Transcript submitted by a reader

Napolitano: 0:32
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, March 4th, 2025. Professor Gilbert Doctorow will be here with us in just a moment on Donald Trump Outfoxes Europe. But first this.

advertisement: 0:48

Napolitano: 1:57
Professor Doctorow, welcome here, my dear friend. Thank you for joining us. What has been the reaction in Moscow to the dust-up or whatever you want to call it that occurred in the Oval Office in the White House between President Trump and President Zelensky on Friday?

2:19
I think there’s general pleasure that Donald Trump has been true to his word, and these remarks have been made, and has shown that what he was saying about improving relations with Russia were not just empty words, but he’s prepared to move on them. And if that means parting ways with the Ukrainians, then so be it. So this was very optimistic news for them.

Napolitano: 2:50
What was the reaction in Europe? I think we know from the comments of President Macron and Prime Minister Starmer, but from your visage in Brussels.

Doctorow: 3:03
I have in the past few weeks been commenting on the unimaginable stupidity of the collection of people called the leaders of the EU and in particular of Macron, who steps out front and of Keir Starmer, though not a member of the EU, has stepped up to be the leader of Europe in defense. But we have moved on from observations of people like myself from the sidelines saying that the leadership in Europe is not living in the real world, but they’re living in a bubble. What we have now is the endgame,and they have created it for themselves. Just note that Zelensky did himself in by directly challenging the President of the United States, lèse majesté. This is something that no one can get away with.

4:08
That he came wearing his usual outfit didn’t help. But the Russians in particular paid a lot of attention to these nuances, whether or not Zelensky was satisfying propriety rules of the Americans, of the age and the traditions of a Donald Trump. But let’s move to the substantive issues. What they have just done in Europe on Sunday, meeting with Starmer, was to repeat the disastrous mistake of Zelensky and to directly challenge the president of the United States as if they didn’t hear him say that he is not prepared to give a backup security guarantee to Ukraine. He said that in plain language, and Keir Starmer … he didn’t.

Napolitano: 5:05
You think that President Zelensky’s behavior, so widely criticized and so nicely encapsulated by you just now was intended for domestic Ukrainian audiences? He couldn’t possibly have thought that by picking a fight with Donald Trump, he was going to have a happy ending.

Doctorow:
Well, surely there were some in his retinue who were pleased to see that their man had spunk and were standing up to the Americans. Then there are other people with more brains like the Ukrainian ambassador to Washington who covered her face in shame and embarrassment that her boss is behaving so stupidly and against the interests of his own country.

5:49
Now what’s happening in Europe is they’ve just done the same thing. And in case we had doubts about it, today’s news in the “Financial Times” and elsewhere informs us that Macron has taken the initiative to seize the 200 – threatening to seize the 200 billion dollars in Russian assets that are frozen in Europe, in case the ceasefire is violated by the Russians. There are a couple of problems with this. First, there is no ceasefire and there will be no ceasefire because, again, Macron, Starmer, are not listening. They’re talking, but not listening.

6:32
The plain news of coming from Moscow, no, there will be no ceasefire. We want to go straight to a peace settlement. We don’t want 30 days. So, [that he] wants to protect Ukrainian interests by threatening to seize Russian assets is utterly foolish. But I don’t want to stand on foolishness, not foolishness. What we’re talking about is the likely end of American security guarantees to Europe.

These fools have by insisting that they stand by Ukraine because it reinforces European security, they are themselves with their own hands, destroying the security by insulting, defying the president of the United States.

Napolitano: 7:25
I mean, just last week, President Macron was talking about seizing the interest in bank accounts generated by these Russian deposits, an act of theft, of course. Now, you say he’s talking about seizing the principal in the bank accounts, a greater act of theft, and is doing so shamelessly and unlawfully. Of course it’s unlawful, it’s theft.

Doctorow:
Well, this again, it’s not my opinion. I’m just repeating to you what was on the front page of today’s “Financial Times”.

Napolitano:
Right, Right, right, right.

Doctorow:
The logic of this is beyond imagination. He is ready to upset the value of the dollar. It is a threat to the dollar if they seize those assets. How can he expect the Americans to go along with this? He’s living in a different world and he’ll soon be out on the street. I don’t see, Judge, how any of these people can survive the destruction of European security that they are now bringing on the heads.

Napolitano: 8:35
After President Zelensky left the White House, he flew to London where he met with Sir Keir Starmer with the King, and then he stayed, and some European leaders, including President Macron of France and Chancellor Scholz of Germany were there. And then at the end of that meeting, Sir Keir made a statement. Chris, cut number one.

Starmer:
Our starting point must be to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position now so that they can negotiate from a position of strength. And we are doubling down in our support. Yesterday evening, the UK signed a 2.2 billion pound loan to provide more military aid to Ukraine, backed not by the British taxpayer, but by the profits from frozen Russian assets.

9:34
And today I’m announcing a new deal, which allows Ukraine to use 1.6 billion pounds of UK export finance to buy more than 5,000 air defence missiles, which will be made in Belfast, creating jobs in our brilliant defense sector. This will be vital for protecting critical infrastructure now, and strengthen Ukraine in securing the peace when it comes.

Napolitano: 10:03
This is really hogwash, is it not? I mean, if they were to make these missiles, they wouldn’t be ready until 2030. It’s inconceivable the war will still be being fought then. It was he who claimed, as well as President Macron, that they would seize the interest on the frozen Russian assets. Take it from there, please, Professor. How was that statement that Sir Keir made viewed by the Kremlin?

Doctorow: 10:32
Well, again, I think with great amusement, because they’re aware, as I just said, that these people are self-destructing. If we heard, when we listen to what Keir Starmer is saying, he would be perfectly cast for a film about World War I.

It was people like this, so utterly blind, who brought the whole world, brought Europe into its civil war that destroyed a whole generation of young people. This is the type of fool. But again, my opinion is not what is valuable. I’m talking politics, not opinions. In political terms, what he’s saying is self-destruction because he’s going directly against the president of the United States.

11:16
And what that means in America was demonstrated last Friday, I think it was, maybe it was Saturday morning, when Lindsey Graham, of all people, flip-flopped on support for Zelensky and for Ukraine in general because of lèse majesté, because this man, this little nobody from Ukraine, had dared to engage in a hot dispute with the president of the United States. So I think that if, as is possible, President Trump this evening speaks of a disengagement from NATO, This is the right moment to do it, to strike when the iron is hot, because Americans that have political savvy will have certainly understood, as I did, that Starmer and Macron and Ursula von der Leyen, they’re going up against the United States. They’re going up against the clear statements of the president of the United States. You can’t do that. You cannot do that and survive.

Napolitano: 12:29
Well, you are right that the rumors are rampant that he will make headlines by announcing tonight our withdrawal when he addresses the joint session of Congress President Trump, of course, of whom I speak, announcing withdrawal from NATO. We’ll see. But I can’t help but playing this clip from Senator Graham, which we entitle “Then and Now”. Chris, cut number eight. 1

Graham:
I want to tell you and your people, you’re the ally I’ve been hoping for all my life. Not one American has died defending Ukraine. You’ve taken our weapons and you’ve kicked their ass, and I’m very proud to have you as our ally.

So, what do I think? Complete, utter disaster. What I saw in the Oval Office was disrespectful And I don’t know if we can ever do business with Zelensky again. He either needs to resign and send somebody over that we can do business with or he needs to change.

Napolitano: 13:27
Does anybody take him seriously in Europe?

Doctorow:
No, of course not. He’s a laughing stock. But what he’s saying here is indicative of the kind of wave of patriotism and pride that Trump can ride if he indeed makes the announcements about withdrawal from NATO.

I’d just like to add one point here, because many people speak about withdrawal from NATO as a case for isolationism. I don’t agree. Trump has a different vision, and unfortunately too many people who are married to their own past and to various verities from that past identify a commitment to the world as being through the establishments that have grown up over the last 70, 80 years.

14:20
Well, it doesn’t have to be that way. I think that we are about to witness a new Yalta, whether it’ll be a meeting of the big three, Russia, China, and the United States, or four with India in it. I think that’s more likely. And there will be a new global agreement on spheres of influence and how these powers get together to enforce the peace around the world. I think that that is not isolationism. So people are missing–

Napolitano: 14:48
I agree with everything you’re saying, Professor. I would add to it, it’s a manifestation of realism, the honest recognition of the sovereignty of other countries and their legitimate security needs — rather than the neocon, George Bush, Victoria Nuland going back to Woodrow Wilson, “we’re going to make the world safe for democracy”. [glitch] [We’ll direct how to live].

Doctorow:
Okay.

Napolitano: 15:22
So I think that would be Donald Trump’s dream, to have another Yalta. And I agree with you on the desirability of the presence of Prime Minister Modi.

Back to President Zelensky, if I might. Do you think he fears for his life if he were to come out in favor of a ceasefire? He does have that hard-right militia group embedded in his government which foolishly believes that they can defeat the Russians militarily, does he not?

Doctorow:
That’s been a long-standing situation. There are people going back a couple of years who said that there’s people in his entourage, people who are the forces behind the throne, who are … neo-Nazis or ultra-right nationalists, who were saying that if he should conclude a peace with Russia on less than honorable terms, that he would be strung up.

But I think the situation has gotten worse for him. Before he could say– okay, so he gets on a plane, he goes somewhere. Where’s he going now? He’s not going to be welcome. I don’t think that Starmer is going to be so keen on giving him a home.

