My first Travel Notes for this trip to Russia which began yesterday should interest not only those in the Community, particularly those living in Europe, who want some tips on how to make the trip to Russia without breaking the budget by flying via Istanbul or Dubai. The route I describe below is, for those based in Europe, two to three times cheaper.

However, what I have to say here is also essential reading for the Community at large. I set out Russia’s weak sides at the level of bureaucracy that they will not hear about either from the Russia-lovers in the alternative media or the Russia-haters in mainstream. As usual, real life is in the gray zone rather than pure white or pure black.

Ever since the Finns closed their border crossings to Russia more than 18 months ago, I have been making my periodic visits to Petersburg via Estonia. The main crossing there is in the north of the country at the Narva river estuary where the Estonian city of Narva on one side faces the Russian Ivangorod on the other bank. The bus carrying travelers from the Estonian capital Tallinn to this border crossing takes about two and a half hours. Until the Estonians and Russians decided to ‘renovate’ the bridge about a year ago and close it to vehicular traffic indefinitely, that bus would drop off its passengers to be processed on the Estonian side, cross over to the Russian side and wait for them outside the Russian border control post to continue on the way to Petersburg for another two and a half hours. If we include the time lost at the border to the double processing, the entire travel time en route was about 7 hours.

When the buses no longer were allowed to cross the bridge, passengers were obliged to drag their suitcases the 500 meters along an open walkway on the bridge. But that was the least of their problems. On their own, the Estonian authorities decided to make life as miserable as possible for anyone of their citizens having relations or other reasons to visit Russia, and foreigners were also exposed to this gratuitous nastiness. The passport control questioning of those headed east and the very exaggerated customs inspections put in place now drew out the process, resulting in the formation of long lines outside the Estonian border control buildings. A week ago, in the run-up to Easter when families are especially keen to see relatives on the other side, those lines meant waits in the street, whatever the weather, of 5 hours or more. To better understand me, I note that even in yesterday’s late spring, there were heavy snowstorms here in northwest Russia.

Yesterday morning, I heard from bus drivers in Tallinn that things had calmed down at the Narva crossing and there was ‘only’ a two to three hour wait to be admitted for passport and customs processing by the Estonians. Knowing this, I opted instead for the ‘southern’ bus route that takes you through the Estonian university town of Tartu to a border crossing into Russia that is 50 km west of the Russian city of Pskov, which is itself 290 km south of Petersburg. From Pskov you have a three and a half hour trip by car or train to reach Petersburg. But this route sees you cross the border in the bus and, being relatively little used, has no waiting time to be processed either by the Estonian or the Russian border officials.

I say at once that both Russian and Estonian officials were nonetheless excessive in their inspections. Perhaps the Russians were even worse in their checking every passenger however decrepit or pregnant with hand-held metal detectors even after we walked through the airport style detector frames. And looking inside wallets and purses to check on the amount of currency being carried across, etc. Thus, a good two hours were wasted on this exercise while our bus also underwent an extensive inspection for hidden narcotics, hidden stowaways and Lord knows what else.

All of this reminded me of the worst days of border crossings from East Germany into West Berlin.

Tit for tat, you may reason in looking for an explanation for the official Russian border procedures. But, beg my pardon, I see it as runaway bureaucracy, bureaucracy that is doing nothing of value but has to prove its worth by endlessly thinking up new procedures to implement for greater state security. This came up again today when I underwent the mandatory registration as a foreign visitor at the Pushkin city multi-service administrative center.

Ninety-eight percent of you who travel to Russia will not know what I am talking about when I raise the question of registration. Registration is done for you by your hotel at check-in and you are unaware of it. But it is essential that you hear me out if you want to understand how and why Russia is moving backwards in some ways even as it rises in general prosperity and industrialization from import substitution. Its bureaucracy appears to be out of control. All of which is why I say that the country desperately needs its own slash and burn Elon Musk.

*****

Registration of the residential address of foreigners has been a Europe-wide phenomenon since the days of Napoleon. It exists on the law books today most everywhere in the EU, but there, too, the average traveler is unaware of it for the same reason as in Russia – registration with the police is done by their hotel. If a traveler stays privately, he or she generally ignores the mandatory requirement to register with the authorities but the European authorities are not interested in chasing down the violator if you happen to be white and look solvent. Though sometimes they do, as I learned when I introduced my naturalization request in Belgium a dozen years ago and was asked to explain why I never registered my arrivals and departures when I came to Belgium from time to time and stayed in the house I owned in Brussels and paid taxes on as a secondary residence. It took some intercession by high-level friends to sort that out in my favor.

