Schließlich wird kein derart massiver Druck auf Russland ausgeübt, selbst wenn Sanktionen angedroht werden. Auf die gestrige Frage eines Reporters, ob Putin nicht unfairen Vorteil aus der Einstellung der Geheimdienstunterstützung durch die USA ziehe, antwortete Trump, dass Putin nur das tue, was jeder unter diesen Umständen tun würde, und seinen Kampf mit größter Energie führe, um den Krieg so schnell wie möglich zu beenden.

BBC und CNN präsentieren sogenannte Experten, darunter den unglaublich parteiischen, Anti-Trump-orientierten ehemaligen Sicherheitsberater John Bolton, die uns über die vermeintliche persönliche Dimension der Beziehungen zwischen den Staaten informieren sollen, in denen Präsident Trump willkürlich handele.

Und was sagen die alternativen Medien über die Bevorzugung Moskaus gegenüber Kiew durch Washington im Rahmen des Aufweichungsprozesses vor den Friedensgesprächen? Ehrlich gesagt: nichts. Es gibt Experten für alternative Medien, die schon immer für Russland Partei ergriffen haben, und sie akzeptieren die gegenwärtige Kehrtwende der amerikanischen Politik als normale, wenn auch verspätete Anerkennung der Tatsache, dass der gesamte von Joe Biden angeführte Stellvertreterkrieg vom Deep State aufgezwungen wurde, der nun endlich seine gerechte Strafe erhält, da Trump und Musk mit der Abrissbirne auf traditionelle Politiken und Institutionen einschlagen, um ihren eigenen Machterhalt zu festigen.

Es gibt auch versiertere Experten in den alternativen Medien, die sich über die positiven politischen Ansätze der Trump-Regierung freuen, einschließlich des massiven Drucks, der jetzt auf Kiew ausgeübt wird, aber über die verbalen Widersprüche und das Getöse bei Trumps täglichen Auftritten vor der Öffentlichkeit nicht hinausblicken und ihm kein priorisiertes Szenario zur Beendigung des Krieges zutrauen, das den Begriff „brillant“ rechtfertigt.

Wie die Leser dieser Seiten wissen, sehe ich, was Trump tut, als „brillant“ an, denn die Verwirrung, die er stiftet, soll seine Gegner entwaffnen, von denen es viele auf dem Capitol Hill gibt, sowie viele in ausländischen Hauptstädten, die sicherlich in Absprache mit Trumps inländischen Gegnern handeln.

In diesem kurzen Essay lasse ich diese Fragen jedoch beiseite und frage, was die objektive und nicht nur subjektive Erklärung für Trumps jüngste Schritte gegen Kiew und das bloße Klopfen auf das Handgelenk Moskaus ist, während es auf dem Schlachtfeld im Allgemeinen um sich schießt und nun in Kursk in eine große Offensive geht, um ein großes Kontingent ukrainischer Elitetruppen einzukreisen und andere in dem schrumpfenden Gebiet, das sie noch kontrollieren, zu vernichten.

Trump tut natürlich mehr, als nur die Lieferung von Waffen und Kriegsmaterial an Kiew einzustellen und der Ukraine den Zugang zu US-Satelliten und anderen Informationen zu verwehren, die für die Bekämpfung von Angriffsraketen und Drohnen in Russland und für die Luftverteidigung unerlässlich sind. Es ist wahrscheinlich, dass Kiew in den kommenden Tagen den Zugang zu Musks Starlink-Satellitennetzwerk verlieren wird, das derzeit die Kommunikation vor Ort sicherstellt. Das wird verheerende Auswirkungen auf die ukrainischen Kriegsanstrengungen haben und ist durch nichts, was die Europäer besitzen, wirklich zu ersetzen.

Es gibt zwei wesentliche Erklärungen dafür, worum es hier geht.

Der erste Grund ist, die Vereinigten Staaten aus ihrer Position als de-facto-Kriegsbündnispartner der Ukraine im Krieg zu entfernen. Obwohl die Russen diesen Punkt nie betont haben, hatten sie de jure jedes Recht, den Vereinigten Staaten wegen ihrer indirekten, aber entscheidenden Beteiligung am Krieg den Krieg zu erklären. Darüber hinaus ergibt Trumps Anspruch, ein ehrlicher Vermittler bei der Beendigung des Krieges zu sein, nur dann Sinn, wenn die Vereinigten Staaten nicht wie bisher als Teilnehmer eine Seite unterstützen.

Der zweite Grund ist, die falsche Darstellung der Fähigkeit der Ukraine, alleine weiterzumachen, zu widerlegen, die Selensky in seiner Auseinandersetzung mit Trump im Oval Office verwendet hat. Erinnern wir uns: Donald Trump hatte Selensky gesagt, dass die Ukrainer sich von Beginn des Krieges an nicht länger als ein paar Tage oder maximal zwei Wochen gegen die Russen hätten behaupten können, wenn sie keine militärische Unterstützung der Amerikaner erhalten hätten. Selensky bestritt dies vehement und sagte, er habe dasselbe schon von Putin gehört.

Indem Donald Trump heute die Unterstützung der USA zurückhält und die Russen ihre Offensiven nach Belieben fortsetzen lässt, setzt er Selensky unter Druck, in der Erwartung, dass sie bei den bevorstehenden Friedensgesprächen realistischer und bescheidener auftreten werden. Andernfalls würden die Ukrainer weiterhin ihre Forderungen nach einem Frieden stellen, der Russland das vorenthält, was es auf dem Schlachtfeld gewonnen hat, und damit den Friedensprozess sabotieren.

In der Zwischenzeit tun die Europäer ihr Bestes, um die Gespräche zu sabotieren, indem sie Kiew materielle und finanzielle Hilfe anbieten, um den Krieg auf unbestimmte Zeit fortzusetzen. Ihr Problem ist, dass sie nicht wirklich die Mittel haben, um diese Versprechen zu erfüllen.

Auf seine eigene Art und Weise sendet auch Trump eine Botschaft an die Europäer, zur Vernunft zu kommen und ihre Machtlosigkeit ohne die Beteiligung der USA anzuerkennen. Gestern kündigte Washington an, dass es sich im kommenden Jahr nicht an der Planung gemeinsamer Militärübungen mit den NATO-Ländern beteiligen werde. Und Verteidigungsminister Hegseth deutete an, dass mehr als 30.000 Soldaten aus Deutschland abgezogen und nach Ungarn verlegt werden sollen, ein weiteres klares Zeichen dafür, dass die europäischen Länder, die sich weiterhin widerspenstig zeigen, von den Amerikanern unverzüglich und ohne zu zögern bestraft werden. Ein weiteres europäisches Aufbegehren kann nur zum vollständigen Verlust des US-Sicherheitsschirms führen.

Scheinen diese Maßnahmen willkürlich und nach der persönlichen Laune eines narzisstischen Präsidenten erlassen worden zu sein? Nicht, wenn man seine Berufung als geopolitischer Analyst ernst nimmt.

Yesterday’s breaking news in The Financial Times included an article from their Washington correspondent James Politi telling us that:

US President Donald Trump has threatened Russia with additional ‘large scale’ sanctions and tariffs, as he seeks to pile pressure on Moscow in an effort to broker a peace deal in Ukraine.

