‘Judging Freedom,’ 30 July: EU Capitulates to Trump

‘

Today’s session with Judge Andrew Napolitano centered on the von der Leyen – Trump agreement in Scotland on a 15%  tariff for European exports to the USA, which was in effect a humiliating defeat for the EU. Bad as that sounds, the far worse point agreed was for the EU to greatly expand its LNG and oil imports from the USA, with the figure 650 billion euros specifically named.  Of course, this obligation will likely never be met, just as similar obligations on China to import US agricultural products at certain target levels never were met. But the principle, if actually applied, will condemn European manufacturing to excessive costs, meaning to uncompetitive export prices and loss of markets abroad.

As I have noted elsewhere, the capitulation on tariffs was clearly motivated by the hopes of von der Leyen and of those European leaders supporting her that this concession will keep open relations with Washington and, in particular, lead to continuation of the common Euro-Atlantic stand on giving Ukraine the financial and flow of military equipment it needs to continue the war with Russia.  What I did not say in the interview but should be mentioned here is that the expectation of further U.S. assistance to Ukraine is delusional.  Trump wants out of the war and there is no way that Europe can so ingratiate itself with him as to change his mind on that cardinal point of U.S. foreign policy.

 Our brief discussion of the Epstein scandal that currently fascinates Washington, of the decision by Britain and France to recognize the Palestine state in September and of likely CIA hand in the anti Zelensky demonstrations that swept Ukraine last week  may also interest viewers.

NewsX World: Kremlin Says Kyiv Rejects Russia’s Peace Offer | Russia Ukraine Peace Talks

I used this interview to drive home the fact that the Russians do indeed seek a diplomatic solution to the war, but on their own well-known terms which amount to a Ukrainian capitulation. But the main issue I introduced was the likelihood that the United States now is actively working to bring down Zelensky by encouraging and facilitating the massive demonstrations this past week against Zelensky’s new law stripping the two Ukrainian anti-corruption agencies of independence.

There is some fresh news to add to that story.

First, this weekend’s Financial Times tells us that there is a revolt among deputies of Zelensky’s Servant of the People party against his decision to withdraw or rewrite the offending law on the anti-corruption agencies so as to satisfy domestic and foreign critics. As many as 70 of his deputies to the Verkkhovna Rada will vote against the volte-face by Zelensky saying that they fear prosecution now by the agencies because of their having voted to strip the agencies of power. If this happens, then Zelensky will be caught between a rock and a hard place – unable to move ahead and call off the opposition demonstrations.

Other news on Russian tickers today inform us that several officials now being investigated by the anti-corruption agencies have given testimony incriminating Zelensky.  Moreover, the ongoing street demonstrations now carry signs saying that Zelensky and his chief of presidential administration Yermak are both “traitors to Ukraine.”

The foregoing strengthens my argument that this war will end sooner rather than later and it will end due to regime change in Kiev, not to collapse of the Ukrainian armed forces on the front lines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9_EnWerFus

Transcript of RT International interview, 25 July

Transcript submitted by a reader

RT: 0:00
And let’s now cross live to Gilbert Doctorow, a former visiting scholar at Harriman Institute, Columbia University. Welcome to the program, sir. On Tuesday, Zelensky and the Ukrainian parliament put an end to any independence the anti-corruption watchdog had, and today they’re restoring it by introducing a new bill in the Rada. Why such a quick turnaround, do you think?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
Well, because of the massive demonstrations. I would like to complement the report that you’ve given very ably on what Mr. Zelensky did, what he has just undone, how he received pressure. That’s all fine. But let’s go to the question of these massive demonstrations. The “New York Times” said in their first report on the demonstrations, this goes back to Wednesday, “Well, this is the first mass demonstration in Ukraine in three years of war.”

Yes, very interesting. And why is it that there were demonstrations now? Nobody’s asked that question. Let’s deal with that. Does that mean that everybody was very happy in Ukraine with the government? Of course it doesn’t. It means that you’d get your skull fractured if you dared to step out and think of a demonstration. Going back to October 2014 and the elections of the [Rada] at that time, when the first elections that took place after the new regime was put in place by a coup d’etat, those elections were witnessed by foreign observers who reported extensively on the violence that was used against the opponents of the regime. That hasn’t changed. Now, what has changed is that nobody confronted the 10,000 or more demonstrators that came out on the streets of Kiev, not to mention thousands more in all the other major cities of Ukraine.

2:01
Why did that happen? Let’s try to think. I would suggest we should think that someone, probably in the West, wants to change the regime. And that is the investigation path that I urge upon listeners to this, I would suggest that the usual actors like MI6 are behind it. Why did the Ukrainian army not fire into the crowd? They got orders not to. And I don’t believe that Mr. Zelensky gave those orders. So we are about to witness regime change in Ukraine. And the major media in the West are preparing, at least in the States, the American public for regime change and for the removal of Zelensky.

RT: 2:49
And if we look at the reaction of the public, Ukrainians have not reacted in such a strong way to other controversial events, like when the country’s national resources were sold to the United States, for example. Why has this caused so much controversy now?

Doctorow:
Because now you weren’t going to get your head bashed in, that’s why. You weren’t going to get shot. This is the cardinal change that has to be brought out, what happened in this week. It is the first step of two or three steps to remove Zelensky and the whole gang of neo-Nazis who have the Ukrainian nation by the neck. It is not thinkable that the whole public was satisfied with the Zelensky regime and therefore didn’t demonstrate. No. They just used common sense, which was: you don’t want to risk your life. Now, it was clear the government had, the army had been given orders not to fire.

3:49
Moreover, the instruction that we understood again from major Western media is that the army was told not to come out in the streets in their uniforms to demonstrate against the law. My goodness, what a change. This is the first stage in the removal of the Zelensky government.

RT:
What about his image, Zelensky’s actions concerning NABU and the restoration of its autonomy? Do you think that will save the image or will it damage even more?

Doctorow:
Among whom? Among Ukrainians, I don’t think there is a particular love for Mr. Zelensky. The country is patriotic. Ukrainians share the same religious and political conservatism, shall we say, of Russians. They are going to fight to the end, but they’re not stupid. And if they did not demonstrate in any way against Mr. Zelensky, it was not for love of him and his peers and his colleagues. It was because they were afraid for their lives. That somehow miraculously has changed in the past week, and it deserves proper attention.

5:07
I have said for some time this war will not end by a military capitulation. The idea that next week the Ukrainian army will raise a white flag is totally unrealistic, even though nearly all of my peers are suggesting that will happen. No, no, the Ukrainian government will collapse of its own weight and of its own unpopularity. And with some help from those Western sponsors who want to see it collapse.

RT:
And meanwhile, Zelensky keeps asking for money from the Western backers, let’s call them that, Western friends. And now he wants the EU to pay Ukrainian soldiers their salaries. Do you think Europe will agree? And where is it going to find the funds?

Doctorow: 5:54
Well, I don’t think they’ll say no, but they just won’t do it. There aren’t funds available. And I don’t think there’s a great eagerness to provide them even if they were available. The standing of the Ukrainian government is very low. The notion that the Ukrainian army can defend its territory and that it, not to mention that it will gain back territory and defeat Russia, that is only maintained by complete fools. The Western mainstream media no longer holds that to be true.

And that is the point. They are preparing, at least in the United States, where there’s far more political freedom for the press than there is in Europe, the press in the States is giving strong signs. Less than two weeks ago there was a feature article in the “New York Times” on the war crimes committed by the Ukrainian forces during their occupation of Kursk Oblast. This is unbelievable.