But back to Russia. Anyone staying privately more than 8 days in Russia is obliged to be registered with the municipal or other local authorities by their host. The registration forms are 4 pages long, and it takes a well trained official, probably with a college degree, preferably with an engineer’s degree, 30 to 45 minutes to process each application, because every entry on the form has to be checked against your passport, your visa, the immigration card you received at the border passport control, the phone numbers you and your host entered and much more irrelevant trivia like your profession, if any.

The administrator who reviews your application scans all the papers and sends them to some central processing center, probably in Moscow. I have wondered whether anyone there has the common sense to shred this incoming trash upon receipt or whether, as is more likely, it is archived somewhere for eternity. I also wonder what the administrators who take and process my application say to their husbands, kids, mothers about how they have spent their day. I wonder how Russia, with its present serious labor shortage can afford to have these skilled and well educated and well motivated employees do nothing all day but cause headaches for foreign visitors who should be welcomed with open arms and instead waste the greater part of a day on the registration process.

But there is more to it. Those 4 pages of the application are changed every year and the officials cannot accept any application prepared by the visiting foreigner on his or her computer using last year’s edition. Verboten. And what has changed in the 1 January 2025 edition versus 2024? Now they added three lines for the applicant to provide the Latin spelling of his or her name in addition to the Cyrillic spelling. It seems that having a photocopy of the applicant’s passport and visa pages which also must be provided with the application was not enough to satisfy the ever more demanding bureaucrats in Moscow.

Allow me to assure you that this kind of make-work exists wherever you want to take a close look. It exists despite the evidence of heavy investment in new technical equipment for staff and for the ‘clientele.’ Our Pushkin center has newly purchased scanners-copiers, electronic appointment scheduling, QR-code driven devices for the clients. But it is largely directed at performing obligations that should not exist at all in a modern society and do nothing whatsoever to improve Russian state security.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Russland braucht dringend sein eigenes DOGE unter der Führung seines eigenen Elon Musk

Meine ersten Reiseberichte zu dieser Reise nach Russland, die gestern begonnen hat, dürften nicht nur für diejenigen in der Community interessant sein, insbesondere diejenigen, die in Europa leben und Tipps für eine Reise nach Russland suchen, ohne ihr Budget durch Flüge über Istanbul oder Dubai zu sprengen. Die Route, die ich im Folgenden beschreibe, ist für Reisende aus Europa zwei- bis dreimal günstiger.

Was ich hier zu sagen habe, ist jedoch auch für die gesamte Community von wesentlicher Bedeutung. Ich zeige die Schwächen Russlands auf der Ebene der Bürokratie auf, von denen weder die Russland-Liebhaber in den alternativen Medien noch die Russland-Hasser in den Mainstream-Medien etwas hören werden. Wie immer liegt das wahre Leben eher in der Grauzone als in reinem Schwarz oder reinem Weiß.

Seit die Finnen vor mehr als 18 Monaten ihre Grenzübergänge zu Russland geschlossen haben, reise ich regelmäßig über Estland nach Petersburg. Der wichtigste Grenzübergang befindet sich im Norden des Landes an der Mündung des Narva, wo die estnische Stadt Narva auf der einen Seite und das russische Iwangorod auf der anderen Seite liegen. Die Busfahrt von der estnischen Hauptstadt Tallinn zu diesem Grenzübergang dauert etwa zweieinhalb Stunden. Bis die Esten und Russen vor etwa einem Jahr beschlossen, die Brücke zu „renovieren“ und für den Fahrzeugverkehr auf unbestimmte Zeit zu sperren, setzte der Bus seine Fahrgäste auf der estnischen Seite ab, fuhr auf die russische Seite und wartete dort außerhalb des russischen Grenzkontrollpostens, bis die Fahrgäste die Kontrolle passiert hatten, um dann die Fahrt nach Petersburg fortzusetzen, die weitere zweieinhalb Stunden dauerte. Rechnet man die Zeit, die an der Grenze durch die doppelte Abfertigung verloren ging, hinzu, betrug die gesamte Reisezeit etwa sieben Stunden.