The author then quotes directly from Trump’s latest message on his Truth Social platform:

Based on the fact that Russia is absolutely ‘pounding’ Ukraine on the battlefield right now, I am strongly considering large scale Banking Sanctions, Sanctions, and Tariffs on Russia until a Cease Fire and FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PEACE IS REACHED.

The author does not break out the logic of this statement, though that is highly relevant. Trump speaks of ‘pounding’ on the battlefield.  What he obviously had in mind was the preceding evening’s massive attack on energy infrastructure across Ukraine using missiles and drones. What Russia was doing was to take advantage of Ukraine’s loss of U.S. intel that had been guiding its air defenses. Insofar as Donald’s domestic and foreign opponents might cry foul, accusing the U.S. of enabling this destruction, the President was now, quite logically, pledging to apply great pressure on Russia so that it, too, would hasten to the peace table that Trump is preparing.

What amazes me is that colleagues in the nonmainstream media whom I greatly esteem for their worldly experience and intellectual sophistication utterly fail to see what Trump is doing because they still do not understand that he may just be a cleverer political operator than they could be. After all, we know that Trump is superficial, narcistic, a person who hardly reads anything. 

Consequently, they take his remarks at face value and scoff at the foolishness in his claim now to pummel Russia with new sanctions. They joke at his expense that the US has already thrown at Russia all the punishing sanctions it was capable of and that Russia’s remaining exports to the United States available for crushing tariffs are just enriched uranium for American nuclear power plants and fertilizer, without which U.S. farmers need not bother plant their seeds for the coming season’s crops.

What these colleagues miss is that the latest threats to punish Russia were meant for the ears of Trump’s opponents, who are uninterested in the effectiveness of sanctions against Moscow and only want to hear that more sanctions are coming so that the Kremlin will finally be broken and submit to Washington’s will.  Put in simple language, what Trump was doing was neutralizing his enemies, nothing more.

And so, I ask: who is the better negotiator, Donald Trump or my far more sophisticated and intellectually consistent colleagues?

I close this brief essay with a remark on another recent initiative of the Trump administration that has not been given the full attention of serious analysts that it merits. This initiative pertains to the Middle East. I have in mind the latest direct meetings between the U.S. hostage negotiator and Hamas over the release of U.S.-Israeli dual national hostages, the dead as well as those alive. The BBC and other broadcasters have mentioned this, have pointed out that it is the first such direct American talks with the terrorist organization, as Washington calls Hamas. But they do not explore what this means for U.S. – Israeli relations, although just a tiny bit of attention suggests there is a gold mine here to be explored.

We have heard in recent days how Trump has threatened Hamas with dire consequences if it does not agree to Israel’s latest changes to what was agreed a month ago about the end of Phase One and start of talks over a possible extension into Phase Two of the cease fire. Lightning bolts would be delivered to the miscreants.

And now it turns out that Trump negotiators are meeting behind closed doors with these same miscreants and are doing so without the presence of the Israelis, whose war it is after all. Has Washington finally extricated itself from the web of deception that Benjamin Netanyahu has been spinning for three decades?

Hopefully someone with greater expertise and research in Middle Eastern politics will take this ball and run with it.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Neueste Nachrichten von Donald Trump

In den gestrigen Eilmeldungen der Financial Times war ein Artikel ihres Washington-Korrespondenten James Politi zu lesen, in dem es hieß:

US-Präsident Donald Trump hat Russland mit zusätzlichen „umfangreichen“ Sanktionen und Zöllen gedroht, um Druck auf Moskau auszuüben und ein Friedensabkommen in der Ukraine zu vermitteln.

Der Autor zitiert dann direkt aus Trumps jüngster Nachricht auf seiner Plattform Truth Social:

Aufgrund der Tatsache, dass Russland die Ukraine derzeit auf dem Schlachtfeld regelrecht „zerstampft“, ziehe ich in Betracht, umfangreiche Bankensanktionen, Sanktionen und Zölle gegen Russland zu verhängen, bis ein Waffenstillstand und eine endgültige Friedensvereinbarung erreicht sind.

Der Autor geht nicht näher auf die Logik dieser Aussage ein, obwohl diese von großer Bedeutung ist. Trump spricht von „Schlägen“ auf dem Schlachtfeld. Was er offensichtlich im Sinn hatte, war der massive Angriff auf die Energieinfrastruktur in der gesamten Ukraine mit Raketen und Drohnen am Abend zuvor. Russland nutzte den Verlust der US-Geheimdienstinformationen, die die Luftabwehr der Ukraine geleitet hatten, zu seinem Vorteil. Donald Trumps innen- und außenpolitische Gegner mögen dies als Foul bezeichnen und die USA beschuldigen, diese Zerstörung ermöglicht zu haben. Der Präsident versprach nun jedoch logischerweise, großen Druck auf Russland auszuüben, damit auch dieses Land an den von Trump vorbereiteten Verhandlungstisch zurückkehrt.

Was mich erstaunt, ist, dass Kollegen in den Nicht-Mainstream-Medien, die ich für ihre Welterfahrung und intellektuelle Raffinesse sehr schätze, völlig übersehen, was Trump tut, weil sie immer noch nicht verstehen, dass er vielleicht einfach ein geschickterer politischer Akteur ist, als sie es sein könnten. Schließlich wissen wir, dass Trump oberflächlich und narzisstisch ist, eine Person, die kaum etwas liest.

Folglich nehmen sie seine Äußerungen für bare Münze und spotten über die Torheit seiner Behauptung, Russland nun mit neuen Sanktionen zu überziehen. Sie machen sich auf seine Kosten darüber lustig, dass die USA bereits alle möglichen Strafsanktionen gegen Russland verhängt haben und dass die verbleibenden russischen Exporte in die Vereinigten Staaten, die für vernichtende Zölle zur Verfügung stehen, nur angereichertes Uran für amerikanische Kernkraftwerke und Düngemittel sind, ohne die die US-Landwirte sich nicht die Mühe machen müssten, ihre Saat für die Ernte der kommenden Saison auszusäen.

Was diese Kollegen übersehen, ist, dass die jüngsten Drohungen, Russland zu bestrafen, für die Ohren von Trumps Gegnern bestimmt waren, die sich nicht für die Wirksamkeit von Sanktionen gegen Moskau interessieren und nur hören wollen, dass weitere Sanktionen kommen werden, damit der Kreml endlich gebrochen wird und sich dem Willen Washingtons unterwirft. Einfach ausgedrückt hat Trump damit nichts weiter getan, als seine Feinde zu neutralisieren.

Und so frage ich: Wer ist der bessere Verhandlungsführer, Donald Trump oder meine weitaus versierteren und intellektuell konsistenteren Kollegen?