16:40
He is now shown to be useless. And his people will have a second reason for finishing him up, that he no longer adds any value to that situation. He can’t provide arms. The United States, because of his behavior in the White House, has just cut the immediate delivery arms. So it’s time for him to go, either walking out or being carried out in a coffin.

Napolitano: 17:13
We have often speculated that the State Department would manipulate his departure and maneuver in a more rational, more universally understood and acceptable replacement. I think General Zaluzhny’s name is often mentioned. It brings to mind the fact that there’s no inspector general on the ground in Ukraine, and that once the billions in cash and hundreds of billions in military equipment get there, there’s no control as to what happens to it. I mean, is there universal belief in Europe that Zelensky is a wealthy man from stolen assets and has numerous homes to which he could retire, including in Paris and Miami.

Doctorrow: 18:06
Yes, once he loses the MI6 security detail, I don’t think his life is worth two cents. There are so many Ukrainians who have their own private reason for murdering him. He has killed a million people or maimed a million of his compatriots. Among that million, there are relatives who would like to see him in a coffin. So I think he’s got a serious security problem.

Napolitano:
You are not the first person on this program to refer to his security detail as MI6. We all know what that is, British intelligence. It is not Ukraine security?

Doctorow: 18:47
Well, he would have been dead a long time ago if it had been Ukrainian security. That could have been infiltrated. But the British are much more disciplined, and they provided them with excellent security.

Napolitano:
So when he was at the White House on Friday, MI6 was there with him.

Doctorow:
Yeah, so he’s been very well cared for, but I think the game is up. And as Donald Trump has demonstrated, people who are no longer the flavor of the day, they lose their security details.

Napolitano:
Yeah, we know that. What will happen to NATO if Trump pulls out? Whether he announces it tonight, does it slowly, announces it in June, whatever. What will remain of NATO?

19:26
Nothing. Nothing. The question is, what will remain of those 19 leaders who met in London? I don’t see how they can stay in power, because by their very action they have precipitated the destruction of NATO. It didn’t have to happen or certainly not in this timeframe. But by stupidly ignoring the words of the President of the United States and his commitment not to be dragged into the next world war by Europeans who are keen to continue the Ukraine war, this doesn’t fly.

So these people, as I said, by their actions, they are jeopardizing European security. And there are certainly people who will not tolerate this. But going back to Ukraine, and who will succeed Zelensky, I don’t believe there’ll be a civilian government. From the very beginning, the Russians anticipated that when they first marched, approached Kiev, they expected that the military in Ukraine would revolt against these extreme Italians who had the country by the neck and that the civilian government would be ousted. I think we’re coming back to that scenario.

20:43
You mentioned Zaluzhny. Zaluzhny has just been dismissed by Zelensky as the ambassador in the UK for obvious reasons, because he certainly must be colluding with the Brits on replacing Zelensky with himself. So he’s just been demoted to some absolutely unimportant little ambassadorship in a UN sub-organization.

But that’s not the point. Zaluzhny is no better than Zelensky. He is one more person ready to continue the war to the last Ukrainian and then maybe to the last European. He is not the answer. So the answer will be a capitulation and a military junta that takes over and holds on to power, because the Ukrainians are not ready for democratic election. They’ve been so brainwashed in the last eight years, 10 years, that they cannot yet see reality.

Napolitano: 21:43
A profound statement and a gifted analysis with much gratitude. Thank you for your time, Professor Doctorow. I will look forward to seeing you next week, my friend.

Doctorow:
Good, till then.

Napolitano:
Thank you, until then. Coming up at 10 o’clock this morning, Professor Jeffrey Sachs; at 11 o’clock, Colonel Larry Wilkerson; at noon. I don’t know where he is, but he’s coming to us, Pepe Escobar; at one o’clock, Professor Glenn Diesen; at three o’clock, Aaron Mate; at four o’clock, Professor John Mearshamer.

22:15
Judge Napolitano for “Judging Freedom”.

‘Judging Freedom,’ 4 March 2025:   Trump Outfoxes Europe

Today’s session took place during the countdown to Donald Trump’s address to Congress tonight. Rumor has it that he will announce the U.S. withdrawal from NATO.

If he does so, then his sense of theater timing will be proven to be extraordinary.  I say this because withdrawal from NATO, which we may assume was always in his plans, normally would raise rancorous debate on Capitol Hill. However, by a stroke of luck, the Europeans this past weekend, set the stage for such withdrawal by repeating the disastrous mistake of Volodymyr Zelensky during his meeting with Trump on Friday. I have in mind the capital crime of lèse majesté.   You cannot publicly go up against the explicitly stated will of the President of the United States and expect to survive politically.

This is precisely what the 19 European leaders who convened in London at the invitation of Keir Starmer did: they embraced Zelensky warmly, after he had been thrown out of White House; they called for a cease fire that entails European boots on the ground and American back-up support, which Trump very clearly said on Friday will not be forthcoming. They positioned themselves very clearly as the ‘war party’ when Trump has positioned himself as the campaigner for a durable peace here and now.

If Trump does call for withdrawal from NATO, I expect he will get enormous support from those who are incensed at the temerity of the Europeans going up against their President.

Another highlight of this interview is our discussion of Trump the Realist, Trump the Internationalist, even if and when he pulls out of NATO.

Transcript submitted by a reader

NewsX: 0:00
Former East German Stasi officer Matthias Warnig is pushing to restart the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, reaching out to US investors in a move once thought impossible. This signals a potential shift in US foreign policy towards Russia amid ongoing back-channel efforts. US-led investor Consortium is reportedly working on a post-sanctions plan with Gazprom, but the deal faces major obstacles including lifting sanctions, resuming gas sales and securing Germany’s approval. The Trump administration is said to be considering the pipeline as a strategic asset in Pete’s talks with Russia but Europe’s response and US policy shifts remain crucial challenges. The Nord Stream 2 deal continues to shape global power dynamics driven by geopolitics and energy interests.

0:54
For more on this we are joined by Gilbert Doctorow, Russian affairs expert located in Brussels. We’re also joined by Keith Vaz, chairman of the Integration Foundation located in London. And we’re also joined by Bernd Posselt, member of the party presidency of the CSU located in Bavaria. Thank you all for joining us. Keith Vaz, I wanted to come to you first on this discussion.

Why is this such an important issue, and how might restarting the Nord Stream impact the geopolitical balance in Europe, particularly regarding Russia’s leverage over the EU energy security?

Vaz: 1:44
Good afternoon, Thomas. It’s a very interesting story that is now circulating, that after all that’s happened as far as Ukraine is concerned, that there is the possibility of American investment in Nord Stream 2, with the possibility that it will open up again and therefore provide support for the energy needs of European countries. Three steps have to be achieved in order to make sure that this happens.

First of all, of course, you have to have the support of the Trump administration because there are still sanctions in place against Russia.

2:24
Secondly, you need the support of the European countries as a whole. And as we saw yesterday in London, there was a desire for the EU plus Britain and Canada to go together on the political settlement in Ukraine. They will probably need to have a say in what’s going on here.

And finally, we’ve got a new government in Germany, and therefore the new Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, would have to give his approval and the government of Germany would have to give its approval. So there are three big steps before anything happens, but the fact that people are talking about it I think is highly relevant. And the basis is: if there is investment from the United States of America then it’s more likely that the deal will go through, it will open up and everything will start flowing again.

NewsX: 3:19
Bernd Posselt, I wanted to come to you on this next one. What are the implications of Germany or other European nations engaging in discussions about Nord Stream, given the current sanctions on Russia and the ongoing war in Ukraine?

Posselt:
Yeah First of all, I would like to tell you that I was a member of the European Parliament for 20 years and now I’m a member of the presidency of my party in Munich, as responsible for Central and Eastern Europe, so for Ukraine. And concerning Nord Stream, I would like to tell you that I voted in the European Parliament against Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, because I’m thinking that it is very dangerous for Europe, for the European Union. We shouldn’t speak only about European states.

4:20
We are the European Union and we must [have] integration stronger. And as European Union, we must be more independent [of] energy from outside. And so we need diversification and not more dependence, and I’m absolutely against this restoration of Nord Stream 2. And I think Merz who is from our sister party. I know him very well since decades; I think he will be also against this idea.

NewsX: 4:55
Gilbert Doctorow, can I get your point of view on this matter? And how could this development affect NATO’s stance and the broader Western coalition strategy against Russia?

Posselt:
We have on Thursday the summit of the European–

NewsX:
My apologies, that question was for Gilbert Doctorow. Apologies.

Posselt:
Sorry.

NewsX:
Gilbert, if you could also unmute yourself, I believe that’s the case.

Doctorow: 5:27
Right. This discussion is entirely premature. The looking at what happened over the weekend, the meeting of 19 European leaders under the direction of Keir Starmer, trying to find a plan for a ceasefire, trying to agree something with Zelensky that they could present on his behalf to Trump, because they understand that Zelensky himself cannot present anything without insulting everybody in the room. The point is that this will proceed only after all, and I say all, the people who are in the room in London are gone from the stage, because everything that they discussed in London was totally irrelevant and is not taking into account the realities of this world, meaning what the Russians are saying and what the United States are saying. This peace that they have offered is contingent upon American security guarantees, which Donald Trump very loudly said will not be presented.

6:40
This peace with strength, with European boots on the ground, the French and the British and anybody else who joins the “coalition of the willing” to enforce this and ensure that Russia does not attack Ukraine again — they will be blown to bits by the Russians.

NewsX:
Okay.

Doctorow:
Mr. Putin and Mr. Lavrov said very explicitly, no foreign troops in Ukraine.