6:57
From the start of the war, Western media portrayed Ukraine as bunny rabbits, which were being assaulted, attacked by the big bad wolf. Well, you know who that is. That’s Russia. Now we find the “New York Times”, by reporters on the ground, were explaining in detail the war crimes that these bunny rabbits were committing on Russian soil. That is a sea change.

RT 7:26
Well, the vibe definitely is changing, if we may call it that. Also this Friday, Russia reported destroying four Patriot systems. At the UN, the Russian representative said the more weapons the West delivers to Ukraine, the more will be
destroyed. What are your thoughts on that?

Doctorow:
Well, I think it’s an absolute statement of fact. Among my peers, almost everyone is in agreement that any new weapons shipped to Ukraine will be destroyed very quickly, and in any case cannot help the Ukrainian cause. The list of weaponry, the Bradleys, the armored personnel carriers, the tanks — all of that which was in Biden’s list is useless in Ukraine today, because the war has changed. The most dynamic part of the war is drone warfare. And heavy mechanized equipment, like what was in the Biden list, hides in forests today, because it would be blasted to pieces if it comes out in the open field.

8:32
So the war has changed. The Biden list of equipment to be shipped to the Ukraine is utterly useless. And the Patriots, of which there’s been so much reporting — as you say, they’ve been destroyed by the Russians. They are vulnerable to Russia’s most advanced missiles and they will not save the Ukrainian army.

RT:
Gilbert Doctorow, former visiting scholar at Harriman Institute, Columbia University, thank you so much for this analysis.

Doctorow: 9:10
My pleasure.

RT International:  ‘First stage in the removal of the Zelensky government’ — Prof. Doctorow

It was a pleasure to be given the opportunity to share with the RT International audience my interpretation of the goings-on in Kiev following two days of massive anti-government demonstrations in the capital and across the country, as thousands denounced a new law stripping the anti-corruption agencies of their independence.

President Zelensky was caught in a no-win situation.  If he persisted in defending the law, he faced further widespread protests that could overturn the regime.  If he conceded victory to the demonstrators and withdrew the law, he faced further protests that could overturn the regime.

The primary issue I see here is that somehow the Ukrainian police and military were instructed NOT to shoot the demonstrators, not to crack skulls.  Indeed, we have been told that the government only ordered soldiers not to participate in the demonstrations wearing their uniforms!

I insist that the week’s developments are the harbinger of regime change which is being enabled by one or another of the Western ‘backers’ of Ukraine, very likely Washington and London.  This type of treachery has all the fingerprints of MI6 on it.

Transcript of Iran TV interview on Russian-Iranian naval exercises

Transcript submitted by a reader

PressTV: 0:18
… Spotlight. I’m Marzieh Hashemi. Thanks so much for being with us. Iran’s navy, Northern Fleet and Russian vessels are conducting maritime drills in the Caspian Sea. “Together for a safe and secure Caspian Sea” is the slogan that has been chosen for the drills. Now, according to Iran, the primary goal of the exercise is to reinforce maritime safety and security while fostering greater cooperation among naval forces of the Caspian Sea littoral countries.

But what is the reason that these drills by neighboring countries are viewed with concern by some in the United States? Well, stay with us. We’re going to take a look at some footage and then I will be welcoming my guests.

2:15
I’d like to welcome my guests to the program. I’d like to welcome my first guest, George Szamuely, Senior Research Fellow, Global Policy Institute, London Metropolitan University, out of Budapest. And Gilbert Doctorow,independent international affairs analyst out of Brussels.

Well, thank you so much. I’m going to start this off with Gilbert. Welcome to the program. Gilbert, what is your perspective about the significance of these three-day drills between Iran and Russia, along with other Caspian Sea littoral states?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 2:57
Well, for one thing, it is a reaffirmation that after the 12-day Israel-Iran war, Russia remains interested and pursuing a very close relationship with Iran in all domains, including defense. So that is a signal to the world at large that this cooperation is in full effect.

At the same time, I, since you mentioned in passing that the United States might be one of those countries not pleased by the ongoing cooperation in the Caspian between Iran and Russia, it brings back to my mind what was going on 20 years ago when the United States was hoping to intervene in the Caspian Sea management by furthering the either pipeline or LNG shipments of Turkmenistan gas across the Caspian for the purpose of countering Russian gas dominance in Europe.

4:12
So it’s an old story as far as the United States is concerned, the United States trying to frustrate the Caspian littoral countries from managing the sea themselves.

PressTV:
Yeah, indeed. I mean, it’s interesting, because you just talked about the United States. I mean, looking at that, It’s quite interesting that Washington would have problems with neighboring countries having naval drills. When the United States goes to the other side of the world and have constant naval drills with so many different countries. I mean, let’s talk about that, the hypocrisy and the reason [for] such sensitivity about the Caspian Sea.

Doctorow: 05:00
Yes, well the United States is a practitioner of hypocrisy in its foreign policy in almost any domain that you touch. So it is not surprising that it would behave in a hypocritical manner with respect to the cooperation by these two countries in an area where it would like to intervene and have a presence, but is systematically excluded by the Caspian Sea littoral countries.

PressTV:
Well Gilbert, from your perspective, from a strategic perspective, how important is the Caspian Sea?

Doctorow:
Well, the Caspian Sea is of course a major asset for both Iran and for Russia. Transport across the sea between the countries is foreseeable, although the predominant emphasis in cooperation now is on landlines by rail through the Caucuses. Nonetheless, it is a major asset in many respects, not just defense, but also economic, that the two countries share. And so it is an affirmation of their cooperation, as I say, that they are carrying out these present military exercises.

PressTV: 6:23
Yeah, you just mentioned, not just from a military perspective, also from an economic one. Let’s look at that, because we know that both countries have been and are majorly sanctioned by the United States. Tell me about the possibility of actually enhancing the economies of both these countries via that route.

Doctorow:
Well, of course, sea transport is by nature cheaper than land transport, And it would be understandable that this would be one element in the increasing logistical cooperation between Iran and Russia. Although, as I say, the biggest investments that are foreseeable in the near future pertain to rail connections for the North-South corridor.

7:19
But notwithstanding that, development of shipping across the Caspian Sea has to be in the target projects of both countries. There is fishing, of course the Caspian is a source of caviar and other valuable seafood products, But I think the logistical angle is probably economically the more important.

PressTV:
What about the overall deepening military and maritime cooperation between these two countries, especially now?

Doctorow:
The two countries are a major stabilizing factor in the region, but they don’t stand alone. One has to mention, of course, the quite profound cooperation between Iran and China and recently during the Israeli-Iran war, the statement of interest and support that came from Pakistan.

8:29
So we’re looking at cooperation between Russia and Iran in a broader context of countries in Asia, in the part of Eurasia, that have defense interests as well as economic interests and are defying the efforts of the United States to sanction both and to harm both countries economically. This, as I say, the broader context should be very reassuring to Iran, because it demonstrates that it is considered an equal player in the broader region and has countries that support its vital interests and are, have pledged themselves to ensure that Iran stays independent and sovereign despite all of the efforts of the United States.

PressTV: 9:26
Right. Well, let’s talk about that, because one of the goals of the drills, according to Iran, is also to show that Iran and Russia and basically the littoral Caspian Sea states can control these waters themselves, can keep the Caspian Sea secure and can provide stability. And of course this is something that usually the United States does not want to see and usually try to say that they have to be involved in order for any area to be safe.