Ich schließe diesen kurzen Aufsatz mit einer Bemerkung zu einer weiteren aktuellen Initiative der Trump-Regierung, die von ernsthaften Analysten nicht die Aufmerksamkeit erhalten hat, die sie verdient. Diese Initiative betrifft den Nahen Osten. Ich denke an die jüngsten direkten Treffen zwischen dem US-amerikanischen Geiselunterhändler und der Hamas über die Freilassung von US-israelischen Doppelstaatsangehörigen, sowohl der Toten als auch der Lebenden. Die BBC und andere Sender haben darüber berichtet und darauf hingewiesen, dass es sich um die ersten direkten Gespräche der USA mit der Terrororganisation handelt, wie Washington die Hamas nennt. Aber sie gehen nicht darauf ein, was dies für die Beziehungen zwischen den USA und Israel bedeutet, obwohl schon ein wenig Aufmerksamkeit darauf hindeuten würde, dass es hier eine Goldmine zu entdecken gibt.

In den letzten Tagen haben wir gehört, wie Trump der Hamas mit schlimmen Konsequenzen gedroht hat, wenn sie den jüngsten Änderungen Israels an dem, was vor einem Monat über das Ende der ersten Phase und den Beginn von Gesprächen über eine mögliche Verlängerung der Waffenruhe in Phase zwei vereinbart wurde, nicht zustimmt. Die Übeltäter würden mit Blitzen belegt werden.

Und nun stellt sich heraus, dass die Unterhändler von Trump sich hinter verschlossenen Türen mit denselben Schurken treffen und dies ohne die Anwesenheit der Israelis tun, deren Krieg es schließlich ist. Hat sich Washington endlich aus dem Netz der Täuschung befreit, das Benjamin Netanjahu seit drei Jahrzehnten spinnt?

Hoffentlich nimmt sich jemand mit mehr Fachwissen und Erfahrung in der Politik des Nahen Ostens dieser Sache an.

Transcript submitted by a reader

Shivan Chanana, WION: 0:00
Can France, which has a total of 290 nuclear warheads, defend entire Europe against Russia?

Doctorow:
Most of what he’s been saying for the last couple of weeks is only spun out of his imagination.
The idea that Trump will remove the United States from NATO is a certainty.
Russia has no interest in possessing the whole of Ukraine.

WION: 0:33
As the divide between US and Europe widens, French President Emmanuel Macron came out swinging projecting his country, France, as the possible new saviour for Europe.

In a televised address, Macron made three key points. Russian aggression knows no borders, suggesting that Russia won’t stop at Ukraine and poses a threat to entire Europe. He said Europe must be prepared to defend itself without the US if that comes to becoming a reality. And France is willing to extend its nuclear umbrella to European partners, which essentially means deploying French nuclear assets across Europe. And the trigger still remains in Macron’s hands.

1:10
Now, in response to this, Dmitry Medvedev, former Russian president, announced Macron’s termination, even announcing the date when Macron will be terminated. Can France, which has a total of 290 nuclear warheads, defend entire Europe against Russia, which has at least 1,600 deployed warheads and nearly 2,800 stockpiled warheads? Can France replace the US nuclear deterrence? Can France become Europe’s security provider in place of US? Does France want to be Europe’s key security provider and arms manufacturer? What is France’s game plan?

To discuss matters further, I’m being joined by Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, who is an author, historian and international affairs analyst, joining me from Brussels. Sir, always a pleasure speaking with you. Dr. Doctorow, France, is it the new backer of Ukraine and Europe?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 2:01
This is the latest policy initiative by President Macron. He has a new major initiative every two days. Now, I want to be fair about this. This particular statement that he’s made last night has an interesting basis in fact, whereas most of what he’s been saying for the last couple of weeks has only spun out of his imagination.

His idea of France taking a leading role in the peace initiative for Ukraine by making available its boots on the ground in Ukraine to provide a security guarantee to whatever peace is arrived at — that is spun out of thin air and was completely ignoring the reality of the world we live in, which is that the Russians will not accept any, any foreign troops in Ukraine, as has been explicitly stated by President Putin and by his minister of foreign affairs, Lavrov.

3:04
And this is quite incredible that he would ignore that reality. What we have today now is the latest initiative, and with the same intention for France to move to the head of the pool of European leaders and to be the spokesperson and commander-in-chief of European defenses. Mr. Macron is so active, hyperactive, because he has a minimal support rating in his country.

If he has more than 10% approval rating, it’s a lot. In domestic politics, he is very weak, has a very weak hand. He does not have a workable government, a workable control of parliament that would enable him to continue his planned program of reforms, government reforms. So in domestic politics, he is close to being out on the street. So how do you make up for this lack of support domestically?

4:12
Well, you go, you devote everything to international affairs where you have absolute control since foreign affairs, military policy are the prerogative of the top executives. That’s what he’s doing. Yes.

WION:
No, no, I wanted to just come into this now. He mentioned expanding French nuclear umbrella to the entirety of Europe. So when the French president says something like this, and when the entire arsenal consists of 290 nuclear warheads, and you’re comparing this to arguably the biggest nuclear force in the world, that is Russia. How far or what would this imply for Europe? How– 290 warheads, how do they get divided across Europe to stand in front of Russia?

Doctorow:
Well, I am not a military expert, but I follow military experts very closely, particularly those that the majority of your audience would not be following. By that I mean Russian military experts and Russian political commentators. And I can tell you, the Russians have been sniggering. The latest remarks are that Russia is not threatened in any way by this French …

WION:
As far as the French nuclear arms are concerned, you mentioned the Russians are perhaps snickering at this. So is it enough or what does France even envision or imagine, I would say, since you said it’s perhaps springing something out of imagination, what are they even thinking? Can they do without the US in even having any kind of discussions with Russia?

Doctorow; 6:03
Well, let’s put this in a context. I was among a number of commentators in the United States and elsewhere who expected on Tuesday night, the 4th, during his address to the joint session of Congress, Donald Trump would announce the United States withdrawal from NATO. Well, he didn’t do that. Actually, the type of speech that he delivered and context for it was not appropriate to the solemnity of such a decision. He was giving another of his famous electoral campaign speeches. But the idea that Trump will remove the United States from NATO is a certainty.

6:45
This is not something that may happen; it’s something that will happen. And the Europeans are bringing this down on themselves by their repeating collectively the disastrous mistake that Volodymyr Zelensky made in the Oval Office last Friday. That mistake is lèse-majesté. You do not insult, you do not challenge directly the opinions of the president of the United States before cameras, and expect to survive politically. Now, Europe has done that.

But no sooner did Zelensky leave the United States, [where he’s pushed or] thrown out of the Whitehouse, than he arrived in London, where he’s embraced warmly by Starmer, by others, 19 assembled leaders of Europe, who gave him their full support, whatever that means, and who stand ready to participate actively in the security arrangements surrounding any peace settlement with Russia, on the assumption that Russia is the aggressor and is a recidivist who will once again be the aggressor that has to be stopped by force.

WION: 8:10
Now Dr. Doctorow, as far as Starmer mentioning that you know they offer Ukraine their full support or Europe coming out and saying we stand with Zelensky; and Zelensky– it took all of one day or within 24 hours of US halting and pausing aid to Ukraine, and out came that statement from Zelensky saying we are ready to sign that minerals deal. Within hours of that, you also had a statement from the German Defense Ministry saying that they have run out of ammunition to send to Ukraine. And in the midst of all of this, you have the French president saying they are willing to become the key security providers and they all need to boost their military spending, most of the European countries, and the nuclear umbrella needs to be spread across Europe.