Als die Busse die Brücke nicht mehr überqueren durften, mussten die Passagiere ihre Koffer 500 Meter lang über einen offenen Fußweg auf der Brücke schleppen. Aber das war noch das geringste ihrer Probleme. Die estnischen Behörden beschlossen eigenmächtig, allen ihren Bürgern, die Verwandte in Russland haben oder aus anderen Gründen dorthin reisen müssen, das Leben so schwer wie möglich zu machen, und auch Ausländer waren dieser grundlosen Gemeinheit ausgesetzt. Die Passkontrollen derjenigen, die in Richtung Osten reisten, und die nun eingeführten übertriebenen Zollkontrollen verzögerten den Prozess und führten zu langen Schlangen vor den estnischen Grenzkontrollgebäuden. Vor einer Woche, in der Vorweihnachtszeit, in der Familien besonders darauf bedacht sind, ihre Verwandten auf der anderen Seite zu sehen, bedeuteten diese Schlangen Wartezeiten von fünf Stunden oder mehr auf der Straße, unabhängig vom Wetter. Um das besser verstehen zu können, möchte ich anmerken, dass es selbst gestern, am späten Frühlingsanfang, hier im Nordwesten Russlands heftige Schneestürme gab.

Gestern Morgen hörte ich von Busfahrern in Tallinn, dass sich die Lage an der Grenze bei Narva beruhigt habe und man „nur“ zwei bis drei Stunden warten müsse, bis man von den Esten zur Pass- und Zollkontrolle vorgelassen werde. Da ich das wusste, entschied ich mich stattdessen für die „südliche“ Busroute, die durch die estnische Universitätsstadt Tartu zu einem Grenzübergang nach Russland führt, der 50 km westlich der russischen Stadt Pskow liegt, die selbst 290 km südlich von Petersburg liegt. Von Pskow aus sind es noch dreieinhalb Stunden mit dem Auto oder der Bahn bis nach Petersburg. Auf dieser Strecke überquert man jedoch die Grenze mit dem Bus, und da sie relativ wenig befahren ist, gibt es keine Wartezeiten bei der estnischen oder russischen Grenzabfertigung.

Ich sage gleich, dass sowohl die russischen als auch die estnischen Beamten bei ihren Kontrollen übertrieben haben. Die Russen waren vielleicht sogar noch schlimmer, als sie jeden Passagier, egal wie gebrechlich oder schwanger, mit Handmetalldetektoren kontrollierten, obwohl wir bereits durch die Detektorschleusen wie am Flughafen gegangen waren. Und sie schauten in Brieftaschen und Handtaschen, um zu überprüfen, wie viel Bargeld mitgeführt wurde, usw. So wurden gut zwei Stunden mit dieser Übung verschwendet, während unser Bus ebenfalls einer gründlichen Inspektion auf versteckte Drogen, versteckte blinde Passagiere und Gott weiß was noch alles unterzogen wurde.

All dies erinnerte mich an die schlimmsten Tage der Grenzübergänge von Ostdeutschland nach Westberlin.

Wie du mir, so ich dir, könnte man argumentieren, wenn man nach einer Erklärung für die offiziellen russischen Grenzverfahren sucht. Aber, mit Verlaub gesagt, ich sehe darin eine ausufernde Bürokratie, eine Bürokratie, die nichts Wertvolles leistet, sondern ihre Daseinsberechtigung dadurch beweisen muss, dass sie endlos neue Verfahren für mehr Staatssicherheit ausheckt. Das wurde mir heute wieder bewusst, als ich mich als ausländischer Besucher im Verwaltungszentrum der Stadt Puschkin registrieren lassen musste.

Achtundneunzig Prozent derjenigen, die nach Russland reisen, werden nicht wissen, wovon ich spreche, wenn ich die Frage nach der Registrierung aufwerfe. Die Registrierung wird beim Check-in von Ihrem Hotel vorgenommen, ohne dass Sie davon etwas mitbekommen. Aber es ist wichtig, dass Sie mir zuhören, wenn Sie verstehen wollen, wie und warum Russland in mancher Hinsicht Rückschritte macht, obwohl es durch Importsubstitution insgesamt an Wohlstand und Industrialisierung gewinnt. Die Bürokratie scheint außer Kontrolle geraten zu sein. All das ist der Grund, warum ich sage, dass das Land dringend einen eigenen Elon Musk braucht, der mit radikalen Maßnahmen aufräumt.