The importance of this and the important role of these two countries in providing that type of safety and security in the Caspian Sea?

Doctorow:
This falls again into a broader context. Both Iran and Russia are member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. And the primary plank, or the most significant unifying theme of the Shanghai Cooperation Agreement is precisely to provide security to protect these countries against terrorism, against violence, and against criminal gangs. So, in that respect, this particular operation that’s now starting between Russia and Iran falls directly in the line of security, anti-terror and anti-criminal gangs. It’s to provide safety in the sea and its littoral.

PressTV: 11:06
You mentioned the Shanghai Cooperation. Let’s talk about that side of things and possibly the expansion and having access to Central Asia and the Caucasus via, of course, that body of water.

Doctorow:
Yes, it is. There are a number of states that are bordering this sea. As I said, going back 20 years, the interest of Turkmenistan at that time, of course they’ve changed since, but at that time was to use the sea for purposes of transporting gas. The other states are equally interested in its being secure and in keeping out would-be troublemakers like the United States.

PressTV: 12:00
Well we know that Iran and Russia earlier this year have signed a cooperation and a defense pact basically, which includes joint drills and tech sharing and coordination against common threats, but without a mutual-defense clause. I want to talk about both sides, the importance of what it includes and what it has excluded.

Doctorow:
Well, to my understanding, it was on the initiative of Iran that a mutual defense component was not included in the cooperation agreement. That was back in December. There was the hope still then that Iran would find an accommodation with the United States, with the incoming Trump administration, improbable as that seemed at the time. Nonetheless, there was the hope that they would find accommodation, the sanctions would be lifted, the Iranian economy could prosper in a more normal way.

13:10
That, as we know, did not happen. Mr. Trump has been very difficult, has placed impossible demands upon Iran in the negotiations. And so the bet on accommodation was not successful. Nonetheless, I think specialists in Russian affairs, like myself, placed too much stress on the defense component and underestimated, perhaps, Iran’s ability to defend itself very well, as it did during the 12-day war. So I’m happy to say that we were wrong, that Iran possibly was correct in not putting in a defense component at that time, and had the opportunity to demonstrate to Russia and to the world that it is very capable of defending itself with its thousands of highly sophisticated missiles that are well protected against aerial bombardment.

PressTV: 14:15
OK, you said it was perhaps OK at that time. Let’s talk now. Then Iran, as you said, has shown the world its ability to defend itself. So at this point in time, your thoughts from a strategic perspective, do you think that there should be a defense pact now? Do you think that it should be expanded, the cooperation between Russia and Iran?

Doctorow:
Well, again, in a broader context, given what China has done, China sending several of its important naval assets into the Persian Gulf in the last couple of days of the Iran-Israeli war to demonstrate to the United States that it was ready for war if it came to that. Since China has proven itself as a very reliable and powerful friend in time of need, I think that it would be appropriate now for Russia to step in and do the same thing. Russia would not be standing by itself; t would have China as a fellow defender or partner in the defense of Iran. And for that matter, it would, we know now the commitment of Pakistan to Iran’s survival as a sovereign state.

15:42
So in this group of nations interested in Iran’s continuing sovereignty and independence, an agreement with Russia would make a lot of sense.

PressTV:
And how much of it you would say that, as a matter of fact, it’s the policies coming out of Washington that actually increases the possibility of these countries working even closer together as Russia is being heavily sanctioned, Iran is being heavily sanctioned and China as you brought up also under threat, from military threats to, of course, the tariffs. I mean, your thoughts basically, from a strategic perspective, would you think that these countries, whether we’re talking about China, Russia or Iran, would basically say that sticking together at this point in time is the best way forward in basically conquering or trying to deal with the global bully?

Doctorow:
Well, I think that it is very timely that the countries should stand together. We see now in the approaching summit of the EU-China that von der Leyen is coming with a message to President Xi that he should break his support, should turn his back on the support for Russia.

And we see Xi saying that that cannot happen because he understands perfectly that China is next on the U.S. destruction list. So in these circumstances, a very open confrontation and frank language, I think that it is appropriate for the countries that are under attack from the United States not to be bashful any more about defending their interests and readiness for war if it comes to that. In the same context, the growing visible rapprochement and mutual support between Russia and North Korea is a template for what can and should be done in the case of Russia-Iranian relations.

PressTV: 18:07
Your thoughts about the overall message that Iran and Russia want to send to the West with these drills?

Doctorow:
The message is that Mr. Trump has overplayed his hand. And that is to the detriment of US and Western interests. And it can only be corrected by a return to reason and realism, the acknowledgment that Iran was capable of destroying, utterly destroying Israel, and did not do it, that they accepted Mr. Trump’s request for a ceasefire not because Iran needed it, but because Israel needed it. That should be made more visible, so that the world community, the readers of the “Financial Times” and the “New York Times” would understand properly how that war ended and why Iran is a strong country that deserves full respect and not the treatment or the kind of bullying that Trump, through Witkoff, was trying to exercise in the failed negotiations.

PressTV: 19:29
And what do you think it will take to get to that point. On the one hand, yes, Iran definitely showed its strength. On the other hand, we have seen the jargon still coming out of these western capitals, and the lack of condemnation continues against the Israeli regime and the American regime. So how do we get there, what you said?

Doctorow: 19:53
For the United States to correct its positions on Gaza, that is impossible at this particular moment because of Mr. Trump’s dependence on support from the majority in Congress that are pro-Israeli, pro-Zionist, and unreasonable about the genocide and Israel’s violation of international law. So from the United States, I don’t expect a change any time soon, but from Europe, it is entirely thinkable. And I would look in that direction for a support in the case of Gaza to end this genocide at once.

Today is the National Day in Belgium, and the King, Philippe, made a speech to the nation. And one of the two foreign policy issues that he addressed was precisely Gaza and his call for the demand of the UN Secretary General for an immediate ceasefire to be respected. So this is coming from Belgium. He didn’t yet name Israel as the aggressor, as the perpetrator of genocide, but it’s coming close to that. So I think Europe is at the moment, a more hopeful talking partner on the issue of the Middle East that is certainly foremost for Iran at this moment. That is a tragedy in the neighborhood that Israel is perpetrating.

PressTV: 21:39
And on that note, I appreciate your being with me, my sole guest tonight on this “Spotlight”, Gilbert Doctorow, independent international affairs analyst out of Brussels. And unfortunately our other guests could not join us, but we thank you viewers for being with us on another “Spotlight”. I’m Marzieh Hashemi. Hope to see you right here next time. Goodbye.

Press TV (Iran): Russia-Iran joint maritime drill in the Caspian

Press TV (Iran): Russia-Iran joint maritime drill in the Caspian

Last night’s chat with Press TV presenter Marzieh Hashemi about the ongoing Russian-Iranian naval exercises in the Caspian was perhaps too much of a good thing for me. Normally the format of The Spotlight calls for two panelists, but for technical reasons my counterpart was unreachable and I faced non-stop questions for 20 minutes which was fairly stressful.

Nonetheless, as Gogol once wrote, из всякой дряни можно добро получить, which may be freely translated as ‘from any old thing you can extract something good.’ I filled the time with more frank and open discussion of the potential for Russian-Iranian mutual defense and of the history of U.S. interference in management of the Caspian Sea going back 20 years to the time of the ‘gas pipeline wars’ when Washington tried to use the waterway for pipelines or LNG transshipment of Turkmenistan gas that would be carried to Europe outside the borders of the Russian Federation and to the detriment of Russian exports.