8:58
When you take all these statements together, with Russia clearly outlining that it is a red line for them to have any NATO troops in Ukraine, because of which this entire war had even started. That’s as per the Russian, you know, narrative. Do you feel any of this will come to fruition? Do they stand a chance in front of Russia or is this all a rhetoric at this point?

Doctorow:
I think that the people who are making these statements will be swept from power in the coming months. The net result of their present efforts to stand up directly to defy present-day United States will be the withdrawal of US participation in NATO, after which NATO is an absolutely hollow and useless instrument.

Therefore, by their actions today, which are– nominally the argument is that defending Ukraine means defending European security, the net result of what they are doing is a much more serious threat to European security, because it removes the Americans from the equation.

10:04
And that is something that their people, that their voters will find utterly unacceptable and will find a way to force the resignation of the people who collected in Mr. Starmer’s offices in London.

As to standing up to Russia, once it is clear that Europe has no proper defense– which it hasn’t, for the reasons that you explained, they simply don’t have the armaments, and without the United States, they have no overall capability to stand up to Russia– when that sinks in, then they or their successors in office will approach the Russians to do a general settlement and new security arrangements.

10:55
That is to say, I do believe that at the end of the day, common sense will prevail, because what we’re seeing now is nonsense, not common sense. And Mr. Macron is among the leaders in the nonsense alliance. Everything that he says, yes, France arguably is the best positioned of European countries to provide a nuclear umbrella. The UK also has nuclear arms, but they are almost exclusively, if not exclusively, on their Trident submarines, which may or may not actually be able to fire them. That’s a separate issue. But they would not be suitable for extension of missile coverage across Europe, which is what, if I understand you properly, Macron’s argument seems to include.

11:47
Nonetheless, the imbalance in forces, nuclear forces, is such that Europe, under a French umbrella, is going to get rained on. Moreover, it ignores entirely Russia’s strategic developments in nuclear and non-nuclear weapons of destruction. It has with its hypersonic missiles the ability to decapitate all of the participating countries in any alliance directed against itself. This makes utter foolishness of the pretentious statements by Mr. Macron.

WION: 12:31
Dr. Doctorow, one last question I want to take with you. As per what the French president said, that Russian aggression knows no borders, do you feel Russia has its eyes anywhere beyond Ukraine as well?

Doctorow:
It doesn’t even have its eyes on all of Ukraine. This is all utter Russophobic slander. And why does it exist? Because Europe needs some unifying theme. Europe is falling apart, for good reason. The European Union does not deserve to continue its [existence] in its present form, which is a dictatorship.

Ursula von der Leyen, seeing around her the completely cowardly leaders, so-called leaders, and parliamentarians coming from European countries has grabbed power and is using it in a way that is not foreseen in the European constitution. Therefore, Europe is falling apart. And the only way that Ursula and others like Macron and Starmer from outside the EU hope to keep Europe together is a unifying cry, “We have to save ourselves from Russia.” As I was saying, Russia has no interest in possessing the whole of Ukraine, not to mention moving west to Lisbon. It does not have the means and is not intending to expend its valuable resources, its funds and its arms to hold on to territory that is hostile to it.

14:08
The rest of Ukraine is hostile to Russia, and always will be. So Russia doesn’t want to move west to the Dnieper, let alone to move into the hostile Baltic states, which have no economic or demographic value to anybody, or to Poland, which is a wonderland of political, what can I call them, they live in a Disneyland. They are, the Poles are wonderful people, and have a magnificent culture, but their political elites are as they were since the 18th century, out of touch with reality. So these countries that are screaming about a Russian danger now picked up by Macron in his usual opportunistic manner, they are saying nonsense.

WION: 14:58
I hear your point. Dr. Doctorow, thank you so much for joining me here on “Game Plan”. It’s always a pleasure speaking with you. A lot of big statements coming out, but as far as the summit in Europe is concerned, we will get to know what next. They do plan to spend more on their defense establishment. We need to know what they have in mind if the US is out of the equation.

And Trump is mincing no words when he says that NATO is not really on his radar any more and apart from other organizations. And there is a very, very evident rift that you see between US and the European Union at this point. What this means for the entire equation, geopolitics, we need to discuss that further, perhaps in our next “Game Plan” episode we’ll speak again. Thank you so much.

15:38
That was Dr. Gilbert Doctorow joining us.

Donald Trump’s Speech to the Joint Session of Congress, 4 March

Sometimes it pays to let a few days pass before offering an analysis of a major speech like Donald Trump’s to a Joint Session of Congress on 4 March. Time to ‘let the dust settle’ is all the more important when you consider that Trump’s public statements about key issues relating to the Ukraine war rock back and forth from pro-Russian to pro-Ukrainian, day by day, all for the sake of keeping his opponents off balance and out of his way.

In my own interviews on 4 March taken eight or more hours before the President’s speech at 9pm, Washington time (3am, 5 March, Brussels time), I shared with the community rumors that were circulating among well informed analysts: that Trump would use the speech to announce the withdrawal of the United States from NATO. The logic to that rumor was that this would be Trump’s direct response to the open defiance that European leaders showed on Sunday when meeting in London. They had embraced Zelensky especially warmly, as if to compensate for the brutal treatment he had received at Trump’s hands in the Oval Office and they offered to provide enough military and financial support to enable the Ukrainians to continue their war on Russia indefinitely without U.S. participation, this at the very moment when Trump was calling for a closure to this war in the immediate future.

However, after watching the special pageant of the Joint Session from start to finish, I better understood that it had the character of yet another Trump electoral campaign rally.  There was no room for solemnity appropriate to decisions bearing on war and peace. There was no room for dealing with foreign relations, since everyone was there to hear exclusively about Trump’s progress in implementing his domestic policy initiatives. I estimate that only 4 minutes out of the 140-minute speech could be said to deal with foreign and military policy.

The rituals shaping the speech were pure Americana, an expression of the country’s own version of democracy at which never ending campaigning is the core feature. No sooner do you win one election and get sworn in to a new term, than you are campaigning for the next election 22 months later. As he made his way into the hall and walked to the dais surrounded by the assigned suite of Congressmen/women and Senators, Trump was shaking the hands of those who had managed to get seats on the aisle for this purpose, given that the photo opportunity will serve them with their constituents in their own next pre-election gatherings.

As is the practice of presidents from both parties nowadays, the speech included vignette moments when individuals in the gallery were called out to serve as the human face of specific policies. This is the present-day equivalent of kissing babies, an act that was traditionally associated with politicking in the States. The featured policies for this purpose on Tuesday evening were the overriding themes of the speech, in particular curbing illegal immigration. Attention was given to the mother and sister of a 12-year-old girl who had been brutally murdered by Venezuelan gang members. They had entered the country illegally. Now their gang has been listed as terrorist and will come under special U.S. law enforcement procedures. A nature preserve is being renamed in the girl’s honor.

Another family in mourning seated in the gallery was called out for the needless death of their close relatives during the disastrous American evacuation from Afghanistan. Trump closed this vignette with the seemingly offhand remark that ‘the incompetent and ineffective withdrawal’ by the Biden administration gave a signal to Putin.