NewsX: 7:11
Keith Vaz, I wanted to come to you on this next question. Do you think it’s ethical for Germany and other European nations to consider reopening the Nord Stream while Ukraine continues to suffer from constant Russian aggression?

Vaz:
I think Gilbert is right. It is premature to discuss these issues, because it is only newspaper reports in the “Financial Times” and other newspapers. I said there are steps that need to be taken before it could even happen. He then went on to make it a wider discussion. And I have to correct him to this extent, not correct him, take a different view to him, which is that President Trump has been saying for years in his first term and now in the second term, Europe needs to stand up for itself. And now Europe is standing up for itself. And Gilbert is poo pooing it and saying, oh, it’s never, you know, there’s no point in these people doing it because they’re all going to be blown to bits.

8:11
But actually, it is important that the European Union plus Great Britain should be working together to guarantee its own security and the security of Ukraine. That’s what President Trump has been talking about. First of all, they’ve got to increase defense expenditure. Britain has pledged to do this up to 3%. The others have got to do it as well.

And secondly, they’ve got to act in unison. So I would urge people to watch this space. There needed to be something happening after what happened in the Oval Office. And this is perhaps the face-saving measure for all, where we can actually get to some kind of conclusion. But that goes beyond the remit of this program.

But since Gilbert mentioned it, I thought I would put my 5p into that discussion. Nothing can happen on Nord Stream 2 unless the Americans agree and the Europeans agree, in particular Germany. I know our Bavarian friend, Bernd, is there with lots of political experience. It’ll now be up to the new Chancellor to decide whether or not they want to help sort out Europe’s energy issues, because actually they need this energy from Russia. There is no other source that is so close.

9:30
Unless we discover kind of oil under Bavaria, we’re going to have to rely on other countries in order to import this. So it’s going to take time, but I think we need to make sure that people are positive about trying to get first of all peace in Ukraine and then the other bits of the jigsaw that Gilbert talked about. If we can achieve those that would be terrific.

NewsX:
Bernd Posselt, I want to finally come to you. How has the loss of Russian gas through the Nord Stream affected European energy markets? If you can just get an overview of that, and maybe possibly how could its reopening alleviate the energy price volatility?

Posselt:
I think we need reactivation of the atomic energy. I think we must use the national resources with the modern science. I think we must need for some years the LNG terminals, LNG gas and other sources, also Arab sources, but the aim must be that Europe must become, and the European Union must become independent from Russian gas. We should never go back to this dependence [on] Russian gas, which was a disaster for us.

And we must build up a European energy union, a European defense union. This we should have done since a long time. I was always in favor of it. I fought for it for decades. But now the time came where we must do it.

11:24
So I can also accept only the idea of an alliance of willings or coalition of willings, this is a good first step. But at least we must have a real European defense union with a real European army, because this is what we need in the 21st century. If you have a car which doesn’t function, you must repair it, but then you must think about a new car at the same time. And that’s what we have to do as European Union.

Today’s discussion topic was a feature article in The Financial Times on the possibility of restarting the Nord Stream 2 pipeline should Donald Trump’s normalization of relations with Russia continue apace. Let us recall that the undamaged Nord Stream 2 pipeline can carry 27 million cubic meters of natural gas per annum direct from Russia to Germany.

As I mention, the entire idea is premature, given how far the Europeans are from accepting a peace with Russia over Ukraine.

Nonetheless, let them talk. No harm done.

Transcript submitted by a reader

PressTV: 0:00
Well, I’d like to welcome my guests to the program. Gilbert Doctorow, Independent International Affairs Analyst out of Brussels. And Christopher Hilali, researcher and political analyst out of Vershire in the US. Well, thank you both for being with me. Great to see both of you.

Starting it off in Brussels and Gilbert. I mean, It was quite a show. What are your thoughts about these tumultuous talks that took place at the White House between Zelensky, Trump, and US Vice President, JD Vance?

Doctorow:
This was very carefully stage-managed. I think it’s a mistake to look at Trump as a superficial, lightweight person who might be amusing and who is known for his reality shows. This man is a showman in the most profound sense. In the last two weeks, we have seen a succession of historic events that have confused world leaders, but have not confused those of us among the observer groups who understand or try to understand what his objectives are. And there are clear objectives, and they’re extremely well served by these successive acts that he’s coordinated, choreographed with his very capable team.

1:31
Going back to the talk, the telephone conversation that he had with Vladimir Putin, followed the next day by a speech here in Brussels by Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, in which he told the support group for Ukraine that Ukraine had no future in NATO and could not, would not go back to its pre-war boundaries, followed by the Munich Security Conference appearance of JD Vance, in which he drove a stake between the United States and its European allies, saying the United States could not and would not support them if they themselves are betraying democracy, which he demonstrated at length. And now we have this event in the White House, in the Oval Office.

2:17
It was very well choreographed. He let Zelensky hang himself. He let him show his ugly nature, his pure hatred for Russia and for Mr. Putin, which make it impossible to conclude a peace. And then he brought the hammer down on Zelensky and made it very clear that there will be no further US aid to Ukraine and that the war will end. And not by a peace, but by a capitulation as the Russians maul his country and his country has no self defense.

PressTV: 2:49
Yeah, definitely very interesting. Well, Christopher, your thoughts, I mean, because we have definitely seen a 180 degree turnaround coming out of the White House, your perspective of why is Trump supporting Russia in the way he did? And we compare it to the Biden, not only the Biden White House, but the European allies who supported Kiev and continue to support Kiev. I mean, is it that Donald Trump, it really is because he wants peace, because he says this was ridiculous to begin with? Is it to get back at Biden that he thinks very much he’s involved in major kickbacks out of the Ukraine deal. I mean, your overall assessment of what’s happening.

Hilali: 3:39
Listen, I mean, this is a this is a transformational moment for US foreign policy and for the US’s standing in the world. Prior to this, we were talking often about BRICS, the development of the multipolar world, the end of US hegemony and US unipolarity. And I think that a part of the equation is that in order for the United States to stay relevant, in order for the United States to play the great game on a global scale, there have to be some concessions made to some other powerful nations. And, of course, in this case, the Russian Federation.

4:12
So the idea that Trump now is open for business with Russia and is seeking a quick end to this war is, I think, part of a larger strategy that might be to pull Russia away from China and away from that global South alliance system that has been created. And, of course, we’ve seen already articles coming out of some very famous theorists and international relations experts in Russia at prominent universities basically saying to Putin and to the Russian government, don’t fall for the trap, because they, of course, said that the West can never be trusted. Of course, what we saw with Zelensky was something that we’ve always known to exist because we’ve seen the US turn against its longtime allies, whether it was in South Vietnam, in Panama, in Iran, in Iraq, in Libya, and so many other places around the world throughout, of course, especially the last century.

5:01
What we haven’t seen is we haven’t seen it in front of the cameras. Now everybody was able to watch in real time what the US government does to its vassals once they kind of go outside of their bounds. And so I think that this is going to definitely reshape the relationship, not only between the US and Ukraine, but between the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom, and by extension, of course, with the Russian Federation.

PressTV: 5:27
Yeah, well, let’s talk about that, Gilbert. How significant is the difference between Washington and Brussels and London, and where do you see this particular schism going?

Doctorow:
Well, I’d like to take a step back and comment on what my fellow panelist has said. I agree entirely that what we are seeing is far bigger than the Ukraine war. It is a reordering of the global power structure. And what I see coming is not US efforts to separate Russia from China, which is impossible, and I think people around Trump understand that perfectly well. But to have a new Yalta, A new realpolitik, realism, division of spheres of influence among major powers.

6:22
And I think it’s quite possible we will see that new Yalta taking place in Moscow on May 9th. On May 9th, President Xi from China will be in Moscow. We now know that President Modi from India will be there. And the only thing missing is Donald Trump. It would be logical to expect to see him there and for them to perform this big global division of spheres of influence that can bring peace for the coming 50 years, if it is properly implemented. And in this big picture, Ukraine is a very small question.

PressTV: 7:04
Right. Well, Christopher, I mean, Trump has openly said that the US wants a percentage of Ukraine’s rare earth minerals and signing that agreement would lead to the end of the war. Your thoughts on that side of things. I mean, was a big part of this war to begin with about controlling Ukraine and its natural resources or how do you see it? And did this have anything to do with the reason that the US carried out the 2014 coup in Ukraine to begin with when they had a pro-Russian president? I mean, your assessment.

Hilali: 7:42
Certainly, the economic factors have been behind the 2014 fascist junta that the United States and other Western countries supported. And of course we know that it’s not only rare earth minerals, but also, for example, agricultural goods like wheat, also, for example, various other commodities that Ukraine has in large quantities, given its land size, that the West was interested [in]. The West was interested also in the deindustrialization of Ukraine, in tearing apart a lot of its major industries, which the Russians, in territories that have been liberated and have become part of the Russian Federation have been put back on line. I visited one of these industries in Lugansk, which was a major steel factory, which had gone down to four or five thousand workers and is back up now to 30,000 because of the investment by the Russian Federation.

8:34
So what you saw was something akin to the 90s, katastroika, what they called [it] in the Russian sphere, basically a complete liquidation of the Ukrainian economy and the ability for major companies and corporations to take what they could from Ukraine to the West. Given the fact now that the situation has changed, of course, Russia has pursued some sort of opening to Trump to also have a deal in terms of rare earth minerals. So who knows what ends up happening, but I can say that if Kiev doesn’t agree, if Zelensky doesn’t agree to this minerals deal, and if Ukraine is not able to stabilize its situation, I think Zelensky’s going to go either by force or be removed altogether in a new election, and there’s going to have to be some final settlement on the situation there.