*****

Die Registrierung der Wohnadresse von Ausländern ist seit den Tagen Napoleons ein europaweites Phänomen. Sie ist heute fast überall in der EU gesetzlich verankert, aber auch dort ist sie dem durchschnittlichen Reisenden aus dem gleichen Grund wie in Russland nicht bekannt – die Registrierung bei der Polizei erfolgt durch das Hotel. Wenn ein Reisender privat unterkommt, ignoriert er in der Regel die Meldepflicht bei den Behörden, aber die europäischen Behörden sind nicht daran interessiert, Verstöße zu verfolgen, wenn man weiß ist und solvent aussieht. Manchmal tun sie es jedoch, wie ich vor zwölf Jahren erfahren habe, als ich meinen Einbürgerungsantrag in Belgien stellte und erklären musste, warum ich meine Ein- und Ausreisen nie gemeldet hatte, obwohl ich regelmäßig nach Belgien kam, in meinem Haus in Brüssel wohnte und dort Steuern als Zweitwohnsitz zahlte. Es bedurfte der Intervention hochrangiger Freunde, um die Angelegenheit zu meinen Gunsten zu klären.

Aber zurück zu Russland. Jeder, der sich länger als acht Tage privat in Russland aufhält, muss von seinem Gastgeber bei der Gemeinde oder einer anderen lokalen Behörde angemeldet werden. Die Anmeldeformulare sind vier Seiten lang, und ein gut ausgebildeter Beamter, wahrscheinlich mit Hochschulabschluss, vorzugsweise mit einem Ingenieurstudium, benötigt 30 bis 45 Minuten, um jeden Antrag zu bearbeiten, da jeder Eintrag auf dem Formular mit Ihrem Reisepass, Ihrem Visum, der Einreisekarte, die Sie bei der Passkontrolle an der Grenze erhalten haben, den von Ihnen und Ihrem Gastgeber angegebenen Telefonnummern und vielen weiteren irrelevanten Kleinigkeiten wie Ihrem Beruf, falls vorhanden, abgeglichen werden muss.

Der Sachbearbeiter, der Ihre Bewerbung prüft, scannt alle Unterlagen ein und schickt sie an eine zentrale Bearbeitungsstelle, wahrscheinlich in Moskau. Ich habe mich gefragt, ob dort jemand den gesunden Menschenverstand hat, diesen eingehenden Müll nach Erhalt zu schreddern, oder ob er, was wahrscheinlicher ist, irgendwo für die Ewigkeit archiviert wird. Ich frage mich auch, was die Sachbearbeiter, die meine Bewerbung entgegennehmen und bearbeiten, ihren Ehemännern, Kindern und Müttern darüber erzählen, wie sie ihren Tag verbracht haben. Ich frage mich, wie sich Russland angesichts seines derzeitigen gravierenden Arbeitskräftemangels leisten kann, diese qualifizierten, gut ausgebildeten und motivierten Mitarbeiter den ganzen Tag untätig herumstehen zu lassen, anstatt sie für ausländische Besucher einzusetzen, die mit offenen Armen empfangen werden sollten, und stattdessen den größten Teil des Tages mit der Registrierung zu verschwenden.

Aber das ist noch nicht alles. Diese vier Seiten des Antrags werden jedes Jahr geändert, und die Beamten können keine Anträge akzeptieren, die von ausländischen Besuchern auf ihrem Computer mit der Vorjahresversion erstellt wurden. Verboten. Und was hat sich in der Ausgabe vom 1. Januar 2025 gegenüber 2024 geändert? Nun wurden drei Zeilen hinzugefügt, in denen der Antragsteller zusätzlich zur kyrillischen Schreibweise auch die lateinische Schreibweise seines Namens angeben muss. Es scheint, dass eine Fotokopie des Reisepasses und der Visaseiten des Antragstellers, die ebenfalls mit dem Antrag eingereicht werden müssen, nicht ausreichte, um die immer anspruchsvolleren Bürokraten in Moskau zufrieden zu stellen.

Ich kann Ihnen versichern, dass es solche Art von Bürokratie überall gibt, wo man genau hinschaut. Und das trotz der offensichtlichen Investitionen in neue technische Ausrüstung für das Personal und die „Klientel“. Unser Puschkin-Zentrum hat neue Scanner-Kopierer, ein elektronisches Terminvergabesystem und QR-Code-Geräte für die Kunden angeschafft. Aber all das dient hauptsächlich dazu, Verpflichtungen zu erfüllen, die in einer modernen Gesellschaft gar nicht existieren sollten und nichts zur Verbesserung der russischen Staatssicherheit beitragen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYactL5y58E

Transcript submitted by a reader

Note: one and the same reader has been providing all of these transcripts for the past year. He requested anonymity, which I have been obliged to respect although I regret not having had the opportunity to thank him publicly for all these efforts which many readers have found very useful

Prof. Glenn Diesen: 0:00
Hello everyone and greetings from Dubai. In today’s program I am joined by the excellent Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, historian and an international affairs expert. So the US prepared this proposal for ending the war in Ukraine, yet we see now that Zelensky rejected it quite publicly before it could even be presented, and the Europeans are seemingly encouraging him to do this as well. So as a result, we now see Marco Rubio canceling his attendance and their entire thing more or less collapsed before it had even begun.