Of course, the remark was not offhand and signaled a change for the evening in Washington’s reading of who is to blame and who is the victim in the Russia-Ukraine War. Indeed, that was what we heard a few minutes later in the speech when Trump finally spoke about his peace initiative. This section consisted entirely of his reading a just arrived letter from Volodymyr Zelensky in which the Ukrainian president groveled and sought to renew the dialogue with Washington now that he is ready to negotiate a peace (not just a 30-day truce) with the Russians “under the strong leadership of President Trump.”

So, is Trump moving back to the role of even-handed broker, after having been condemned by the Democrats for making common cause with Putin?

The answer came on Wednesday, when it became clear that the halt to all further shipments of American war materiel to Ukraine would remain in effect ‘on a temporary basis.’

Let us be clear about it: the halt is symbolic, since the Biden administration already delivered to Ukraine enough supplies for them to continue fighting till summer. It is a negotiating tactic, to put Kiev under pressure to enter into peace talks now as Washington dictates.

But then the second shoe dropped: Washington announced that it was discontinuing all further intelligence sharing with Ukraine. This is not just symbolic. It stymies the Ukrainian ability to wage war, since the high precision missiles like U.S.-built Himars and long-range attack drones that Ukraine has used to destroy infrastructure deep inside the Russian Federation depend on the U.S.-supplied intel for programming their flight routes. Moreover, the intel is critically important to warn Kiev of impending Russian attacks on their territory.

As Russian experts explained yesterday, the Ukrainians have in reserve enough attack programming instructions to support their missile and drone operations for two weeks.  But already they have drastically cut back on their strikes into Russia last night.

If we consider Trump’s actions during this past week and ignore his words, it is clear that he is applying massive pressure on Ukraine to bring about their agreement to a peace settlement, and we may well assume that the terms of the settlement will largely favor the winners of this war, the Russians.

The Europeans may bray about their undying support for Ukraine and hope to induce Zelensky to continue the fight and so serve the defense interests of all of Europe, but the pressure which Trump has brought to bear is surely far more persuasive than anything the ship of fools in Brussels can offer.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Donald Trumps Rede vor dem gemeinsamen Kongress, 4. März

Manchmal lohnt es sich, ein paar Tage verstreichen zu lassen, bevor man eine Analyse einer wichtigen Rede wie der von Donald Trump vor einer gemeinsamen Kongresssitzung am 4. März vorlegt. Die Zeit, „den Staub sich legen zu lassen“, ist umso wichtiger, wenn man bedenkt, dass Trumps öffentliche Äußerungen zu wichtigen Fragen im Zusammenhang mit dem Ukraine-Krieg von Tag zu Tag zwischen pro-russisch und pro-ukrainisch schwanken, nur um seine Gegner aus dem Gleichgewicht zu bringen und ihnen aus dem Weg zu gehen.

In meinen eigenen Interviews am 4. März, die acht oder mehr Stunden vor der Rede des Präsidenten um 21 Uhr Washingtoner Zeit (3 Uhr morgens, 5. März, Brüsseler Zeit) stattfanden, teilte ich der Gemeinschaft Gerüchte mit, die unter gut informierten Analysten kursierten: Trump würde die Rede nutzen, um den Rückzug der Vereinigten Staaten aus der NATO anzukündigen. Die Logik hinter diesem Gerücht war, dass dies Trumps direkte Antwort auf die offene Missachtung sein würde, die die europäischen Staats- und Regierungschefs am Sonntag bei ihrem Treffen in London zeigten. Sie hatten Selenskyj besonders herzlich empfangen, als wollten sie ihn für die brutale Behandlung durch Trump im Oval Office entschädigen, und sie boten an, die Ukrainer mit ausreichend militärischer und finanzieller Unterstützung auszustatten, damit sie ihren Krieg gegen Russland auf unbestimmte Zeit ohne Beteiligung der USA fortsetzen können, und das zu einem Zeitpunkt, an dem Trump dazu aufrief, diesen Krieg in naher Zukunft zu beenden.

Nachdem ich mir jedoch die Sondersitzung der gemeinsamen Sitzung von Anfang bis Ende angesehen hatte, wurde mir klar, dass es sich um eine weitere Wahlkampfveranstaltung von Trump handelte. Es gab keinen Raum für die Ernsthaftigkeit, die Entscheidungen über Krieg und Frieden angemessen gewesen wäre. Es gab keinen Raum für die Behandlung von Außenbeziehungen, da alle ausschließlich Trumps Fortschritte bei der Umsetzung seiner innenpolitischen Initiativen hören wollten. Ich schätze, dass nur 4 Minuten der 140-minütigen Rede der Außen- und Militärpolitik gewidmet waren.

Die Rituale, die die Rede prägten, waren rein amerikanisch, ein Ausdruck der eigenen Version der Demokratie des Landes, bei der der endlose Wahlkampf im Mittelpunkt steht. Kaum hat man eine Wahl gewonnen und wird für eine neue Amtszeit vereidigt, beginnt man schon mit dem Wahlkampf für die nächste Wahl, die 22 Monate später stattfindet. Als er den Saal betrat und zum Podium ging, umgeben von den ihm zugewiesenen Kongressabgeordneten und Senatoren, schüttelte Trump die Hände derer, die es geschafft hatten, sich zu diesem Zweck Plätze am Gang zu sichern, da ihnen dieses Fotomotiv bei ihren eigenen nächsten Versammlungen vor der Wahl bei ihren Wählern zugutekommen wird.

Wie es heutzutage bei Präsidenten beider Parteien üblich ist, enthielt die Rede kurze Momente, in denen Personen auf der Tribüne aufgerufen wurden, um als menschliches Gesicht für bestimmte politische Maßnahmen zu dienen. Dies ist das heutige Äquivalent zum Küssen von Babys, eine Handlung, die in den USA traditionell mit Politik in Verbindung gebracht wurde. Die vorgestellten politischen Maßnahmen zu diesem Zweck am Dienstagabend waren die übergeordneten Themen der Rede, insbesondere die Eindämmung der illegalen Einwanderung. Besondere Aufmerksamkeit galt der Mutter und der Schwester eines 12-jährigen Mädchens, das von Mitgliedern einer venezolanischen Bande brutal ermordet worden war. Sie waren illegal in das Land eingereist. Nun wurde ihre Bande als terroristisch eingestuft und wird besonderen Strafverfolgungsverfahren der USA unterworfen. Ein Naturschutzgebiet wird zu Ehren des Mädchens umbenannt.

Eine weitere trauernde Familie, die auf der Tribüne saß, wurde wegen des sinnlosen Todes ihrer nahen Verwandten während der katastrophalen amerikanischen Evakuierung aus Afghanistan aufgerufen. Trump schloss diese Anekdote mit der scheinbar beiläufigen Bemerkung, dass der „inkompetente und ineffektive Rückzug“ der Biden-Regierung ein Signal an Putin gesendet habe.