Now that I have viewed the video, I find it most interesting how the presenter pursued the question of whether Moscow would and should reconsider its relationship with Teheran to include mutual defense.

Transcript of interview with Glenn Diesen, 16 July

Transcript submitted by a reader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09TIrNrAZIA

Prof. Glenn Diesen: 0:00
Hi everyone and welcome. We are joined again by Gilbert Doctorow, historian, international affairs analyst, and also author of many books such as the “War Diaries – the Russia-Ukraine War”, [for] which I will add a link in the description. So yeah, welcome back to the program.

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
Yeah, very good to speak to you again.

Diesen:
So one of the more recent news is that Trump says he’s very angry with Putin. He says they have a nice conversation, but then in the evening he goes on bombing Ukraine. And as always, it’s some uncertainty in terms of the difference between the noise and the action. Either he’s seeking to manage opposition at home and in Europe, or he’s lacking in strategic focus and being, you know, swinging a bit back and forth. It’s, I haven’t been able to solve this riddle, if I can be honest. It’s, it’s very, it seems like very erratic behavior often.

1:11
So I was wondering if you can, well, try to share your perspective and shed some light on what you think is happening here, because it doesn’t seem to make much sense, even his argument or even the way he’s going back and forth.

Doctorow:
Well, this is one instance of very important international news where the leading, or the best, most widely seen experts on independent media, on various YouTube channels, are agreed more or less on the facts, and are completely in disagreement over the interpretation. We won’t have a clear indication of what the interpretation is, until we know what the content of his arm shipments to Ukraine [is]. So far we only know about Patriots. There is speculation that’s partly encouraged by his reported discussion with Zelensky over long-range missiles. Can he reach Moscow, can he reach Petersburg?

2:38
And of course, this fired up a lot of speculation about Trump’s possibly giving this important offensive weaponry to Ukraine. We don’t know anything though. That is all– I consider what he’s doing is a continuation of what we’ve seen in the past several months on various international developments.

This is political theater. And he is playing it for all it’s worth. He gets in front of the television cameras daily. He’s on international news. There’s only one person making the news these days, and his name is Donald Trump. So in that sense, the narcissist Trump can be very happy.

3:19
But is there anything more to it than that? Is he, as one extreme interpretation, a hazard, that is by Scott Ritter, is he an idiot? Are the people around him all idiots? Is the Congress populated by idiots? Well, I personally find that a very poor start for serious analysis of most anything, to assume that your opponents or the leading figures of the day are idiots.

I prefer to consider what is behind what seemed to be strange or ineffectual actions. Can it be something else going on? One person who has taken that approach, who has a lot of respect in alternative media, and not only, is Colonel Douglas Macgregor, who was saying that Trump adopted the least-bad solution to the pressure he’s been receiving from Congress and from Europe to respond to Putin’s very aggressive and very destructive new attacks, aerial attacks on Ukraine. So that was a kind of middle position. I take a position that goes a little bit further than Colonel Macgregor on the political side.

4:45
And that is that Trump knew very well what he was doing. He was saying what he said about arms deliveries, about new sanctions and secondary tariffs on Russia, precisely to silence his critics, to give satisfaction to the most, the loudest-talking member of the Republican group in Congress, in the Senate, Lindsey Graham. Graham could take pride that the bill that he is steering through the Senate now has the support of Trump, who on his own initiative has stated to the public that he will be adopting the key point here of secondary tariffs at a hundred percent.

Well, that’s one thing, silence the critics. I can tell you that my recent appearances on various video programs has been picked up by the Russians. And they pick up precisely this point from my message, which to my mind is the least important part of my message, that he was silencing his critics. No, for me the most important thing is the 50 days. The fact that he has given President Putin 50 days is indicative that he has little or no intention of continuing the war, of making Biden’s war his own war, but instead is giving Mr. Putin time to finish up the job, in the same way that he instructed Netanyahu early in his presidency to get on with it, do whatever dastardly things you have to do in Gaza, but let’s be done with it and move on. That’s what he was saying to my way of thinking, to Vladimir Putin.

5:41
But none of us will know what really has happened. Has he joined the new cons? Has he made common cause with them? Or is he duping them, as I believe, with these words about sanctions and arms shootings, and intends to go for his detente? The proof will be what is in that package of weapons being shipped.

Diesen: 7:07
Yeah, the 50 days. I was thinking a bit about this as well. It could be a delaying tactic in order to not have to pick a side or make any big decisions because again, he wants to normalize relations with the Russians, but he doesn’t want to alienate too many in his own camp. It could also, as you said, allow the Russians to finish off what they’re doing. Well it could also be an effort to negotiate, to put some pressures, a deadline. So it can be interpreted in many ways.

But this is something that confused the Europeans a bit as well. Why do we have to wait 50 days for these sanctions? And his response was simply, well, 50 days isn’t that much. Maybe it comes earlier. But I’m often inclined to lean in the direction that there is incompetence or as you said, the stupidity, but on the other hand, he does from, yeah, from the past decades, he’s always talked about the importance of strategic ambiguity when you negotiate.

And he does like to think of himself as a negotiator. So if you, if you’re … playing with [a] too-open hand, it’s very difficult to … get the deals you want. So again, this is something his own administration says as well. “We won’t let anyone know exactly what we’re thinking or what we’re doing.” This is what he was always criticizing Biden for as well.

8:45
So if it works or not, putting that aside, nonetheless, I think we can conclusively say that this is something he believes in, this strategic ambiguity. So I do see the argument there, that ambiguity allows him to get some room for maneuver to do other things. And the pressure, as you said, has been mounting, given that the Russian strikes last night on Kharkov are becoming much more brutal in nature, that is both the quantity and the targeting. So one can see why there will have to be some reaction. But I guess your argument though, is that his response to this is to talk big, but it’s somewhat muted because it all depends, I guess, on the weapons he’s sending.

9:41
And I’m not sure if I’m understanding this correctly, but to what extent are the Americans sending weapons, or to what extent are they actually selling them? Because it seems as if he’s selling weapons to the Europeans, and the Europeans can give it to Ukraine, and somehow this has to happen under the umbrella of NATO for some reason?

Doctorow: 10:03
That’s a distinction without a difference. The question that I had in my mind is: is he just going to ship more of the same, meaning more tanks, more Bradleys, more artillery shells, so much as they have them, which certainly must have been in the pipeline. Let’s come back to this question, is this Biden’s war or Trump’s war?

What he said about the ship was authorized under Biden. This is not new appropriations from Congress. So in that sense, I think it is not proper to speak about these shipments making it Trump’s war. Now, if indeed, it is materiel that was authorized by Biden, then it is no cause for worry, because there’s nothing that will threaten the Russians, or will change or will escalate the war. However, if new items are being put in, and particularly offensive weapons, long-range missiles, like ATACMS, which were never shipped, if they are now in the mix, then it’s a very different readout of what Trump is doing. And he would be going beyond the irresponsibility button to a new level that takes us to World War III.

11:28
The Russians have made it plain by their latest revised nuclear doctrine that if they are hit by such weapons– this was either, it was originally discussed with respect to ATACMS and with respect to Taurus– if they are hit with this, they can respond with nuclear arms. And I find it incredible that Trump’s team would not take this into account and would authorize ATACMS or something that could reach far into Russia. So I believe that we’re on the plane of empty rhetoric, shipping things which everyone knows will be of no use to the Ukrainians, because the tanks and the Bradleys will just be hidden in the forest since if they put them in the open space, they’ll be destroyed at once.