9:22
But of course, as I agree with my colleague, Ukraine is a small part of what’s ongoing. I do believe that there are some who want a sort of new Yalta situation. I don’t think the Europeans are necessarily fond of that idea, but I also think that there are some people in the Trump camp, in the MAGA camp, who are very anti-China and really wouldn’t want to see that. So there are, I would say, contradictions within each of the camps as to what comes next, but I think that if there were to be a new order, sort of divvied up in the next few months or so, I think it would be a really transformative event and something that would leave the Europeans out in the cold.

PressTV: 9:59
Well, let’s talk about the Europeans a little bit more, Gilbert. Why this split in this way? Why do the Europeans continue to say that they support this war, that they will support Zelensky, that they will give money, they will send troops? Explain that, please.

Doctorow:
They’re heavily invested personally in this. Over the last three years, they’ve made enormous commitments. And for most of them, it’s very difficult to reverse course. For some, like Macron, that’s not a problem. He’s a chameleon. Every two, three days, he’s come up with another initiative which more or less has been contradicting the initiative that preceded it. Either he’s pro-Russian, he wants to go and make peace, or he wants to bring the French troops onto Ukraine to fight the Russians. So Macron won’t have a problem reversing course.

10:50
But someone like Starmer, who’s a little bit more dense and a little bit more consistent in his dense nature, is going to have a terrible time reversing course. So just the reality of top personalities in political life that have made enormous personal investments in a failing policy, it’s hard for them to change course. I believe that most of these people will disappear. Kaja Kallas, who yesterday, after the fracas in the Oval Office, appeared before microphones to say that– what you have quoted on screen– that the EU will continue to step up its supply of materiel to assist the Ukrainians to continue the war. I don’t believe she’s going to last two or three weeks. This is putting Europe directly against US foreign policy that’s clearly stated. Europe cannot do that. The risk is that Trump will not only walk away from Ukraine, which he has done. Today was the end of US support for Ukraine. There’s nothing further to discuss about this minerals deal. It will never take place.

12:01
But the Europeans will risk losing the United States participation in NATO. If they continue to object and to frustrate the plans of Trump to make a peace in Ukraine, NATO is dead, dead. And that, for Europe, means Europe will be totally defenseless. And all the European leaders who will have made that possible will be gone, gone. They should be distributing their resumes right now.

PressTV: 12:33
Well, Christopher, your thoughts, I mean, would you say that this meeting between Trump and Zelensky in the White House was basically not just significant, but symbolic of a tectonic shift when we look at– this can be a point in this transformation of this new world order, that the clarity of what was taking place, it was extremely significant. I mean, how do you see it in the whole realm of things and significant of that new world order, of that multipolar world?

Hilali:
I think it is a real axial moment. I think it is a transformative moment. And I agree with my colleague that, of course, I don’t think that Zelensky is going to come back and sign this deal. And I think that Zelensky is emblematic of the old regime of Biden, the sort of neoliberal world order, the world order after 1991, where you had an alliance of neocons and neoliberals basically looking at, you know, US hegemony and unipolarity and sort of doing their will and sort of regime change, talking about human rights.

13:49
You even saw that last night. Zelensky went on Fox News, and one of the things he kept on talking about was about freedom, liberty, democracy, and human rights. The Trump administration isn’t necessarily interested in that. Neither are many others interested in that kind of language. It’s been utilized as a weapon and a tool over the past 30, 40 years against many countries. We remember Yugoslavia, even in sanctions regimes against Iran and many other countries.

14:12
So what we’re seeing now is we’re seeing, okay, forget about all that stuff. This is about power. This is about spheres of influence. This is about economy and how are we going to divvy up the world between these great powers. And Trump recognizes these great powers. It’s not like Trump keeps on talking about US is the best out of all of them. Trump recognizes and is very much enchanted by the other powerful leaders because he sees them almost as equals, and they treat each other in that way.

14:38
So I think that that will help to shape this new global transformation. What ends up happening, I don’t have a crystal ball, I couldn’t tell you, but I do believe that there is a big impetus for business to proceed as normal, for business to expand, for there to be cooperation and for there to be less of these ongoing wars that so many in the Trump administration have been decrying for so many years. So I think we are in a transformational moment. Let’s see if everyone can seize on this opportunity to create something new. It remains to be seen.

PressTV: 15:08
What do you see happening inside of the US, Gilbert? Because yes, we have Trump and his administration, and we have so many others in the perspective of continuing with the old ways. I mean, do you see this affecting majorly internal affairs, domestic affairs inside of the United States?

Doctorow:
We already saw this today by the appearance of Lindsey Graham in front of the microphone. Lindsey Graham has been the most vicious promoter of Ukraine and denigrator of Russia, seeking to destroy Russia through Ukraine. Today, after watching this fracas, this great rumpus in the Oval Office, Lindsey Graham came in front of the microphones and more or less said it’s all over with Zelensky. Now that’s a tremendous change.

16:09
Now let’s keep in mind that Mr. Trump is primarily orchestrating things for his American audience, as you’d expect. He’s an American politician, after all. And he prepared this show. He knew very well that when put in front of the cameras, Zelensky would show his ugly face and people would understand that this man is not someone you can make a peace with. That was broadcast perfectly on all American channels. And when Lindsey Graham backs away from Ukraine then you show how skillful a politician is Donald Trump.

PressTV: 16:51
Okay, well Christopher, where do you see this going? Do you think that we’re going to be seeing the end of the Russia-Ukraine war very soon?

Hilali:
I think that there’s a few options here. And actually, I lean more towards the option that the United States might end up telling Russia, we no longer will support Ukraine. The Europeans will continue to support Ukraine as long as they can. And of course, we know they have depleted weapons, stockpiles, even Germany has made this clear, and they don’t have the money and resources to do it.

I think that we’re within two years of the end of the war. But I think that what might end up happening is the US will no longer support Ukraine, Ukraine will still fight on the battlefield with some minor European support, and then the Russian Federation will continue to make major advances on the battlefield, especially once the US supplies have dwindled and are no longer a real threat.

17:43
We might also see Russian domination in the skies, which has been something that has been a back and forth throughout this special military operation. We really, we’ll see if the Russians are able to take control of the skies, I think this war is going to come to a very quick conclusion. However, the Europeans have made it very clear, especially some of the most important NATO countries, that they do not want to give up on Ukraine and that they see this as an existential fight, especially countries like the Baltic states, which are extremely Russophobic.

18:17
So I think that we’re going to continue to see some of this conflict go on for some time. But I think that in the end, if the United States withdraws its support, which I think is very likely now, and given the fact that my colleague mentioned Lindsey Graham’s change of heart, I think that is extremely significant. And when that happened yesterday, I think a lot of commentators, you know, were able to see the writing on the wall. I think that Kiev eventually is going to have to come to terms with territorial laws and a much smaller country that they now will have.

PressTV: 18:45
And on that note, I thank you both for being with me on this “Spotlight”, Gilbert Doctorow, independent international affairs analyst out of Brussels; and Christopher Halali, researcher and political analyst out of Vershire. And thank you, everyone, for being with us for another”Sspotlight”.

19:02
I’m Marzieh Hashemi. Hope to see you right here next time. Goodbye.

Day by day the blindness and obtuseness of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and of his French comrade President Emmanuel Macron reach new and unimaginable heights.

This is perfectly clear from this morning’s Financial Times’ extensive report on the outcome of the meeting of 19 European leaders that Starmer convened in London on Sunday.

Understanding that Zelensky is his own worst enemy in dealing with the new administration in Washington, Starmer and Macron have decided to speak to Trump on Ukraine’s behalf. They are proposing a one-month Cease Fire that will cover hostile actions in the air, sea and relating to energy infrastructure. They do not propose to watch the 1000 km long battlefront, presumably because that is beyond their capabilities.

Putting aside the question about whether such a limited truce makes any sense on its own, they propose to enforce it by sending ‘boots on the ground’ from a still unspecified ‘coalition of the willing’ which their own armies would lead.

Here it is stunning that they are not listening to the flat refusal of President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov in their public statements of the past week to allow any stationing of foreign troops in Ukraine as guarantors of security. The very notion of NATO member countries having troops in Ukraine goes directly against the reasons for going to war that Russia announced back in February 2022.  Again, if Starmer and Macron had been paying attention, they also would have heard the Russians saying that such troops would be considered as co-belligerents and would be targeted for destruction, likely with tactical nuclear weapons.  Anybody listening out there in London?

But then again, Macron and Starmer are not listening to Washington either. They said yesterday that they require the US to provide air cover for the troops in their ‘coalition of the willing’ though last Friday Donald Trump made it perfectly clear that the USA will not provide any security guaranties to a peace in Ukraine.

You have to wonder what world Starmer, Macron and the other fools who gathered in London yesterday may be living in.  It is certainly not the one you, dear reader, and I share.

As regards Mr. Volodymyr Zelensky, who was guest of honor at the gathering in London, he had a session with reporters at the conclusion of the talks and just before he flew back to Kiev. This was covered very nicely by the BBC television news this morning, including the lengthy question from their reporter on whether Zelensky was prepared to do what Team Trump had demanded on Friday and to make a full apology to the American president.  Zelensky gave a rambling answer in line with the boorish remarks he delivered in the Oval Office. He said that the much-awaited deal on rare earth was still ready for signing, but quietly added that it had to include a U.S. security guaranty for his country after the war.  Very good, but such a guaranty was explicitly refused by Trump.