Natürlich war diese Bemerkung nicht unüberlegt und signalisierte eine Veränderung in der Lesart Washingtons, wer im Russland-Ukraine-Krieg die Schuld trägt und wer das Opfer ist. Genau das hörten wir einige Minuten später in der Rede, als Trump endlich über seine Friedensinitiative sprach. Dieser Abschnitt bestand ausschließlich aus der Verlesung eines gerade eingetroffenen Briefes von Volodymyr Zelensky, in dem der ukrainische Präsident sich einschleimte und versuchte, den Dialog mit Washington wieder aufzunehmen, da er nun bereit sei, „unter der starken Führung von Präsident Trump“ mit den Russen über einen Frieden (nicht nur über einen 30-tägigen Waffenstillstand) zu verhandeln.

Kehrt Trump also in die Rolle des unparteiischen Vermittlers zurück, nachdem er von den Demokraten dafür verurteilt wurde, gemeinsame Sache mit Putin zu machen?

Die Antwort kam am Mittwoch, als klar wurde, dass der Stopp aller weiteren Lieferungen von amerikanischem Kriegsmaterial in die Ukraine „vorübergehend“ in Kraft bleiben würde.

Um es klar zu sagen: Der Stopp ist symbolisch, da die Biden-Regierung der Ukraine bereits genug Vorräte geliefert hat, damit sie bis zum Sommer weiterkämpfen kann. Es ist eine Verhandlungstaktik, um Kiew unter Druck zu setzen, jetzt in Friedensgespräche einzutreten, wie Washington es vorschreibt.

Doch dann kam der zweite Hammer: Washington kündigte an, dass es den weiteren Austausch von Geheimdienstinformationen mit der Ukraine einstellen werde. Dies ist nicht nur symbolisch. Es behindert die Fähigkeit der Ukraine, Krieg zu führen, da die hochpräzisen Raketen wie die in den USA gebauten Himars und Langstrecken-Angriffsdrohnen, mit denen die Ukraine die Infrastruktur tief im Inneren der Russischen Föderation zerstört hat, auf die von den USA gelieferten Informationen zur Programmierung ihrer Flugrouten angewiesen sind. Darüber hinaus sind die Informationen von entscheidender Bedeutung, um Kiew vor bevorstehenden russischen Angriffen auf ihr Territorium zu warnen.

Wie russische Experten gestern erklärten, verfügen die Ukrainer über genügend Angriffs-Programmieranleitungen, um ihre Raketen- und Drohneneinsätze zwei Wochen lang zu unterstützen. Aber bereits gestern Abend haben sie ihre Angriffe auf Russland drastisch eingeschränkt.

Wenn wir Trumps Handlungen in der vergangenen Woche betrachten und seine Worte ignorieren, ist es klar, dass er massiven Druck auf die Ukraine ausübt, um sie zu einer Einigung auf eine Friedensregelung zu bewegen, und wir können durchaus davon ausgehen, dass die Bedingungen der Regelung weitgehend die Gewinner dieses Krieges, die Russen, begünstigen werden.

Die Europäer mögen zwar lautstark ihre unerschütterliche Unterstützung für die Ukraine beteuern und hoffen, Selensky dazu zu bewegen, den Kampf fortzusetzen und so den Verteidigungsinteressen ganz Europas zu dienen, aber der Druck, den Trump ausgeübt hat, ist sicherlich weitaus überzeugender als alles, was das Narrenschiff in Brüssel zu bieten hat.

Spotlight: 0:17
Hello and welcome to our Spotlight program. In this episode, we delve into three pressing issues that have sparked intense debate and controversy in the realm of US foreign policy under the Trump administration. We’ll explore the recent halt of aid to Ukraine, a move that has raised questions about America’s commitment to its global alliances. Also, we’ll discuss the ongoing displacement of Palestinians and Trump pushing his plan for them.

And of course, we can’t leave out the tariffs Washington’s imposed on Canada, China and Mexico and their implications for trade relations and global economy. We’ll unpack these critical topics and their impact on both domestic and international fronts right after this report.

Reporter: 1:00
US President Donald Trump since taking office has done what he could to turn the tide against what some call is Washington’s downfall in the world economy and politics. Trump has ordered additional 10 percent tariffs on Chinese goods, taking the accumulated tariffs on China to 20 percent.

Beijing swiftly responded with tit-for-tat levies on a wide range of US products. The Trump administration has also imposed 25 percent tariffs on all imported goods from Canada and Mexico. Both countries have promised to respond in kind.

Trudeau:
Like the American tariffs, our response will also be far-reaching and include everyday items.

Reporter:
Trump has tried to reverse what his predecessor did regarding the war in Ukraine. The current US administration suspended all military assistance to Kiev, including weapons that are in transit or stored in Poland. Trump accuses Kiev of not being genuinely committed to peace. The decision follows a contentious meeting in the Oval Office between Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky, during which they were unable to finalize a deal on Ukraine’s minerals.

Trump:
Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. We’re trying to solve a problem. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel.

Zelensky:
I’m not telling you–

Trump:
Because you’re in no position to dictate that. Remember that. You’re in no position to dictate what we’re going to feel. … And what you’re doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country, that’s backed you far more than a lot of people said it should have.

Vance:
Have you said thank you once?

Zelensky:
A lot of times.

Reporter: 2:37
In West Asia, Trump has called for Palestinians to be displaced from the Gaza Strip and the territory to be transformed into a beach destination, even as the continuation of the Israel-Hamas ceasefire is uncertain.

Israel has meanwhile embraced what it says is an alternative to [the] US proposal for the ceasefire and the release of the regime’s captives held in Gaza. It has blocked the entry of food, fuel, medicine or other supplies to Gaza to try to get Hamas to accept the new proposal and has even warned of additional consequences, raising fears of a return to war. With all this uncertainty regarding the world politics, Washington has done nothing to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians or others globally.

Spotlight: 3:24
Well, I’d like now to welcome our two guests that will be joining us in this episode. Mr. John Steppling, author and commentator from Norway. And Mr. Gilbert Doctorow, independent international affairs analyst from Brussels, Belgium. Well both of you, thank you very much for joining us. It’s a pleasure to have you with us in this episode of The Spotlight.

Gentlemen, I’d like to start off with Mr. Doctorow, actually. Mr. Doctorow, let’s start off with the reality that basically everything that we’ve heard from Donald Trump has been going since he’s been inaugurated is completely the opposite of what he’s promised during his presidential campaign. To what extent of that do you agree?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
No, I don’t agree. He said that he would be looking for a peaceful solution to the Ukraine problem as one of his highest priorities. And many of the actions that we have seen, particularly over the last two weeks, have been precisely in that realm. They’ve been dramatic, they’ve been historic, and they’re pointing the United States in the direction of what really may be a way out of the Ukraine war.

Spotlight: 4:41
Yes, well actually I’m going to go over, we’re going to cross over a bit to Mr. John Steppling. Mr. Steppling, in your opinion, what message does the cessation actually of this aid to Ukraine send to other nations that actually rely on the US support?

Steppling:
Well, I think Ukraine, the support for Ukraine was a unique situation. You have to remember the US essentially fomented this conflict. They interfered in the Ukrainian elections. They were interfering in everything, all the way back to the Russian elections in 1996. So their fingerprints are all over everything, and they had troops in the region, they were building, they had bio-weapon labs in Ukraine and so forth.