A very dramatic development, given that the US now threatens to wash its hands [of] this war and walk away unless the parties start falling line. How do you make sense of all of this?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 0:59
I think the Russians have finally mastered a technique that was outside their competence for decades: public relations. This weekend was quite remarkable that Vladimir Putin took the initiative and launched, without any prior consultation with the Ukrainians or the Americans or anybody else, he launched his proposal for a 30-hour ceasefire in honor of Easter, and he assumed that the Ukrainians would follow suit. The result immediately of his announcement was Zelensky appearing before [cameras], disheveled, looking confused, and making a rather spontaneous and not very kindly or agreeable statement, denouncing the Russians for never agreeing to the 30-day unconditional ceasefire that he had proposed and instead of offering a 30-hour peace pause.

That was in bad humor, and it showed that the Russians had really caught him flat-footed. Now, the next move was obviously a leaking of information to the “Financial Times” that Vladimir Putin was ready to abandon the maximalist ambitions of Russia to take all of the four oblasts, which it has incorporated into the Russian Federation after referenda in the fall of 2022, but which it has not fully captured. We know that Donetsk province or oblast is only about 65-70 percent held by the Russians. The Lugansk was always very well kept by the Russians, it’s about 98%, 99% in Russian hands.

3:07
But the other two oblasts are not. They’re maybe 50 or 60% Russian. And Kherson, the very capital of Kherson oblast is in Ukrainian hands on the right bank of the Dnieper river. So the fact that he would violate actually the constitutional requirement that Russia not sacrifice any territory that is deemed to be fully Russian. That is quite extraordinary. And it was meant to demonstrate to the Americans that Russia is not after a land grab, that Russia is after security and the other principles that were announced at the start of the Special Military Operation.

3:53
And the “Financial Times” took close note of this and remarked that probably the Russians in exchange for this concession, very considerable concession, would be looking for their other interests to be fully adopted by the Americans in the final peace settlement that would be on the table.

Well, here you have the Russians making an important seeming concession, although when asked about this by reporters, the press secretary of the Kremlin, Pieskov, said, “No, no, no, this was fake news.” That’s understandable. I believe that this leaking of information to the “Financial Times” and to the Western media was intentionally done in this– to catch again, to smoke out the Ukrainians and to avoid unnecessary discussion of this concession at home in Russia, where it would raise eyebrows, where it would come under strict criticism from real patriots who say, “Ah, it violates the constitution. We cannot sacrifice the land that has been duly incorporated into the Russian Federation.”

5:16
Well, they smoked out Zelensky in more than one way. It occurred– when you turn this around in your mind, you see that the Ukrainians– probably at the suggestion of what the Russians call their curators in London and in Washington and in Paris– the Ukrainians were proposing and were advancing the unconditional ceasefire with intent to divert attention entirely away from their rigid position on the end game, for their unwillingness to accept anything other than a Russian capitulation as the basis for a peace treaty.

And here you have it. The Russians have publicly or at least are assumed to have made a concession of great importance. And Mr. Zelensky turns around and says that Crimea is Ukrainian and always will be, and he will not recognize it as Russian territory.

6:19
Now, that’s one level of analysis. There’s an additional point here. Let’s be honest about it. The Ukrainians diverted attention from the endgame because if Mr. Zelensky were to propose anything less than the maximalist program that he has from the beginning set out as his peace objectives, which is essentially Russian capitulation, trial and tribunal of Putin and the other Russian leaders, reparations and so forth, as if Russia lost the war and Ukraine won the war…

if Zelensky would back away from any of this, he’d be lynched the next day. He cannot make any compromises. It is not a question of whim, it is a statement of fact. He’ll be lynched and he knows it. So the Russians have been very clever in setting up the stage.

7:17
And what is the end act of this stage presentation that they prepared? That the United States wash its hands of its whole existence, walk away from it, probably cut all further intelligence systems to Ukraine, say, “let the Europeans do it if they like Ukraine so much”, and continue the progress on normalization of relations with Russia. This is a scenario that I see in the making.