Just as the Russians are not using their superiority in tanks on the ground. They are also hiding them in the forest and shooting out from under cover. And they’re using the tanks just as can, more precise can, with maybe 8-10 kilometer range.

12:44
The war has changed. And I don’t see my peers taking that into account properly. What we are witnessing now is massive air attack, not just that came into the head of Putin or his general staff. “Well, let’s try this.”

No, it’s precisely because what they were doing up to this point has reached the point, the stage where it’s no longer productive. The Russians, to advance deep into Ukraine now, would have to take enormous losses because of the drone, the omnipresent Ukrainian drones on the battlefield. Therefore, they have gone to aerial bombardment. Now, once you’re in aerial bombardment and missile strikes, it’s only a half step to using those Oreshniks and getting the damn thing over with. If they take out, if they decapitate Kiev, which is entirely within their possibilities, then a lot of lives will be saved at all sides.

13:42
Now, this comes within the 50 days. It’s entirely possible to finish off Ukraine within 50 days if they decapitate the country with the missiles they have ready. My question is, is Mr. Putin going to rise to that challenge? I don’t know. Nobody knows. And so we may be stuck with still stalling and stalling. As regards aerial attack, it doesn’t have a time limitation the way ground assalts do. Because of seasonality, there is a negligible factor in the devastation that is being brought. So if Putin responds both to the challenge, finish it up, and to the opportunity, now that he’s not going to be escalating, he’s already in the next stage of an aerial rather than ground war, we may see the end of this.

14:41
And I think that Trump could find this very satisfactory. Then the United States and Russia can put their heads together and say, “Well, what are we going to do to put Ukraine back together again?” Along the lines of Russia’s desirata of what they want as their end game. And Europe would be sidelined unless they invite them in on the same conditions. But let’s be constructive. Let’s talk about an investment fund. Let’s talk about a neutral Ukraine. And we’re talking about a rump Ukraine. That could be the basis for moving on to detente. It’s all there. Am I right, am I wrong? We will know in a few weeks, depending on the content of the military package.

15:24
Yeah, that’s what I thought. Now I saw the weapons would be important because, well, if the, well, there’s some flaws in the, in the whole optimism, at least we see now in Europe. Because well, the Europeans, do they have the money?

And do the Americans have the weapons to sell them? And do the Ukrainians have the human resources to operate them? I was wondering if you see it likely in terms of the Tomahawks being sent because this is something that you suggested that would trigger great concern among the Russians. Indeed, having Tomahawks and other missiles in Ukraine was one of the reasons for the invasion to begin with.

But how worried should they be though? Because usually they have to be launched from, you know, warships or strategic bombers. To … what extent– I guess would make sense. Again, I’m never sure if this is a lack of [logic], flawed logic or if it’s a strategic ambiguity, but what kind of weapons would be crossing the line?

Doctorow: 16:40
Well, ATACMS to begin with. No one was talking about Tomahawks in the past. They were speaking about these precisely ground-launched missiles using the already existing HIMARS launchers. The United States shipped a lot of HIMARS, and the launchers arre there. And the same launchers can be used on the ground to launch the ATACMS. And that’s why there was great concern in Russia, because they are– the limitation on the Storm Shadow and the SCALP from France and also Taurus is that they are air-launched. And you have to have planes that are adapted to those particular missiles, and you have to have planes and pilots, and you have to have airfields, which the Russians have done a pretty good job of savaging. So if they were, as you say, the Tomahawks, the version exists, it can be ground launched, it’s quite exotic.

17:40
If these were to be supplied, then we’re heading into the unknown. I can’t imagine that Trump could agree to that, because it would be a level of escalation that takes us just to the brink of nuclear war.

Diesen:
So what can we expect then from the Russians in the next 50 days? You used the word “decapitating” strike. Do you think they can try to go in for finishing off Ukraine? Because again, we’ve spoken in the past about the danger of underestimating the resilience of Ukraine. That is, they do keep fighting on. I thought things would have begun to collapse militarily as well as politically a long time ago, but here they are. They’re still putting up a pretty good fight. But given the huge intensity now, increasing intensity from the Russian side, in attacking targets across Ukraine, do you think they are going for, if not knocking out the military, then going for the political leadership or something to put an end to this war?

Because in the war of attrition, you do exhaust the adversary, but the Ukrainians appear quite exhausted now. At least an attempt by the Russians to go for this over the next 50 days. Or if this is as you suggest, Trump’s purpose might be to give the Russians 50 days to get this done with, whatever they want to do and then end the war. Is this what they might spend their 50 days on?

Doctorow:
There’s one issue here that has to be addressed, and that is the nature of Mr. Putin. Not just that he’s very cautious, but that he approaches everything from a lawyer’s perspective, being a trained lawyer. And that has its up side and its down side. In the given case, I cannot see him giving orders for a decapitating strike under the terms of the Special Military Operation. That would be illegal, as he would determine it.

19:50
However, Mr. Zelensky should be careful about what he wishes for. If he receives any offensive weapons, which he then uses and strikes within the Russian Federation at what they consider to be strategic assets, then Mr. Putin would declare war. That would be considered an act of war. He declares war, and then it can decapitate Ukraine, in the context, only in the context of a declared war, from the perspective of Mr. Putin’s mentality. So there’s the qualification on how the 50 days could be used. I don’t think that Donald Trump is aware of that feature in Putin’s behavior. Certainly Mr. Trump himself doesn’t care a whit for law, what’s written even in the constitution. So it could not occur to him that Mr. Putin would. And that is exactly the case. There has to be a declaration of war for the Ukrainians to receive their decapitating strike.

Diesen: 21:00
I also want to get your opinion on an item in the news, which was that Trump had allegedly asked Zelensky if he’s able to strike Moscow or St. Petersburg, so Putin would feel the pain. And then later on he was asked, I think it was on the tarmac, the same question. And he said, “Oh, no, no, I don’t want him to Moscow.” Do you have any thoughts around this back and forth?

Doctorow:
He was feeding the jackals. And the jackals picked it up. They picked up this piece of rotting flesh very nicely. By here I mean the BBC. They have gone into overdrive on how Mr. Trump is fed up with Putin. He’s now aligned with the haws in Congress and and so forth. I don’t believe that for a minute. But again, this is my my best guess. It is not founded on anything concrete, because we just discussed what the missing pieces to the puzzle are, which will decide whether the puzzle is being assembled, the jigsaw puzzle is being assembled properly or wrongly.

22:11
The discussion was piquant, he knew it would attract the press. It did, of course; as I say it’s all over the BBC today. That’s just what they wanted to hear, that is giving Zelensky hopes that he can strike Moscow and St. Petersburg.

Diesen:
But the, yeah, you referred to the, give them hope to the, to the Europeans and the hawks within the United States as well as Zelensky. But if Trump wanted to end this war and he knows that Russia considers this to be an existential threat and it won’t move much on its key demands — wouldn’t Trump need to mount more pressure on the Ukrainians and Europeans as opposed to, I guess, throwing them some red meat and, well, making them feel more comfortable with this leadership and the possibility of continuing this war instead?

Doctorow: 23:11
Again, we’re in the realm of political theater. And I don’t believe the seriousness of what he has tossed out to the press. As I’ve said, he despises the press and he’ll say anything, that he thinks will make them look like fools.

Diesen:
And, I guess the last back and forth I noticed of Trump was the arms deliveries. It was reported that, I think it was Pete Hegseth that halted arms deliveries to Ukraine. Again, with the engagement with the media, he was first asked, well, he was, he first stated that he wasn’t sure who had halted the arms deliveries. And when he was asked, “Don’t you know what’s happening in your own administration?” He said, “Well, I will be the first one to know. Indeed, I would have ordered it.” Except, you know, he didn’t. So how do you make sense of this?