5:35
So it was a very complex situation, and the US wanted this conflict. It made a great deal of money for the defense industry, in the US in particular. They poured a bunch of weapons and ammunition into Ukraine, a lot of it outdated, a lot of it was stuff Ukraine couldn’t even use.

But again, the economy, the economic aspect of it prevails. So now suddenly Trump is going to withdraw all support, which is great. I mean, terrific. There should never have been any support in the first place. What’s really going on here though is what’s happening in Europe, with the European Commission in the EU and leadership in the EU countries, because they are pledging and to continue supplying Ukraine and continue the fight against Russia, and that Russia is an existential threat and all this absurdity.

6:40
Even here in Norway, the government is pondering using the surplus oil fund, I forget what they actually officially call it, but it’s trillions of dollars, and it’s something they are loathe to touch at all. They are suddenly considering using it to help support Ukraine and the fight against Russia. The manufacturing of this Russiaphobia has been one of the most remarkable things I’ve ever seen. And you know, Russia and Putin and Lavrov and different representatives keep saying, “Look, Russia is not going to invade anybody; it’s not in our interest to invade anybody; we’re not a threat. We wanted to stop the expansion of NATO; we didn’t want missiles on our border.”

7:31
All of which was perfectly reasonable and was promised to them anyway decades before. So I’m perfectly happy that Trump is stopping support, but I think we’re going to have to see if the EU follows through on this. I honestly can’t imagine that they are capable of following through, and the war is lost anyway. So this may just be their performing political, you know, dance numbers for their domestic audiences and it’s nothing more than that, I think.

Spotlight: 8:11
Well, Mr. Doctorow, Mr. Steppling brought up some very interesting points, the backing by a European and especially by the EU to Ukraine itself. But I do have to ask you, there’s been many critics that have labeled Trump’s decision to halt the aid as reckless. But you have many people asking, I mean, was this, what motivated this decision? Was it actually more personal interest, more than national interest, as some analysts are saying, in your opinion?

Doctorow: 8:35
That type of criticism and kind of ad hominem argument is not acceptable. It is a polite form of slander. Donald Trump is often seen by many, many people in the States, and abroad, as a buffoon, a superficial person, someone who really isn’t capable of serious politics. He’s a businessman. He’s looking for his personal interest in this or that deal.

This is nonsense. In the last three weeks, we have seen Trump perform as one of the most skilled geopolitical actors on the face of the earth. He has been choreographing, or his people have choreographed for him the appearances of his most important and most capable assistants, like Rubio, like Witkoff, Hegseth.

9:31
They have come in a succession and have built upon these preceding speeches or actions like JD Vance in Munich at the Security Conference. They have built up a very clearly defined policy. The policy is to call out the European Union as being undemocratic, as a region which has no faith in its own voters and is trying to insulate itself from political will of the people. And in that case, the United States cannot support Europe. I think later today, or tomorrow our time, at 9 PM Eastern time in the States, Trump is going to appear before a joint session of Congress.

10:25
And it is widely rumored and expected that he will announce the United States withdrawing from NATO. This is unbelievable change. Does that mean the United States is withdrawing from the world [as] some of its critics in the States say? Nothing of the sort, just as a different concept of the world and something that many countries, including Iran, should pay attention to. The new concept that Donald Trump has is not NATO, this alliance, that alliance, it is the big powers.

The big powers are easily identifiable. They are Russia, China, United States and most likely in addition, India. So there will be the big three or four who will be the new governing board of the world and who will provide for each other buffer zones, areas of interest, so they do not collide and they will be responsible collectively for global security and for peace. That is very different from what has gone on for the last 70 years with the United States has been, as my fellow panelist said, has had its fingerprints all over everything, everywhere, with the 700 or 800 military bases around the world getting involved in the minutiae in the micromanagement of the whole world, gone. That’s going. All alliances are scrapped because they only serve to weigh down the United States and getting involved in disputes of which it has no national interest.

Spotlight: 12:10
Yes, exactly. Mr. Doctorow, I’m going to stop you here for a moment. You did point out some very interesting points. I do want to use those and cross over to Mr. Steppling in Norway just a bit.

Mr. Steppling, Mr. Doctorow mentioned that before being President, Trump was known and is still known as a businessman first of all. And he did talk about how this has been weighing on the US. If we move over to the point of, of course, Trump’s move, his tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, How do you assess the impact of these tariffs on US farmers, excuse me, manufacturers, particularly in light of the trade war with China? I mean, his being known as a businessman. Were these decisions based on sound economic principles, Yes or no?

Steppling: 12:47
Well, I don’t think there is a yes or no answer exactly. We’ll see what happens. You know, the United States is frightened of Chinese manufacturing power, economic power. They produce– everything they produce is superior to what’s produced in the United States, certainly in high-tech areas.

The tariffs may be sustained or may not. That’s my question. Mr. Doctorow is quite right, though, to point out if Trump withdraws from NATO, this is an extraordinary thing. This will have far more long lasting effects and repercussions than the the terror of trade war. Withdrawing from NATO changes the foreign policy playbook. I honestly– I’m waiting to see if it actually happens tomorrow, because it will be extraordinary if that’s what he does.

And it will cause Europe to reassess its foreign policy. I can’t believe they will support Ukraine, for example. But Trump is also right when he calls the EU undemocratic. It is. What is Macron still doing in power?

14:07
Why are these elections ignored, overturned? Look at what happened in Romania. On and on and on. So we’re already seeing a number of dissident voices, Italy, Orban in Hungary, people that want nothing to do with participating in this Ukraine war. As for the tariffs and the trade, it’s probably not ultimately sustainable.

Certainly, American farmers and agricultural growers and so forth are going to be in a very difficult situation with this, but it remains to be seen, as I say, how sustainable these decisions are. Right now, I think the overriding, the first issue of importance is Ukraine and NATO, and this is going to color everything. Now, it should be noted that Trump has also suggested buying Greenland and annexing Canada, and he wants to turn Gaza into Dubai in Palestine. These are … slightly insane ideas, and you know, one wishes the handling of the Gaza and the West Bank, the whole Palestinian question, Israel, one wishes desperately that his vision of that were different. But in that sense, he’s identical to every other US president, and Israel is essentially part of the United States at this point, and perhaps always was. So that’s not surprising.

16:00
I think that the outcry is more about Trump’s style and presentation, the fact that he brought in Elon Musk for this efficiency experiment, which has, you know, there’s been a kind of mass firing of federal workers and so forth. That may or may not be sustainable as well. I mean some of this stuff may get rolled back, because we’ve never seen it happen like this, and I don’t think anybody knows what the even medium-term repercussions of this are.

Spotlight:
Exactly, exactly Mr. Steppling. As you are mentioning this point, before we do move over to the topic of Gaza and the displacement of the Gazans and since you did mention that. I do want to cross over a bit to Mr. Doctorow.

Mr. Doctorow, I mean our guest does have a very important point about how things have been going, how this is the first time many people have seen such the interaction between the Ukrainian president and Donald Trump the other day from the Oval Office. Why is it that Donald Trump is acting as– in his executive orders, his actions, his speeches, everything he does, he acts– as if he owns the world and that he can do as he like. What gives this man this right?