Diesen:
So the seeming Russian concessions, as you mentioned, they were quite significant as reported in the “Financial Times”. Do you see the reports as credible, that the Russians actually did offer to freeze the conflict along the existing lines, given that this would provide a problem within the Constitution, or were they simply betting on Zelensky not accepting these terms? How are you reading this? Because if it is correct, it is, it was, well, it was significant concessions on the Russian part.

8:32
Well, this is not the first time that I’m airing these views. And I can tell you that some comments came back on the previous video in which I mentioned this, saying, “Oh no, the Russians can’t possibly give up this territory. Doctorow doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” Well, I think I know what I’m talking about. And again, you have to look at what are the Russian war objectives. They were never to seize more territory. The … corporation of these four oblasts of the Donbas and the Novo Rossiya oblasts into Russia was done post haste.

9:10
It was done in what, in September, I believe, 2022. It was done when it was clear that the western supporters of Ukraine — United States in the front row and the British next to them — were on a war footing and had no intention of letting this go and letting the Ukrainians settle with the Russians. When this was clear, that’s when the incorporation of these four oblasts became a necessity and was carried out. But that was not the original game plan. The original game plan was denazification and demilitarization, and no NATO, and rollback of NATO in general from its advanced positions in Eastern Europe as infrastructure and personnel.

10:04
So Mr. Putin is not making any great sacrifices here. He’s simply returning to basics. And it becomes very attractive to return to basics when he sees the prospect of some normalization with the United States, that is not just a theoretical idea, but already has been demonstrated by what I see as the cooperation of Team Trump and Team Putin on resolving the nuclear issue in Iran, which is a great indicator to Trump of how Mr. Putin can be as useful to him as he was to President Obama in resolving the question of the chemical weapons in Syria, which the war hawks in Washington wanted to use to justify massive airstrikes in Syria.

11:02
This scene is being replayed now, as I understand it. Just to put a dot on the “i”, it is not just consultations with Witkoff, and also with the Urainians. Let’s get this straight. Before he went to Oman on the first visit, Witkoff stopped over for half a day in Petersburg, and you can be sure that they talked about what he was going to do in Oman the next day in negotiations with the Iranian foreign minister through an intermediary.

I believe it is reasonable to expect that the Russians are presenting themselves as not the only, but among the key supervisors and inspectors of any Iranian settlement made from the United States to ensure that it is being respected. Probably the Chinese also will put themselves up in that role.

12:09
And it would make a lot of sense for these two powers to be the guarantors of Iranian good behavior, as opposed to the absolute wimps from the United Nations Atomic Energy Group, who are afraid to say anything that becomes political.

Diesen:
So this diplomatic flop, how does it change now the nature of the war? Because [on] the face of it, it does seem to put Russia in a good position. Even the American media recognized that the Russians were prepared to make great concessions to reach a peace. Meanwhile, Zelensky is seen now as taking a very maximalist position, even again rejecting this proposal before even the meeting took place in London, so in doing so quite publicly.

13:05
And of course, now the United States has an excuse, if you will, to divorce itself from the war if it wants to leave before the collapse and, I guess, dump the whole mess on the Europeans. So do you think, do you see it in, I guess, such dramatic terms, or how will the war be affected by this?

Doctorow:
I see it in precisely the terms that you just set out. I think that the United States is receiving the reason, a justifiable reason, for walking away from this. The Europeans in holding the hand of Zelensky are setting themselves up for a big fall, because the disaster in Ukraine will become their property, not the United States.

13:55
While Trump and Team can go ahead and find points in common in international affairs and business affairs with the Russians, without anybody’s nose being turned the wrong way. The hawks in Washington will have to accept this. Now, what nobody is saying is what I just said. It isn’t just the whim of Mr. Zelensky over his bad mood or his bad temperament or his stupidity, Lord knows what, no.

The man understands, and it was said publicly, that if he betrays the neo-Nazi gang that has controlled the Kievan government since 2014, they’ll be strung up from a tree. It’s not my speculation. This is on the public record. So you don’t find that on the front page of the “Financial Times”.

14:54
But it’s obvious as day. He cannot give any concessions. Not that he won’t give them, he cannot. If he has to give concessions, he’d better get on a plane a few minutes later, because his life will be worth nothing.

Diesen:
Yes, well, that was kind of something that Boris Johnson also suggested happened in 2019, that he was unable to implement any of his peace mandate because of the nationalists. But it was an interesting commentary out today by former advisor of Zelensky, Alexei Aristovich, who argued that Ukraine should accept this, the loss of these four regions because, in his words, the alternative was there will be a loss of eight regions instead.