Doctorow: 24:13
Well, there isn’t any sense to make of it. He’s contradicting himself. And again, it is another expression of his contempt for the press. He’ll say anything to them. He doesn’t take them seriously, with good reason. He is treated very badly by Fox News, by CNN, he’s treated with contempt by them and he returns the coin. So I wouldn’t follow this too closely. Don’t look for logic in what he says with a microphone in front of him. I follow what his feet are doing and particularly I place emphasis on 50 days, which undermines everything else. As you said, he could impose these sanctions tomorrow. He didn’t do that. And so I don’t believe he ever will.

Diesen: 25:11
Okay, so if you put the American side of this war aside to conclude him more or less pursuing strategic ambiguity. We won’t really know yet if he’s appeasing the hawks, the neocons, or if he’s joined them, but we should know based on the weapons which are delivered. Again, the Tomahawks or any long range missiles. This is kind of the red lines.

But if we shift over to the Europeans, what is the strategy of Europe? Are they hoping that any of these weapons would turn the tide or, or is it just to pull America further into this, to make it a long war? What is– it’s very hard to read the Europeans, and here one gets the impression sometimes that there’s no one behind the wheel.

Doctorow: 26:07
Oh, there are people behind the wheel, but I think they’re driving a different vehicle, and they’re concerned with a different road. The road that interests them is power and retaining it. They have put themselves in very fragile position by backing to the hilt a losing cause. And for them now to move the discussion from Ukraine to our own defense and to building our military industry and to how we deal with filling out the numbers of our men and women at arms — that changes the discussion completely.

And it’s all about their retaining power. Because if there is this big threat from the East, then the logic is we are the leaders, like as Ursula von der Leyen was saying, trying to defend herself against charges of fraud and abuse of power over vaccines. And how does she defend herself? Well, “We are now facing a very important threat from Russia, and we need strong leadership”, meaning herself. That’s what it’s all about, is keeping their hands on power at all costs, whether it serves the national interest or not.

27:30
National interest, not to mention Ukraine’s interest, don’t count. The spoils of power, what it’s all about. And here in Europe, in most of Europe, with exceptions, France is an exception because the way it structures its governments differently. But most of the European countries have coalition governments. And the whole game of a coalition government is dividing the spoils of power. So that is the center of attention of everybody at the top in Europe today. Not Ukraine, not Mr. Trump, not tariffs, but keeping power.

Diesen: 28:12
So the initial or the main argument for the past three-plus years– in terms of boycotting all diplomacy, rejecting negotiations and instead just pumping weapons into the war– the argument was, “Well, we need to put the Ukrainians in a better position. We’ll negotiate later once the Ukrainians can negotiate from a position of strength.”

Does anyone actually believe this in Europe now? I mean, your position there in Brussels, because it does seem as if it’s becoming harder to deny that the war is shifting more and more in the favor of Russia. That is the Ukrainians having more and more problems building up. The Russians keep strengthening in the rear.

29:07
And also, again, in a war of attrition, you should look at the ratio of casualties. But the West, we tend to focus excessively on the territorial shifts. But even this is starting to intensify. We see now the semi-encirclement of Pokrovsk, which would be a strategic disaster, opening up the road all the way to the Dnieper and of course, Constanivka, which would then begin to seal off the entire Donetsk region. So there’s a desperation in there, isn’t there? I mean, so what exactly do they hope to achieve here?

Doctorow: 29:51
Let’s divide up the West, because the United States is running on its own course. And in the question of how the war is proceeding, the United States is much more open than Western Europe journalism. A little bit seeps in here, in the press, but it’s really in “New York Times” and the British press. I think the “Financial Times” also has articles which run completely counter to the editorial position of newspaper.

Journalists are reporting what’s going on. “New York Times”, they are every few days speaking about Ukrainian retreats or losses and the Russian advances. No question about it. They’re preparing the public for Ukrainian defeat.

30:38
The most important indication of that was what appeared on Monday in the “New York Times”. They had a front-page article on the crimes that the Ukrainians committed during their occupation of Kursk oblost. This was immediately denounced by Kiev as dissemination of vile propaganda. The “New York Times”, for the first time in the whole war, had an article devoted strictly to the war crimes that the Ukrainians are committing. Now that tells you they’re preparing the public for the Ukrainian defeat and they will find many reasons why they should have lost the war.

I say the game is moving on, the competition now is not about the fate of Ukraine. It’s about the future of the present-day leaders in Europe, who have committed so much of their personal prestige and political power to winning a war that they’re losing. And so they’re diverting attention to, well 2029, how we have to be prepared for Russian invasion and so forth. They’re changing the subject, because they lost this subject.

Diesen: 31:54
Well, the use of the media to exercise narrative control and prepare the public for a defeat in Ukraine — I was thinking the same when I saw the gradual shift in the media coverage in the United States. And of course, this “New York Times” article was quite important as well. The fact that you had an American journalist from the “New York Times”, I think she was already, well, the journalist was accompanying Ahmad through Kursk.

I mean, the fact that this was being done and the conclusion on the coverage was the Ukrainian war crimes. This is something unthinkable two, three years ago, when the Ukrainians could do no wrong and every person even with a SWAT sticker had to be, the first instinct was always to whitewash it. But in Europe though, I do not see this at all, especially in, well, I’m located in Scandinavia, and here the war propaganda is just going full steam ahead, hardly any changes. And indeed to suggest that Ukraine can’t win the war is denounced as Russian propaganda, trying to reduce public support for what we call “helping Ukraine”, which is pushing a war which the Ukrainians themselves want an end to.

33:21
But of all the Europeans, for many people, well, if you would have said this four years ago, that Germany would position themselves as the main country to essentially take over the fight against Russia now that America is pulling back — this would have been very much unthinkable a few years ago, but here we are. How are you reading the German position? Because it’s not simply Merz; this is something deeper in German society, isn’t it?

Doctorow: 33:53
It covers the whole political spectrum. I believe this started with the Alternative fur Deutschland, when they were the first to speak up, well this goes back five years or more, the first to speak up and say, “Hey, we are not responsible for the sins of our grandparents. We are new people, we are new people, and we have to look after our sovereignty.”

That was Avdei. And it’s covered now the whole spectrum of German political life, where they do not take responsibility for the crimes that Germany committed across Europe, not just in the destruction of Jewry.

They believe that they are morally clean, and they follow European values, and they can get up on a soft box and preach to, well, particularly the Russians, who are the _recidivists_ and who have to be properly punished for their violation of European values. So there is the real threat that this is across the whole German spectrum. They willfully are forgetting who they are. And they have changed the role. They openly changed the role.

35:17
The role changed under the German leadership going back 10 years. Merkel was responsible for changing the role, but she did not want to name Germany. Germany did not have a foreign policy, according to Merkel. The foreign policy was made in Brussels, very convenient. And who made it in Brussels? Germans, since they dominated the parliament and the commission.

So de facto, Germany was the dominant force in European diplomacy and in world policy. But this was not acknowledged by the German leadership in Berlin. They hid behind the apron of Brussels. Now they’re coming out from behind the apron and saying, “Yes, we are going to be Europe’s dominant defender.” As if this is natural.