It is hard to imagine that any of these state actors will remain on the stage for more than a few months to come. Their mediocrity, nay, their rank stupidity would go unnoticed in ordinary times. But these are not ordinary times.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Transcript submitted by a reader

Prof. Glenn Diesen: 0:00
Good morning. I hope you’re all having a great day. Today I am joined by Dr. Gilbert Doktrow, an international affairs analyst and historian. It’s great to meet you.

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
Well, it’s a pleasure.

Diesen:
So I was just saying, I’m a fan of your work. I read your Substack and of course follow your interviews as well. And I really wanted to get your take on what’s happening in Europe now and also across the other side of the Atlantic, as we see now that the United States, well, seemingly is quite eager to end the war, which appears to be part of a larger scheme to reduce its presence in Europe and pivot to Asia. And if I’m not mistaken, a key counter-objective of the Europeans and the Zelensky seems to be to try to entangle the United States into their conflict.

So is it correct to say that getting the Americans to agree to security guarantees is the main approach forward or the main objective for the Europeans and Zelensky? I’m asking because Trump now just had a meeting with Macron, Starmer and of course also meeting Zelensky, and this appears to be the continuing pattern.

Doctorow: 1:20
Well, Trump is very hard to read. There are discrepancies from one day to another. What he’s saying either that Zelensky, as this came out in the press conference yesterday with Starmer, how can you meet with Zelensky on Friday when you just called him a dictator?

And then Trump says, oh, he’s a great guy. These flip-flops to intellectual people make Trump look like a buffoon, they make it look like he’s a lightweight, he’s– even some of my very competent and very worldly-wise colleagues in the alternative media were saying yesterday on a very renowned talk show that Trump is stepping on his own feet and that he will not achieve his objectives because of these reversals and discrepancies. However, what Trump is about is very difficult to understand. And when we try to understand, we’re sticking our necks out, because we could be very mistaken. In this discussion, I will do exactly that.

2:34
I’m going to stick my neck out, because otherwise I don’t see much reason to talk about it. Everyone has had a word, but they haven’t seen what I think I see, that this is a showman. This is a person, I’m speaking about Trump, who has a master feel for creating confusion in order to paralyze his enemies. One of our very well-known observers, former inspector in Iraq of nuclear weapons, was commenting yesterday that Trump doesn’t have any enemies in Europe who should make him worry, because Europe’s got nothing.

3:23
Well, things are not that simple from my perspective. And I think they’re not that simple from Trump’s perspective. If they were that simple, then Trump wouldn’t have received Starmer and Macron. Or he would have used it to trash them, which is what I almost expected when I heard such meetings were going to take place last week. They trashed Kaja Kallas. She flew to the States, and then she was told that Rubio has a very busy schedule and can’t see her.

They could have done that to Starmer. They could have done that to Macron. They didn’t. Why didn’t they? Because these people are dangerous. Now, they have friends on Capitol Hill. Macron was the first person since de Gaulle to be received by the joint houses of Congress, going back to the start of his first term. These are dangerous people who have a lot of friends among Republicans. Not every Republican is kneeling at Trump’s feet, particularly when the issues are, how do we get out of the Ukrainian situation? Or how do we renege on our obligations?

4:33
So Trump is facing very difficult challenges. And he is handling them from my perspective, brilliantly, not single-handedly, but by a team who have been choreographed, the whole sequence: a week ago, the call that Trump had with Putin, the speech that Hegseth made here in Brussels, Ukraine not returning to its original borders and not having a future in NATO; the speech by JD Vance explaining why the United States is not interested in backing up Europe if Europe is not interested in being democratic. These events, are a whole sequence that do not stop.

5:24
I just would like to say, I won’t ramble on. I’d like to bring this to a head right now. I do not listen to what Trump says. What Trump says is confusing, confusing intentionally. Not because his mind is confused, not at all. He knows what he wants.

But he is playing, he’s playing off Starmer, he’s playing off Macron, to sideline them while he’s hoping to complete the business with Russia over Ukraine, and then to present the Europeans and the Ukrainians with a fait accompli. Take it or leave it, because you can’t do anything about it. So that is what he’s doing. He’s disarming his enemies. And the fact that this is a correct reading of him comes from not what he said, but what he did.

6:13
On Monday of this week, we saw something, I don’t know, we haven’t seen it in 80 years. The United States voted with China and Russia against Europe. This is unbelievable. That is earthshaking. And it is proof that Trump is doing what he believes in.

And these are not arbitrary and accidental decisions. He slips into his conversations as he did with Starmer words which, if you were listening closely, tell you what he’s really about and not what he seems to be about when he’s very politely taking the invitation from King Charles from the hands of Starmer and giving him a big firm handshake and all of that. And he says in the middle of it that he’s known Trump for a long time and he doesn’t believe that Trump will betray his word. What more do you want?

7:07
If you want to listen. If you don’t want to listen, of course you didn’t hear it. This is why we are in very interesting times and very encouraging times. And I don’t think that I am falling for Trump. What I’m saying is based on very concrete and specific things that have happened in the last 10 days.

Diesen:
Well, I think you’re probably correct. I know that Jeffrey Sachs made the same comment in a conversation we had, where he pointed out that the noise of Trump has to be separated from his actions. And indeed, I think it can be helpful when looking at everything from this claim to Canada to ethnically cleansing Gaza. And none of this actually looks possible. It would be too crazy. But of course, it is interesting if you look at the noise he’s making what kind of a space it’s creating for maneuver.

7:59
And regarding you mentioned the Zelensky comments that is no longer a dictator. This is well, this is possibly part of Zelensky’s motivations as well, because Trump has gone along with Putin in terms of challenging his legitimacy. So if you challenge his legitimacy as a leader, the fact that Zelensky wants to sign these deals himself, it could suggest that he’s trying to regain his legitimacy with Trump. Now, if this is all he wants, it looks like a very cheap deal for Trump to be honest. But I saw the same with Macron and Starmer.

He was awfully vague on all the important issues which matters, primarily than security guarantees and He tried to send them away smiling, but they didn’t actually get anything. There was no promises. And of course, the United Nations things. I think this is as an action, This is very important. This is very historical, the fact that he didn’t want to name Russia as the only participant or only aggressor, the only one causing this conflict.

9:15
And this is something he also often repeats. This seems to be very important if you want to get a settlement to the conflict, because once you identify only Russia as the bad guy, it’s very difficult to have a proper compromise. But again, how do we know who he’s buttering up? Do you see his approach to Russia and the desire to end the war in Ukraine as genuine, or what is the ultimate objective here?

Doctorow:
No, I think it’s absolutely objective, and I’ve taken into account remarks that were made yesterday that this has to be done very quickly, because if it isn’t done quickly, it won’t be done at all.

Let’s unravel that “won’t be done at all”. What he means is that Russia will take all of Ukraine. That’s the obvious thing. If the negotiations go on, go on, because the Europeans are digging in their heels and trying to slow things down, the only thing that can happen is further loss of territory and probably to capture xxxxxx, which is definitely mentioned in Russian, by Russian experts, by Russian political actors as something they want very much. Of course, that would cut Ukraine off from the Black Sea. It would eliminate any threat to Russia’s presence in the Black Sea, that having some stretch that the British could use to install themselves wouldn’t exist any more.

10:41
Let’s go back to buttering up, and how he treated Macron versus Starmer. Starmer was of course a much more difficult, a much more serious threat to what he’s doing, because the British have been out in front as the, not as a lapdog as in the days of Tony Blair, but as the attack dog, they have been with MI6 among the plotters and implementers of some of the most violent and dangerous actions that have taken place in the last three years. By that I mean the Butcha case, which was used to force Europe to join America in the “sanctions from hell”. That’s of chemical attacks.

11:27
This is about the same time as Butcha, or just a few weeks before Buche, which were going to be laid at the door of Russia, just as MI6 had done this in Syria, putting such attacks at the door of Assad. The British have been vicious and very dangerous for world peace in their behavior in Ukraine. The attack of the Crimean bridge, this was all British-engineered. So I think that this is appreciated by Trump, and he had to find a way to neutralize Starmer. He did.

11:58
You’ll notice that the announcement that he’s putting into effect almost immediately, the 25 percent tariffs on everything in the EU, was made one day before Starmer came. It’s not an accident. And from the press conference, it was clear to me that the main thing that he and Trump were talking about over their working lunch was how Britain could avoid that fate and how a special deal could be cut as the Brits wanted from the time that they left the EU in the Brexit. They expected to have a special trade deal with the United States, which never happened because Biden, with his pro-Irish bias and distaste for everything British, didn’t give it to them. On the contrary, if we speak about emotions and personal influence on conduct of affairs, a Trump is a softy on England.

13:11
And so for him, it’s very convenient to divert the attention of the Brits from the settlements in Ukraine, which doesn’t bring any votes to Starmer, and instead to get him fully involved in the special trade deal, which would have a very big political boost to Starmer at home.

Diesen:
Yeah, so this is a switch more than just offer them the trade. Yeah, that’s an interesting observation. I didn’t really pick up on that, how much they escalated the tariff threats immediately before Starmer came. Of course, it’s good to have a character as well if you want to shift folks away from Ukraine. But they have two obstacles. One obviously are the Europeans who are now the main actor trying to prolong the war in Ukraine and avoid all negotiations, even diplomacy. But the second would be Zelensky, because of course, after Macron and Starmer, we now have today Zelensky in the United States, well, to sign this mineral deal. But obviously, there’s more going on here.