15:43
So in other words, the alternative isn’t victory, it’s further defeat. And I guess anyone who’s following the conflict now kind of recognizes this, that the war is being lost, that the more it’s delayed, the more men and territory will simply be lost. So I understand the position that Zelensky is in. He’s had to live with this threat by the nationalists since 2019. It’s not much he can do to reverse course now.

But the Europeans, what is the objective here? Because if the Americans are prepared to walk away from this, what is the benefit of prolonging the war now and further extending it? It’s– I guess of all the actors, I have the hardest time understanding the Europeans.

Doctorrow: 16:36
Right. Well, step back, Aristovich remarks, he’s in the United States, isn’t he right now? He hasn’t been there for several years unless I’m missing something. Where was he when he said made this statement?

Diesen:
I’m uncertain. He was on one of these podcasts he usually attends. I’m not sure. I heard it was in US, then I heard it was in Turkey. I don’t really know, to be honest. But he’s not in Ukraine at least, that’s for sure.

Doctorow: 17:00
He’s not in Ukraine. Otherwise, he wouldn’t dare said what he said.

Diesen:
No.

Doctorow:
So this– you can be objective, and you can make valuable contributions as that statement appears to be, when you don’t have your life on the line, because you got these fellows behind you who are ready to lynch you. And that is a situation of Mr. Zelensky, which he has gotten himself into the whole time he’s been in power.

17:24
But as to the Europeans, why are they so stubborn? Well, you’ve discussed this and the various, various analysts, and I think generally it’s been, what I’ve heard or understood, is that they have … dug a hole for themselves, and it’s very hard for most of them to extricate themselves from the commitments they’ve made, and they have no intention of retiring early from political life. So they keep on doing it. And they’re hoping that Mr. Trump will flip-flop, because he seems to do a lot of flip-flopping these days, and will come around to their view.

18:00
And he has done nothing to disabuse them of that illusion. He has not done what he should have done, that is, to read the riot act to the Europeans. He never did that. Instead he sent Kellogg a week ago to meet with them, and to hold their hands, and to give them some hope that the Trump administration is sympathetic to their efforts of securing a peace by their sending peacekeepers and whatever, which is total rubbish, of course. Trump should have read the riot act and he hasn’t had the guts to do that, which I mean, I have to hold this out as a severe criticism. He is trying to let everybody see Trump through their own lens, rather than to understand his real position, which is quite close to the Russian position.

Diesen: 18:57
So will the Americans actually walk away from this war now? Because Trump keeps making the point that this is not his war. It was Biden’s war. But nonetheless, he keeps sending weapons. He keeps providing the intelligence. I know at the moment it’s a huge effort to reposition the US from a participant in the war to being a mediator, but if he continues down this path, surely it will be too late.

19:27
He will gain some ownership of this war. And as he’s now reaching his 100 days of, well, which was the date, well, the time he set for himself to resolve the war, how likely do you see it as the United States actually walking away from this?

Doctorow:
Well, the moment that Trump stops providing weapons and perhaps stops providing intelligence, that is a moment when he has taken a clear decision and when those among his opponents domestically and abroad will be ready to strike. So he’s postponing that moment, but the moment will come. And I think the longer he postpones it, the worse it is for him.

20:08
The present state of flux and fluidity and uncertainty about his intentions has reached its limit. Will he walk away from it? I believe he will. Right now, he has every justification. It’s very hard for someone the least bit objective to say he should stand by the Ukrainians when they’re being totally unrealistic, not facing the reality on the ground and demanding that the victor take the lot of the loser. So I think that he will prevail, but only if he acts, and not just if he fudges as he’s doing now.

Diesen: 20:55
Well, I guess it takes me to my last question. If the United States does leave now after this flop, What do you see happening? How long do you think Ukraine can hold out on the battlefield based on what you’re seeing now? Because some of the weaponry has shifted from this, for example, the huge need for artillery shells to more cheaper weaponry like the drones which the Europeans are able to supply.

I’m not saying that the Europeans can fill the shoes of the Americans, but how long can realistically the war go on if the United States decouples completely this?

Doctorow:
Well, you’ve touched upon a key issue. The nature of the war has changed. There have been multiple changes over the last three years. There have been turning points which make all of us observers and commentators look foolish, because our expectations were based on a steady-state nature of war, and it has changed, first by the introduction of lethal weapons by the United States and its allies, which was unanticipated, and by the ever-more-lethal and ever-more-sophisticated weaponry that they have supplied to Kiev.