It’s not natural. It was– the world for this was prepared by the gradual collapse of France and its authority. Not just the economic weakness of France, which was established decades ago compared to Germany, but its political weakness, a succession of disastrous presidents. And Mr. Macron is the latest uncrowned king under the French constitution, who defies the French political circles by holding onto power when he has maybe a 20 percent approval rating. The French are politically weak. The Germans have used that to move out in front, to muscle the French aside. Mr. Macron is making a desperate effort, his announcement on Bastille Day, that they are, “Oh, we are also raising our military budgets and to be big defenders.”

37:14
And as soon as the Germans start talking about possibly getting nuclear weapons, well, that is the absolute end of any French claims to being Europe’s defenders. They could hide behind the fact that they and the Brits were the only European countries with nuclear arms. If the Germans now aspire to do that too, then the moment of truth has arrived, and everything that the Germans aspired to in World War II, they now will be realizing, which is something that should give us pause.

Diesen: 37:46
Well, the German shift or return to militarism, it appears to have, well, it’s not exactly that reason. That is, yes, throughout the Cold War, they had this very cautious idea that, you know, learned from history, they’re not going to engage in wars any more.

But after the Cold War, in 1999, the attack on Yugoslavia, that is to wrestle away Kosovo, you saw the logic in the German argument shifting. So in the past, their history of genocide was a reason for why they had to be more constrained. And suddenly over Kosovo, the argument was, well, because of our history with genocide, we have a special responsibility to prevent it other places. So instead of their genocidal history being a reason for constraint, it was now a reason for taking action.

And you see similar rhetoric in Gaza, that is, as if they owed the Jewish population a debt, which is very fair enough after the Holocaust, but this is translated into unconditional support for Israel in effectively making the Palestinians pay for the crimes of the Germans by supporting the genocide there.

39:05
And also during the Kursk operation, when you had German generals appearing on TV, you know, with smiles on their face, being excited as they were speaking about how this was humiliating for the Russians. This was an important part of World War II and almost like a redo of World War II, as they saw German tanks roll into Russia. It’s very unsettling. But besides how the Russians are looking at this, how would the Europeans react?

I mean, you mentioned the French. Certainly the French do not want to be pushed aside. They kind of had a division of labor. The Germans were the economic force, the French were the military and that kind of creates some balance of power within the European Union. Now that you know Germany is going to acquire weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons, how comfortable are really the Europeans with this? I think it was Thatcher already in her time, [who] warned that the German unification could bring about the Fourth Reich. I mean, it’s not to argue that we overcome this historical concern. It would be an exaggeration, wouldn’t it?

Doctorow: 40:21
Well, it wasn’t just a Thatcher. Miserand also, he said, “I’ve been liking Germany so much, we want to see two of them.” That concern about Germany existed. And as to Germany’s coming out, so to speak, over Kosovo, actually that was, I think, precipitated by American action.

The whole crisis in the Yugoslav Civil War, was, had a defining moment, and that was the attacks on Sarajevo, the marketplace, I think this was 1996, correct me, and Germany could not bring itself to re-enter Yugoslavia, again, considering the history of Germany’s devastating wars on Yugoslavia during World War II, or attacks and destruction in Yugoslavia in World War II. The Americans moved in, the Americans took charge, and then that relieved the Germans to do what comes naturally. And to go back to bossing people around in these fringe parts of Europe.

41:46
So America had its own role in relieving Germany of its constraints and its hesitation, by bringing it into a coalition of NATO that were doing what Germany was afraid to do, because that had been a dividing line before World War I. What was– Serbia triggered World War I, and Germany did not want to get into that region again.

Well, it is, and it is in a lot of other places where it shouldn’t be. And I have now in mind Mr. Merz’s very proud establishment of the German presence in the Baltics to “protect the Eastern flank”. So the way NATO had protected Germany during the First Cold War. The German position, is there a militarism? I don’t know. I put my finger to the wind. I don’t think so. There is, again, opportunism for the sake of political power in the hands of Mr. Merz and the people around him.

42:57
I’m not sure that that is founded on a militaristic feeling or enthusiasm in the German nation. I rather doubt it. Whether this develops, we’ll see.

Diesen: 43:12
Yeah, I think the Bosnian market attack must have been in ’94 because [Dayton] came in ’95 and then Bosnia was finished. But I was wondering though, the one thing that the Russians are looking at when they look towards Germany is the Taurus missiles. As we know, Mertz used to advocate for them.

Now there seems to be some discussions that will let Ukraine build something similar to the Taurus missile, which the whole thing seems to be dubious as if they’re looking for a cover to supply the missiles. Did you think that some version of the Taurus missile will be supplied or already has been supplied? And if so, what do you expect the Russian response to be? Because my impression is that of all the European countries, a lot of the resentment now is directed towards Germany. And given that they’re competing with the British for animosity, it’s kind of impressive how the Germans have moved up the ranks in terms of being seen as an adversary, if not an enemy then of Russia?

44:23
[We’ll have] the number one enemy of Russia. When Mr. Soloviyov on his famous, on his well-known programs directly calls Mr. Merz a Nazi several times. And not as a joke, but as a dead serious accusation, I take that as being a word coming from the Kremlin, certainly Mr. Medvedev would make similar statements.

So they have earned the position of Russia’s enemy number one. As to the Taurus, I think that Mr. Putin would be in a very tough spot if the Taurus is actually used by the Ukrainians, because that is openly crossing his most important red line, that he has discussed in interviews with Pavel Zarubinuk, that had then been shown repeatedly on Russian television and in the West, saying that these weapons cannot properly be controlled by the Ukrainians themselves and implicate as co-belligerents those who have supplied the weapons like Taurus to Ukraine.

45:34
The same is true, of course, of ATACMS. Even if the Ukrainians are properly instructed on how, what button to push or when, the coding of the path, flight path, the decisions on targeting are all taken by, and the information necessary from satellite intelligence is coming from the United States. And so for Putin to accept this, I think he might as well just give up and stop the war and be overthrown, because that’s what it would mean. It’s incredible.

It’s impossible that he could hold on to power if he did not follow through on his threats to the United States, to Germany for attacks coming via these long-range missiles. And by the way, I firmly believe that some Taurus are already in Kiev, going back several months. Whenever the announcement is made that “in [not long], a month or two, we will ship”, it means they already are there.

Diesen: 46:47
So, well, by the way, I agree with that assessment. I also think this would be the final straw that it would make it impossible for Russia not to attack. People keep saying, oh, why would they risk this? But, well, certainly Germany is willing to risk the war. So it would be too high cost, I think, for the Russians to do nothing. But what exactly could they do? They would be, you know, you have different targets, which would indicate different levels of escalation.

Rather than attacking German military bases, wouldn’t it make, do you see it as more likely to attack German, I guess, industrial facilities where these weapons are actually being made? Or what do you see as, well, again, we can’t get into President Putin’s head, but what do you see as likely or possible targets for the Russians to retaliate against Germany.

Doctorow: 47:51
I think we have to try to get into his head in one respect, and I continue the point I made earlier. The man has a legalistic frame of mind. I think we got a hint how this will play out in a recent statement by Lavrov that if these Taurus are implemented, if their use is authorized from Ukraine and attacks on Russia, then Russia will break all the relations with Germany.

Now, what does that mean? That’s what you do when you’re declaring war. So essentially, again, I don’t believe that Putin will attack anybody without a declaration of war. And I think that that’s what would happen. He would declare a war on Germany and then he would strike.