Doctorow: 17:17
All of his predecessors. He’s not the first president to act as if he owns the world. The acronym that’s used for the presidency, it’s POTUS. This is the emperor, so he’s not doing anything out of line with his predecessors when he behaves that way. The point though is that his negotiating style is entirely different from what academics would recognize or expect. He is a lot of bluster.

He is a master at confusion. He’s not confused, but he’s working very hard to confuse his opponents, to neutralize them while he is quietly doing what he wants to do. And when he does make statements that seem insane, like the plans for a Trump resort in Gaza, I don’t believe that for a minute. He’s trying– so he lets himself look a little bit like a buffoon.

Spotlight: 18:25
Well, I do want to cut you off just a moment, Mr. Doctorow, if I may. With around five more minutes, I do want to, of course, ask you to bring the topic of Gaza, which is a very important part, specifically in today’s topic of Trump’s controversial moves. Mr. Steppling, I mean, let’s discuss his displacement plan of Gaza. First of all, I mean, why should the Palestinians be forced out of their motherland? Is this how Trump wants to actually bring peace and calm the world as he has previously vowed?

Steppling: 18:52
The US and Israel exist, they’re joined at their core, they are one entity. Nasrullah used to say that all the time. The idea that Irael tells the United States what to do is nonsense; they are the same entity. This expansion– the Greater Israel idea, the land grab in Syria, Lebanon and Gaza itself and the West Bank, this expansion which has been on the books for 30 years– it’s nothing new. It was the United States [that] decided, I think, time to implement that. They wanted Israel to expand as much as Israel wanted to expand. Does Trump really intend to round up the Palestinians and ship them to Siberia or somewhere? No, I don’t think so. It’s not possible.

19:49
And he may be unclear about the magnitude of a project like that. But he’s not out of line with US foreign policy regarding Israel. And half the elected officials in the Senate and … all national offices and appointments are … Zionists. Many have dual citizenship. It means they– you can’t– Israel’s not a real country. It’s a branch of the US. It’s like one of those 900 military bases. It’s just a really big base.

Spotlight: 20:31
Well, with that, I do want to cross over one more time to Mr. Doctorow with his opinion on the situation. I mean, Mr. Doctorow, as a party to the Gaza truce, why shouldn’t Washington simply tell Tel Aviv to abide by the agreement as it is signed with Hamas? I mean, Trump has instead opted for another deal. He’s opted to– this other deal is not needed, whereas the second phase for the first one has not even been implemented yet. What is your opinion on this?

Doctorow: 20:59
I think Trump very wisely doesn’t want to get personally engaged or committed in the nitty-gritty, in the fine points of negotiation. He has Mr. Witkoff to do that. But I think it’s, again it’s a mistake to draw hasty conclusions looking at how he has approached the Ukraine problem. I see that his major effort is to confuse and neutralize his opponents. Whether he does this by making sane or insane comments is irrelevant. The ideas of moving the Palestinian people to some third area where they’ll have beautiful homes. I don’t believe that for a minute. And I don’t think he does either.

But he just wants to stir the pot, keep people talking while he’s looking for real solutions. So I wouldn’t get too alarmed. I think there will be some real solutions and not a restart of the Gaza war. I don’t believe it’s going to happen.

Spotlight: 21:54
My last question with the last few minutes I would like you to please kindly, if you can briefly in around 30 seconds, answer the question both of you. First of all, Mr. Steppling: looking back, do you believe that Trump’s foreign policy decisions will have any lasting repercussions on America’s a global standing, and if so in what ways?

Steppling:
Well, Trump’s decisions are certainly going to have global consequences. There’s no question about that. The only only thing up for debate is whether they will be positive or negative. Disbanding NATO, getting out of NATO, is an absolute plus and is a brilliant idea. And I hope he actually does it. What he does with Israel is a lot more problematic, and he has to be very careful. There’s certain toes he can’t step on, and I agree to the extent that I think he trolls people all the time. And you know he was mentored by Roy Cohn. He’s not an idiot; he knows what he’s doing in terms of how he presents to the public. But US foreign policy is what it is; the defense industry is what it is; the Joint Chiefs and Pentagon are what they are. US foreign policy is imperialist, and it has never changed. So he had to tread carefully.

Spotlight: 23:16
And Mr. Doctorow, please, if you could, in around 20 seconds, please, your answer to that question.

Doctorow:
In Europe, among the leadership, the present leadership, Trump will be reviled. But my point is the present leadership is not going to stay in power for more than a few months. And going against Trump as they’ve done, they’re inviting what’s going to happen tonight: withdrawal from NATO. They are bringing about the destruction of European security, and they will be driven out of office for this violation of European interests. In the rest of the world, in the global South, [they] will love this policy [of] Trump, and he will be admired. And maybe he gets his Nobel Peace Prize.

Spotlight: 23:59
I’d like to thank both of you gentlemen, for joining us in this episode of Spotlight. Mr. John Steppling, author and commentator from Inderoy, Norway; and Mr. Gilbert Doctorow, independent international affairs analyst from Brussels, Belgium. A pleasure to have you both.

24:12
Viewers, thank you very much for watching this episode of Spotlight. Goodbye.

Yesterday’s ‘Game Plan’ interview program focused on a single very topical issue, President Emmanuel Macron’s announcement that his country stood ready to put its nuclear deterrent force at the service of all Europe. The French ‘nuclear umbrella’ would replace the decades long American nuclear umbrella which Europeans no longer trust given Donald Trump’s wavering support for NATO. It would place France at the head of all European defense planning.

The program host poses directly the question whether France’s 290 nuclear warheads can be considered truly dissuasive when facing Russia’s 1600 deployed warheads (on intercontinental missiles) plus 2800 stockpiled warheads, if one speaks exclusively of strategic weapons.

Of course, at present, given the Russian deployment of medium range (5,000 km) hypersonic nuclear-capable missiles like Oreshnik reaching all of Europe and carrying great destructive force even with nonnuclear warheads, the preponderance of Russian strength is still more dramatic.

The net result is that Russia would have a first strike capability that nullifies the French force de frappe in a single blow. In that sense, the French proposal cannot match what Europe loses with US withdrawal of support. The US nuclear triad is not just close in numbers to the Russian strategic force but by its diversity is less easily targetable for assured destruction.

I invite readers to peruse the Comments from the largely Indian audience. Quite exceptionally, they seem uniformly anti-European and anti-Macron.

I am pleased to share with the community the link to a panel discussion on Press TV’s 4 March ‘Spotlight’ program. I was joined by John Steppling, an American ‘public intellectual’ based in Norway who is best known as the author of plays and screenplays.

The presenter pursued several different issues with us coming out of Donald Trump’s latest foreign policy moves. Note that this interview took place before Trump’s speech to the joint session of Congress later in the day (at 9pm Eastern time). I was among a fair number of analysts who expected Trump to use the speech to declare the U.S. withdrawal from NATO. That did not happen, but surely will happen in the near future as I will explain in a separate essay later today.

https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2025/03/04/743918/Trump-controversial-moves