14:24
Zelensky’s main objective is also then to get some form of security guarantees, which could be used to pull the United States into the conflict. But how do you see Trump approaching Zelensky on this? Because, like you said, the British and the French can create problems for the United States, But does Ukraine have anything any more? Or can they just push Zelensky aside if he doesn’t fall in line? How do you read this situation?

14:56
I don’t think it’s a good moment to try to push Zelensky aside and to call elections at once, because we know who’s going to win: Zaluzhny. Zaluzhny is not one bit better than than Zelensky is on continuing versus ending the war, judging by his latest statements, his latest published statements in the past week. I forget, “The Spectator” where he published his remarks. And so the Ukrainians, I think, will just be left to the side for a while, before Trump and company decide what to do with them. But I think they will be presented with fait accompli, and they will have to accept it or face extermination.

Their situation is not pretty, but I’m not terribly concerned about the fate of one Mr. Zelensky. He has been a mass murderer. One million of his compatriots are in graves or are severely wounded and will never have normal lives. So all because of this war that he has perpetuated against all common sense, against all normal military doctrine.

Diesen: 16:10
You mentioned Britain’s very profound role in this whole conflict and you mentioned the Crimean bridge, Butcha, all of this. But of course, Britain was also pushing the hardest, I think, for these deep strikes into Russian territories, which again, if we would go to a nuclear exchange, this seems to be the path. But also, we saw that the British were quite central in undermining the Minsk agreement for those seven years as well. We can’t also forget that it was Boris Johnson who went on behalf of the US and the UK in 2022 to cancel the Istanbul agreement. So it does seem like the British have a huge role in this.

17:03
Even after the coup in Ukraine, as the “New York Times” reported, on the first day after the coup, the new intelligence chief of Ukraine, which again, approved by the US and UK, the first thing he did on the first day apparently was to call MI6 and CIA to have a trilateral covert partnership against Russia. So they have really been very much at the center of this. But again, for the British, this was always in partnership with the United States. So this, the fact that the Americans are turning back now, how will the British deal with this ultimately?

Because they have two options they can, one, they can try to preserve this special partnership by folding to the Americans and doing what they want, or alternatively, they can see this as taking on a new post-Brexit key role in Europe by trying to fill the shoes of United States, no matter how unlikely or unrealistic this would be. But would you have any predictions how the British are going to play this? Because they seem like they have a much more key role in this war than the French.

Doctorow: 18:11
Oh, they do. And as they’ve invested much more politically, as you say. Macron, let’s remember, he’s a chameleon. He has changed his views on whether or not we should approach the Kremlin, whether we should approach it with tanks, or approach it with an olive branch, repeatedly over the last two years. Whereas the British have been unswerving in their position about the need for Ukraine to win and Russia to lose.

I’m publishing my war diaries, as I call them, within the next four to six weeks. First is volume one covering 2022 to 2023, and then there’ll be, I hope the war comes to an end and I can put an end to this publication for the volume two this year still. And what I found coming through what I’ve written, of course, I’ve been mistaken, mistaken, mistaken, always calling the end of the war when nothing like that happened, like everyone else. All peers in particularly in the non-mainstream press have been calling “it will fall in two or three weeks”, that it was going to the wall. It’s all over.

19:30
But these sensationalist comments, I can understand. They attract viewers, and viewers attract sponsors to internet platforms. But that doesn’t make them valuable by themselves. I, of course, have made my mistakes. But what I found in my book, the leitmotif in my book, is writing history looking forward, as opposed to writing history looking backward.

But looking backward, things come up and appear to be very important, which weren’t important when we were looking forward. I was amazed at how I had missed the importance of the Istanbul agreements and of their being cancelled. Missed it. No, I wrote about it. But I was listening to Russian news and to Russian intellectual opinion makers. And they weren’t very happy with that. They thought they were getting more, that Putin was giving much too much to the Ukrainians. And so when it failed, I wasn’t particularly disturbed. Who could predict that one million people will die as a result of this? It was not in our thoughts.

20:47
There are other landmarks over the last three years, which similarly seem to be historic, but only retrospectively. They weren’t historic when they happened. So how things look going forward, I think that effectively, Starmer will be bought off by the trade deal, which is vastly more important to his political fortunes in Britain than anything else. Also with respect to the British and the continental powers, how they relate to Russia, the hostility that we see, the Danes are really over the top right now in their calling for vengeance against Russia. I mean, it may have something to do with one of the most important brands in the country having been stripped of Danish ownership in Carlsberg, Russia, which I think accounted at one point for 10% of the companies overall sales.

And now it’s in the hands of the people who actually built Baltica before the Danish came in. Anyway, that’s a separate issue, but there are reasons why the elites in these countries have been very hard on Russia, even harder than the States, that it’s not clear to many of the political commentators and majority political commentators, of course, in America. And they assume that America is the intellectual wellspring of everything neoconservative and so on, of everything that’s going on. But I hope you’ll agree with me that there’s a very strong neoconservative movement, was always, in Europe without the Americans.

22:32
And so it is they have their own reasons for their enmity for Russia. One is powerlessness; that doesn’t make people generous. They tend to resent and to hate others who are more powerful, more successful than they are. And Russia is vastly more powerful than any of these countries in Europe. They didn’t have to think about it, so long as there was the American backup.

But when the Russians moved into Ukraine, all of the Europeans understood that they are defenseless. And that made them very nervous and being nervous filled them with hatred. I’m not speaking about men in the street. People in the street have other things to worry about, and inflation and price of energy. These were things that bothered people in the street, which they did not connect to the Russian war.

23:30
But the people at the top who were running the show, of course, they were nervous, and they have reason to be. But of course, the war in Ukraine was stage-managed, incited by the United States. Britain had a very important executional role, implementing role, but it was not the source of this policy; that was the United States. And when the Russians finally reacted, after having been poked so many times, then Europe understood they had a dangerous neighbor. They were defenseless because they did _not_ have a dangerous neighbor. They weren’t stupid. They understood that there was no threat from the East. America created the threat from the East for its own reasons.

Diesen: 24:26
Yeah, I think this huge unpredictable threat or uncertainty at least from Russia has been always a key source in Europe for extreme hatred. I think a lot of it actually came after the Napoleonic wars because they had pushed the– well, it [sold] the rivalry between the British and the French and instead it put forward this huge Russia as a huge Eurasian land power which was beyond, I guess the strategic competitiveness of the British which was to control the seas. So it created this hatred which was a key theme throughout the 19th century. Indeed, since Cobden’s pamphlet in 1836 of Russophobia, how the irrational hatred of Russia had more or less consumed Britain to the extent they weren’t acting in their national interest any more. It’s always, again, for 200 years been a very central part of their thinking. But no, so it probably has a huge impact.

25:24
And well, regarding what you said, just comment on the Istanbul. I think the sabotage of the Istanbul agreement was one thing, but if it would have been replaced by something else, it wouldn’t have been so bad. But after sabotaging these negotiations, this is when NATO went out and said, also, we’re not going to negotiate with Russia. We’re not going to have diplomacy. We’re not even going to sit down to talk with them.

And the Ukrainians followed suit by passing this decree that it’s illegal to talk to the Russians. Now, if you see that the Russians are in a conflict for which they consider to be an existential threat, nobody wants to talk to them, then the only alternative is becomes a war of attrition. That is to bleed dry a Ukrainian army armed with hundreds of thousands of men armed to the teeth by NATO. It was destined, I guess, to be such a horrible bloodbath. I was curious, though, in this relationship between the way the Americans are trying to work the Europeans, because a key issue has been this focus on human rights and the freedom of speech.

26:37
As we know with the vice president Vance, in Munich, he commented that the Europeans were taking this authoritarian turn. That is, whenever there’s any dissent in Europe, there’s a tendency to simply denounce it as having evil intentions. So if the Hungarians oppose their far right, the Slovakians oppose it, their far right. When we deal with Moldova, it’s okay to rig an election because the alternative is seen as pro-Russian. The same logic attempting to, toppling, the government in Georgia or even in Romania, where not just the elections were annulled, but even detaining the presidential election winner, the police detaining him. I mean, we tend to get away with this because everything is always framed as being in the support of democracy or anti-democratic far-right, pro-Russian, whatever we want to say to delegitimize.

27:32
But I noticed Vance brought this up in front of Starmer as well, which if everything was about geopolitics, it seems almost very provocative to bring up the decline of free speech in the United Kingdom. Do you think this plays into the wider efforts to get the British on the side, to not oppose Trump’s efforts with Ukraine? Or is this more of a home base issue where Trump has taken this anti-woke pro-free speech position or it doesn’t have anything to do with Ukraine?

Doctorow: 28:12
I think it’s ideological warfare. They are turning the coat inside out. Just remember where the sanctions on Russia began. They didn’t begin in 2022. They didn’t begin in 2014. They began in [2008], in the aftermath of the Georgian war, in the aftermath of Vladimir Putin’s 2007 speech to Munich, when the United States scrambled to find an answer and to punish Russia and a logic for punishing Russia. And it was, as you say, a whole question of human rights.

That was the issue that was used to propel the Magnitsky Act in 2012 in the States to pass Congress and to impose on Russia very significant punishments, sanctions. And then that was followed shortly afterwards by an effort again by the same authors of the Magnitsky Act to have here in Europe a European Magnitsky Act. And what were they talking about? They were talking about violation of human rights, anti-democratic behavior. And so JD Vance and his speech was turning it back on them, turning it back on the Europeans.