48:44
And what he strikes, a military base or these production sites, is a secondary consideration. I don’t think this has been properly factored into the recommendations that Karaganov made two years ago. He was not looking at Putin’s way of thinking. “Yes, we have to do this, we take them seriously, our red lines have to be taken seriously, we have to use a tactical nuclear weapon somewhere in Western Europe, blah blah.”

49:14
But that is utterly out of character and out of the professional mindset of one Vladimir Putin. So I take very closely the words of Lavrov about breaking relations. Similarly, you’ll notice that when I think about Mr.– why the Russian stock market went up 4 percent after Trump made his announcement to the press in the White House together with Putin: because there was nothing about confiscating the frozen assets. That surely is what drove the money people in Moscow, because the concern is that for the relative small amount of frozen assets in the States, this would be a signal to Europe to attack the 250 billion euros in assets that are sitting in EuroClear here in Belgium. That didn’t happen because you confiscate assets in state of war. It’s another way of declaring war and would be interpreted that way by the Russians.

Diesen: 50:28
Well, Thank you for your time. I think, you know, this is a very important perspective, especially when you’re discussing an actor such as Donald Trump and well, his administration now acting deliberately with strategic ambiguity, then I guess we’re all vulnerable to our own biases. We might see what we want to see when he’s sending out all these very different signals. So I think what you brought up is, many people might have been missing some of these subtleties.

So yeah, this is, yeah, gives me something to think about. So thank you so much for your time.

Doctorow: 51:10
My pleasure. Bye bye.

What you learn about the impact of the Ukraine war from your Belgian doctor

This morning, I accompanied my wife on a visit to our generalist to get several prescriptions she needed renewed.  The doctor is of post-retirement age. He had plenty of time to chat and became very keen to advise me when I said I am considering recommending to our15 year old grandson that he apply his love for chemistry and biology by pursuing a career as a medical doctor. There is no numerus clausus in Belgium. The university studies are free and the degree is a good one.

Our doctor warned me that here in Belgium practicing medicine is fast turning sour. The new Flemish run federal government of Prime Minister Bart De Wever that took office in January is raising its military hardware contributions to Ukraine, investing in new production of weapons at the Audi factory in downtown Brussels that closed a year ago in preparedness for the war with Russia that the Germans have penciled onto the European agenda. To pay for these war-related items, the De Wever government is cutting budgetary allocations to health and other social benefits.

The doctors will see their consultation fees to patients cut by 20%. Hospitals and clinics are being ordered to retrench.  Said our doctor, you can already see the consequences in greatly lengthened waiting times for all kinds of services such as mammograms, now risen from a few days to 3 months; hip replacement surgery now risen from a few months to three years, and so on.

There you have it: a crushing blow to what has been a magnificent medical establishment in Belgium, far better than in neighboring France and Germany, neither of which have recovered their luster from before Covid thanks to budgetary cuts in both countries to pay for you know what. Belgium probably was better situated because it had budgeted for defense at one of the lowest levels in the EU, at just 1.3% of GDP.  As that changes with the gradual ramp up first to 2% and then to 5%, we can expect social benefits in this country to go to hell.

All of this is a kind of hidden cost of the war and of rearmament that may bring young doctors out on the street in strikes but will not prompt popular rebellion the way that introducing a military draft would. 

                                                                               ****

I use this occasion to share some information about Belgian politics that the Community is very unlikely to know but that reflects a bigger reality of politics within the Member States of the European Union, especially those where corruption festers under coalition governments. In such governments grabbing and holding ministerial portfolios is the primary concern of every politician, without respect to any semblance of policy coherence in the coalition as a whole.

What can I possibly mean by corruption, you may ask? What is there worth stealing in little Belgium?  An answer to these questions was set out in yesterday’s edition of the main French-speaking daily newspaper, Le Soir. It was in their article updating reports on the investigation into money laundering practiced for over a decade by a certain Didier Reynders, whose name you may recognize as the Justice Minister (first bit of irony in the case) in Ursula von der Leyen’s Commission from 2019 to 2024, when following Europe-wide elections in June of that year, the Commission had to be re-organized and Reynders was out of a job.

In December 2024, Reyinders was out of a job and vulnerable to police-judicial investigation into crimes he is presumed to have committed not just during his tenure at the Commission but in the decade or more when he was a member of MR party led coalition governments in Belgium. For many years he had been Finance Minister (irony number two in this case) and then for a few years he was Minister of Foreign Affairs, for which he was the perfect candidate since he knew absolutely nothing about the subject.

In Belgium, Reynders had served under a certain Charles Michel, his boss at the MR party, who was prime minister for several years before his government was brought down by the Flemish party that now openly runs the Belgian federal government.  Michel moved out of Belgium to become President of the European Council, the second EU executive body alongside the Commission that consists of the heads of state of the Member States. Reynders moved in tandem with Michel to become Justice Minister, as I said above.

And so in early December 2024 we read a very lengthy account of the money laundering operations of this Reynders, who had deposited more than 800,000 euros in cash into long-duration deposit accounts at ING Bank Belgium. Cash!  Strictly verboten in large amounts.  Had ING followed the law, they would have asked him, as required, where the cash came from.  They didn’t till the case was going to court.

The answer he gave in his court testimony was that the cash came from winnings in the state lottery. Probing by the courts turned up the fact that Reynders had for years been buying e-lottery tickets at a gas station not far from his house. He had bought the tickets with….cash and then transferred his legal winnings to his ING bank accounts. 

This is a classic model of money-laundering…performed by a Minister of Finance in tidy Belgium where no corruption cases are known about by those who compile the international registers of clean government.

A couple of days ago, the same Le Soir carried an update to the Reynders investigation. It appears that Didier Reynders also told court investigators in December that he had gotten some of the cash by selling antiques from his private collection.  Now it was learned that a Brussels antiques dealer whom he had obviously named told the court that he had never bought or sold any antiques to Reynders.

The plot thickens and it does not look like Reynders will clear his name.  They may be fitting him for his next suit in vertical stripes as we talk.

                                                                   *****

However, I would not worry too much about Didier Reynders spending much time in prison.  Belgium prefers the death sentence.

Death by old age, I mean, not by hanging, drawing and quartering, gas or whatever other  means you can name.

My argument makes reference to another political-criminal scandal that has been featured in the same Le Soir during the past couple of months, that of murder charges being weighed against Etienne Davignon, scion of high aristocracy, business magnate who received high appointments from one Belgian government after another.  “Stevie’ as he was known to his great many acquaintances, including in the Harvard Club of Belgium where he came forward as a sponsor of wonderful events like visits to the last functioning coal mine in the country before its shutdown that I enjoyed at the time – is wanted for participating in the murder of Patrice Lamumba, the freedom fighter turned president of the liberated Belgian Congo.

 To be sure, Stevie was only one of several conspirators assumed to have been responsible for the liquidation of Lamumba.  However, the others have conveniently died before they could be brought to court.  Stevie has had the misfortune to live to the ripe age of 92, that is long enough for the slow-turning millstones of Belgian justice to have milled and released  a twenty-year-old file against him and proceeded to court hearings.  With some luck, Stevie, too, will pass away before the trial begins two years or more hence.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Glenn Diesen: Trump Threatens Russia

This 51 minute interview covers a lot of ground. Here I emphasize my point that the 50 days Trump has given to Putin before imposing secondary tariffs on countries trading with Russia meant the following: finish up the job in 50 days, Vladimir, do what you have to do to demolish Ukraine and force capitulation and then we can move on to a rapprochement.

This understanding of the message was confirmed by a Duma member who appeared on the Dmitry Simes segment of ‘The Great Game’ yesterday evening