29:43
We have these sanctions that originally were put and been built up against Russia, all because it supposedly did not honor human rights and free speech and all the other wonderful virtues. Now, you gentlemen are doing exactly the same thing. This was brilliant. But I say, I think you’re correct in identifying it as having primarily an American audience. It is an ideological battle within the United States.

And he took his spear and carried it to Munich. And he directed against people who well deserved it. It was brave. It was, again, earth-shaking here in Europe for them to be accused of what they rightly should be accused of, knowing as we do, as you certainly know already, the level of censorship here in Europe, which is considerably greater than the United States, has been at the worst moments in this Russia-Ukraine war.

30:51
Yeah, I know. It’s quite overwhelming, and it’s very strange because it’s not met with opposition, it’s almost met with applause because whenever we impose censorship that is shutting down media, crushing dissent, it’s always in the name of protecting democracy, in the name of saving people from disinformation. And yeah, so again, we have one legitimate position and if you deviate from it, it’s always some right-wing conspiracy almost. It’s very strange to see how the tolerance for opposition is gone. So geopolitics aside, I think it was healthy for Vance to push this forward and actually use such a forum to actually hold the Europeans a bit accountable to what’s happening. Of course, I don’t think the Europeans took the message though, because all the media effectively just explained that Vance is a MAGA, He’s a Christian fundamentalist, he’s maybe a Putinist, he’s taking China’s side over [Europe].

31:52
It’s all labels again, to just show how bad he is for criticizing us, but no one actually counters his arguments, because there was a lot of good sound arguments about the dangerous path we’re going down, which is obviously not in our interest either.

Doctorow:
Well, there are two things I want to call out. One is, I want to go back to where you started this discussion on China and the pivot to China. I don’t think that’s what’s really happening. I think again, this is rhetoric by Trump. I don’t think it’s policy by Trump. I expect to see a big three, maybe a big four, of a Yalta, a new Yalta. I say four because India would join it. We now see on May 9th the Russians have as their honored guests Xi from China and Modi. I would not be surprised if, again, if Trump has his way and things move swiftly, that Trump will also be there.

32:55
The four of them will be dealing with geopolitical solutions. So I don’t take at face value all of the remarks about a pivot against– the United States has to move its forces out so it can concentrate on China. This is a way of getting the forces out. But it isn’t the end game. The end game will be what they actually _do_ with China.

Now with the question of the ideological warfare, let’s remember what comes with this notion of defending human rights and these values, our shared values. The shared values of democracy are peace loving, because democracies are by definition peace loving. Don’t pay attention to the facts that the Democratic United States has been at war without a moment’s pause for the last 30 years. That doesn’t count. That’s reality. We’re not talking reality. We’re talking theory. We don’t want the facts to get in the way of our theory. And the theory is that democratic nations are by nature supported by the people. And they can afford to be peace-like, whereas autocratic or authoritarian regimes do not enjoy the support of their people.

34:11
And therefore, they have to keep their people in place and under their direct control by waging foreign wars. And that’s why they’re war-like. And here Vance is throwing this back in the face of Europe. The European peace project has actually become a European war project. Not just as an arbitrary accidental thing, but because they betrayed democratic values that are supposed to make Europe peace-like.

Diesen: 34:39
Yeah, no, I thought you brought up excellent points, but actually you’re walking into my last question here because what do you see as Russians’ intentions or approach going forward? Because as you said, if the war continues, they can take all of Ukraine, so they have an interest there. But on the other hand, this is also an historical opportunity to get a deal with the Americans to actually just get a, not just finishing this war permanently in Ukraine, to get a settlement which they agree upon so it won’t flare up again. It’s also an opportunity to deal with the European security architecture as we never had a mutually acceptable European security architecture after the Cold War. So there’s a lot of opportunities there as well.

35:27
But there’s also lack of trust, because we’ve had these resets in the past and the way Russia sees it they were stabbed in the back at their return. So how do you see Russia going? Did you see them preferring to delay settlements so they can get their territory or will they prioritize the political settlement? And also, what does America want from Russia? Because it’s a bit unclear.

It does appear that a key objective is to try to drive a wedge between Russia and China, but to what extent is this realistic? And can this also be seen in the context of Trump calling for this great-power dialogue that is talking about reducing nuclear weapons, slashing military budgets. I’m just trying to separate the noise from the actual objectives. And to what extent would the American objective be able to be harmonized with the Russian? That’s a big question.

Doctorow: 36:31
Again– In the cacophony that’s coming out of the Trump administration, it’s very hard to see what is his real objective and what are his talking points and what he’s using to confuse the people who stand in his way.

And I think, for example, one of the things, one of the ideas that has been thrown out for consideration is to cut the US military budget by 50%. Not by the 5% or 8% a year that was talked about, which was really just moving money from here to there for pet projects and removing projects that have failed. No, no, they actually cut it by 50%. And I think that is sincere. I think this is his objective.

Look, he had an epiphany moment. He was nearly killed. And I don’t think that that had no effect on the man’s understanding of what he can achieve in four years or should try to achieve. So I would give him credence. I would trust him to be sincere to end the war.

As for the Russians, no, of course, they don’t want to take all of Ukraine. That was never an issue. They want, as you just described, a political settlement and a new security architecture in Europe, which they can achieve with Trump. He’s already almost said it. He wants to pull troops out of … Europe. That changes dynamics here. The Europeans can step, can move, shift from foot to foot. Oh, we will have, we will invest in new armaments industry and we… wait a minute. That’s 10 years from now. We’re living today. And today Russia can overrun you, you know, in two or three weeks.

38:13
I think how long would Estonia last? A couple of hours? The reality today is the Europeans are defenseless by their own choice because they didn’t see anything to defend themselves against. And so once the United States pulls back, there have to be someone, either the existing people who will eat their own words and try to hold power by shifting policy to where it’s headed under US direction, or they’ll be removed. I think the first is more likely that people will not be thrown out, but they will change their positions and start to adopt realistic assessments. We’re living in very interesting times and I remain optimistic, but I don’t pay too much attention to words right now.

Diesen: 39:02
By the way, I think I misspoke with Russia taking all of Ukraine. I do think that’s a ridiculous proposition. They have no interest to go into Western Ukraine where no one will welcome them effectively. But walking up to the Dnieper, quite possible. And also it has to be pointed out that the four regions there next, that is Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, they’re not controlling all the territories yet, which have now been brought into the constitution of Russia that this is, well, not their constitution, but that this is their territory.

So do they, I guess, do they see it’s favorable, I guess, to control these territories before they have a deal? Because for me, there’s many things which, there’s not that many things that can be negotiated. For example, no NATO. I think this is a key issue. This is either yes or no. So I think this is just non-negotiable. They can’t accept this. The issue of security guarantees, I don’t think the Russians could accept this either. They might have observers from non-European countries, but to have NATO soldiers being the peacekeepers along the Russian border in a proxy war that just fought with NATO, it doesn’t make any sense at all.

40:18
But in one area where it’s always been very uncertain is to what extent the Russians will be prepared to negotiate over the territories because they’re not controlling all the territories which they’re claiming, well, to claiming that belongs to Russia now. So do you see that there’s any scope there for negotiating over the administrative borders? I asked this in Moscow as well, but no one seems to be quite sure what, well, no one’s playing with open cards just yet.

But is this an area where there could be negotiation? Because this could be a problem if Russia demands, for example, to cross the Dnieper to have all the territory of Kherson and Zaporizhzhye. This would be very difficult for any Ukrainian government to accept. It would also be very difficult for Trump to make the Europeans and the Ukrainians approve. So it looks like it could be a deal breaker. Now if the Russians have more time to seize territories, it will be one thing, but do you think this will be an area where– administrate border that is, where Russia will be willing to negotiate?

Doctorow: 41:25
Well, Putin two days ago addressed this question directly, and he said that they expect to hold all the territory of the oblast as they originally were constituted and as they have been brought into the Russian Federation constitution.

Where are they? They have 98% or 100% of Lugansk. Lugansk always was the oblast that they had the greatest percentage of, but now it’s a hundred percent. Where are they in Donetsk, which was the most difficult case because it’s where the Ukrainians had spent eight years really building up fortifications that were almost insuperable and which were very expensive in manpower to take for the Russians.

The Russians had 50 percent of Donetsk going back two years ago. As a result of the advances in the last several months, they now at 75 percent. And the remaining 25 percent is really a sprint to the Dnieper. Once they take a couple of cities, which are now under, well, one is under siege and two will soon be under siege. The ones that are almost iconic, Kramatorsk and Slavyansk, which were the cradle of the Russian revolt, the Russian-speaking revolt against Kiev 2014, then it’s just flat land to the Dnieper. So if the war goes on for a couple more months, Russians could take almost the whole or all of Donetsk.

43:06
The other two, of course, the capital city of Kherson is on the right bank of the Dniepr. So that is a touchy situation. But the great part of the landmass of Kherson is under Russian control now. It will be difficult negotiations, of course, but I think the Russians will sacrifice something here if it means bringing in the revised security architecture.

And again, we all hear in Trump’s words what we want to hear. I heard that it was as much as accepted in December 2021 ultimatum that Ryabkov delivered to NATO and to Washington. It sounds to me that Trump’s accepted that. He said pulling out American troops from these post 1994 NATO expansion territories, former Warsaw Pact and the Baltics. He didn’t say all of NATO would be pulled out, because NATO also is Europeans. And the Germans, for example, had their advance state postings in the Baltics, but Americans would pull back and that is of decisive importance.

44:23
If he can concede that, and he did it, again, mixed in with other words, so you wouldn’t necessarily pay attention to it, unless you wanted to pick it out, as I did, It sounds like there is the making of a real comprehensive US-Russian agreement.

Diesen:
Yeah, something everyone actually, a peaceful settlement which would actually be focusing on positive-sum gain, which everyone would gain from, because I think the security architecture we built over the past 30 years was always premised on the– stability was premised on the perpetual weakness of Russia. Now I think that’s out of the window. We have to kind of return to the common sense that Russian security also have to be a consideration when you’re developing European security.

45:09
But anyways, I do wish the Europeans would appreciate that what Trump is doing is not capitulation or doing Russia any great favors because the Ukrainian army is collapsing. And as you said, this is happening at a time when the Donbas, they’re almost reaching the administrative border, like three kilometers away from from Zaporizhzhya. And when they reach this, there’s no more fortification lines. There’s no more industrial regions where you can use to set up defense. No more major cities. It’s going to be, as the Ukrainian army now collapses, there’s also open spaces. The deal I think which Ukraine and the Europeans will be presented with if we wait another six months is going to be a lot worse than what we’re seeing now. And there’s not much we can do any more. We lost the proxy war.

46:02
And I see the EU setting up this, preparing a tribunal for Putin. I saw it yesterday. It was very strange. Usually they do this after you win a war, not after you lose a war, but I guess this is where we are. Anyways, thank you so much for your time. Do you have any final comments you would like to make?

Doctorow: 46:21
No, I just think there’s reason for optimism. The Russians themselves are saying there’s no reason for euphoria. There’s a lot of work to be done, But they’re heading in the right direction. The most important thing which captured the imagination of Vladimir Putin and his entourage was the American understanding that the settlement in Ukraine has to be part of a very broad settlement of, a reestablishment of contacts, regular contacts between Russia and the United States by reinstating various programs that are of mutual interest. These programs, whether it’s arms limitation or it’s in space or other topics that are mutual interest. In this case, the new topic would be the Northern sea route.

47:08
The topics themselves have content and value, but the greater importance of these contacts is establishing regular flow of experts there and back. That is trust building. And a durable peace is possible, as Trump seems to understand, only when there is mutual trust. And as Starmer and Macron and all the other Europeans refuse to understand, you cannot have a durable peace with a sworn enemy.

Diesen:
Oh, and I think this is what’s the main source of optimism for the Russians as well. The fact, what they haven’t seen in decades, which is an American leader recognizing that Russia has security concerns. This is a big no-no in Europe. We can’t recognize that Russia has security interests and security concerns. Furthermore, recognizing that we have participated, that is NATO has participated in causing the conflict we’re currently in, instead of being a struggle between the force of good versus the new reincarnation of Hitler.

So I think this is something that, yeah, gives some reason for optimism. Anyways, sorry, I went a little bit over time there, so thank you so much, Gilbert Docterow.

Doctorow: 48:28
Well, thanks for the invitation, I enjoyed it.

CNN and other major media are today carrying video clips on their youtube channels giving us a glimpse of the 19 or so European and transatlantic leaders who gathered in London to discuss with Volodymyr Zelensky how to continue their cooperation in defense of Ukraine following the debacle in the White House in Washington yesterday, when Zelensky was humiliated before the television cameras and was shown to the door. Among the 19 whom I counted when they posed for the obligatory group photo were  Emmanuel Macron, Donald Tusk, Georgia Meloni, Justin Trudeau, Mark Rutte, Ursula von der Leyen.

In the few introductory words delivered by Keir Starmer, we heard that their common mission is to provide for European security, in which defending Ukraine plays a vital role. They seemingly wish to arrive at a common position on defending Ukraine that they will later present to Washington.

The problem with this is that they are knowingly running directly against the now crystal clear position of Donald Trump to wash his hands of Zelensky and to allow the Russians to finish up this war as they see best. The U.S. is about to cut off shipments of arms prepared by Biden in his last days and will surely not send any further weapons to Kiev out of its current budget.

It is utterly bizarre that these stubborn Europeans think that they have some leverage with Trump. Their blindness is not merely to the obvious fact that absent the participation of the USA in the war effort consisting of materiel, money and critically important satellite intelligence to guide battlefield operations, the Ukrainian forces have no chance whatsoever of standing up to Russia.  Europe’s possible aid will solve nothing.

More to the point, when they speak of European security, they overlook the fact that without vibrant U.S. participation in NATO, NATO can fold its tents since it will be nonfunctional. It lacks the air lift, the armaments manufacturing capacity, most everything to sustain a war that will last more than a few days.

By their present gathering, these leaders are setting the stage for a U.S. pull-out from NATO.  They forget how the United States under any president, not just Donald J. Trump, reacts to defiance from allies.  Just think back to 2003 when Germany, France and Belgium had the temerity to veto the U.S. drafted resolution before the UN Security Council approving the planned invasion of Iraq over alleged weapons of mass destruction.  Within days, French wines were being poured out into the gutters, French fries were renamed ‘freedom fries’ and there was outrage and indignation across the land.  No less will result from the stupid, pig-headed action of these European heads of government in London today.

As for Keir Starmer, he must be the stupidest of the lot.  When in Washington meeting with Donald Trump, he was offered a tariff free trade deal with the USA that his country has sought ever since Brexit. He failed to see that this was the deal:  you get tariff free trade if you just shut up about Ukraine.  But shut up this oaf could not do.  As they say in Washington, there now will be consequences.

On related news of the day, it appears that King Charles today gave an audience to his good friend Volodymyr Zelensky.  And does he still expect Donald Trump to come calling for the state visit and private dinner with the King that Starmer delivered during his visit?

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Considering their own concerns over how to read Donald Trump’s confusing, often contradictory rhetoric  as it relates to their hopes for a reset of relations with Washington, it is not surprising that Press TV devoted their feature Saturday night program Spotlight to the heated dispute in the White House on Friday between President Trump and the visiting dictator from Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky.

For Western viewers of the extraordinary clash and unexpected removal of Zelensky to the street, without any further talks on mineral rights or participation in the state lunch, it was clear that Zelensky was deemed incapable of making peace and so unworthy of further participation in the process. For Iranians, the question was always whether Trump himself is capable of making and keeping a peace.

A senior journalist in the Press TV team led the discussion    My fellow panelist was Christopher Helali, a Researcher and Political Analyst, Vershire, USA. Though it was not said on air, Helali is apparently a member of the American Communist Party.

I was delighted to be asked whether Donald Trump’s brutal treatment of Zelensky has had some impact on American domestic politics, because it gave me the chance to point to the dramatic shift in the position of the most voluble Russia-hater and Kiev promoter on Capital Hill, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. With reference to the Oval Office conflict, Graham fully backed the President of the United States and denounced Zelensky for what was, essentially, lèse majesté.

http://www.urmedium.net/c/presstv/132857 

Translation below into German (Andreass Mylaeus)

Press TV, Iran: Trump – Zelensky Showdown

Angesichts ihrer eigenen Bedenken, wie sie Donald Trumps verwirrende, oft widersprüchliche Rhetorik in Bezug auf ihre Hoffnungen auf eine Wiederaufnahme der Beziehungen zu Washington interpretieren sollen, ist es nicht verwunderlich, dass Press TV seine Samstagabend-Sendung Spotlight dem hitzigen Streit im Weißen Haus am Freitag zwischen Präsident Trump und dem besuchenden Diktator aus der Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, gewidmet hat.

Für westliche Zuschauer war es angesichts des außergewöhnlichen Zusammenstoßes und des unerwarteten Rauswurfs Zelenskys auf die Strasse, ohne weitere Gespräche über Schürfrechte oder die Teilnahme am Staatsbankett, klar, dass Zelensky als unfähig angesehen wurde, Frieden zu schließen, und daher einer weiteren Teilnahme an dem Prozess nicht würdig war. Für die Iraner stellte sich immer die Frage, ob Trump selbst in der Lage ist, Frieden zu schließen und zu bewahren.

Ein leitender Journalist des Press TV-Teams leitete die Diskussion. Mein Mitdiskutant war Christopher Helali, ein Forscher und Politikanalyst aus Vershire, USA. Obwohl es nicht in der Sendung gesagt wurde, ist Helali offenbar Mitglied der Kommunistischen Partei Amerikas.

Ich war erfreut, gefragt zu werden, ob Donald Trumps brutale Behandlung von Selensky Auswirkungen auf die amerikanische Innenpolitik hatte, denn so konnte ich auf die dramatische Veränderung in der Position des wortgewaltigsten Russland-Hassers und Kiew-Förderers auf dem Capitol Hill, Senator Lindsey Graham aus South Carolina, hinweisen. In Bezug auf den Oval-Office-Konflikt stellte sich Graham voll und ganz hinter den Präsidenten der Vereinigten Staaten und verurteilte Selensky wegen Majestätsbeleidigung.

A lengthy chat with Professor Glenn Diesen

It was an honor to be invited by Glenn Diesen for a video-recorded chat yesterday to discuss latest developments in the Russia-Ukraine war. Though we spoke prior to the dramatic events in the Oval Office when Trump and Zelensky had an open spat before the mass media, nearly everything in the recording remains highly relevant, including the outlook for the war’s end.

Glenn Diesen is a professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway who bravely sets out his own well-informed and independent views on Russia and the security interests of Europe. He attracts to his video interviews Jeffrey Sachs and other well-known authorities.