22:06
So these turning points have existed. In the last few months, there is a decisive change in the nature of the war, which makes it, frankly, easier for the Ukrainians to hold out longer. And you just touched upon it. It has become a drone and electronic warfare, a battlefield scene, which works against massing of troops, which will be decimated by kamikaze drones, and which makes it possible for a relatively small number of computer nerds and video game players to constitute an effective military force using drones and to make it very risky for an attacking force to go out on the field and expose itself to these weapons that, as I say, are controlled by relatively few people. So the whole question about, “Ah, the Ukrainians are short on manpower”, well not really, if it is a drone situation.

23:10
And just to come back to a very important issue, this nature, the changed nature of the war, I believe is expressed in the number of kills. When it was clearly, as you were saying, an artillery war, and the Russians had, as they almost in the beginning had, a seven to one or ten to one advantage in available artillery shells versus the Ukrainian supplies. It didn’t happen in the middle of the war. It happened from the first days of the war. When it changes from that to drones, where the Brits have sent thousands of drones and where the Ukrainians themselves are manufacturing them in underground workshops and perhaps supplying 30% of their needs domestically.

23:56
When that shift took place, the number of kills went down. Three months ago, day after day, the Russian news is reporting 1800, 2000, 2200 Ukrainian casualties day by day. Now when I listen to the Russian state television news reports from the field, I hear about on this front, we killed 50 Ukrainians on that front. What is it? It’s a different scale.

It is an order of magnitude different. And so this has a decisive importance for us as we consider how long can the Ukrainians hold out. On the other side, war is not just technical and material, war is psychological. And on the psychology side, the United States abandoning Ukraine can have decisive importance in destroying the self-confidence of the Ukrainian people in their ability to resist the Russians. So this makes it very hard to give a reliable or confident prognosis how long the war can go on.

25:09
But I believe it will be over before the end of this year, probably because of psychological impact and the departure of the United States and a collapse of morale on the Ukrainian side. Not because they don’t have any bodies to put on the line. They have some bodies and the front lines have not collapsed. And in the case of the little scraps of land that were being held by the Ukrainian forces in Kursk province, my goodness, it’s down to 99.5% of the land recovered. That last 100% is awfully difficult for the Russians to capture.

25:49
The Ukrainians are going to their deaths knowingly, rather than surrender or flee. Flee is rather problematic, but they’re not doing that. And so the Russians recognized a long time ago that their Slavic brethren in Ukraine have the same kind of guts and the same kind of determination that they do. And that hasn’t changed.

26:20
Therefore, as I say, it’s very hard to get a serious date when will the war end. But I believe it’ll be sooner rather than later, and it’ll certainly be before the end of this year.

Diesen:
Yeah. Well, when I heard about the huge US pressure and the Russians making great concessions, I was struck by a moment of optimism that this war could possibly come to an end fairly soon, but it appears it will still go on for some time. But I do agree though that it is a huge limit now on how far, of course, it can go.

26:57
So, yeah, Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, Thank you very much. It’s always very fascinating to get your insights. Well, thanks again.

Doctorow:
Well, my pleasure.

This community is growing, partly thanks to kind invitations from new, additional host broadcasters to enter into recorded conversations about the most important relevant developments in the Russia-Ukraine war. So it was with this week’s hosts at LegitTargets who disseminate their videos on X and other platforms.

The main focus of this interview was my statement that conclusion of a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine is unlikely and the best decision Trump can make would be to withdraw from the process.

Of course, such pronouncements are formulated by reading the day’s tea leaves and when the tea leaves are refreshed the calculus changes. The meeting yesterday in Moscow between Trump’s emissary Steve Witkoff and President Putin suggests that agreement on the terms for peace has become closer at least between the two Great Powers. What remains problematic is getting the Europeans and Zelensky to agree to the terms.

The Witkoff-Putin talks have been discussed extensively this morning on Russian media. I do not hear there the venomous condemnations of Putin’s not going for broke and demolishing Kiev that I hear from some of my confreres in the U.S. alternative media who are more royalist than the king, so to speak.

I find it interesting that my LegitTargets interview was picked up by the Russian news aggregator Inosmi in a Russian voice-over video and from that news articles were published by various Russian print media.

See original LegitTargets posting below and Inosmi reposting in Russian https://x.com/LegitTargets/status/1915517034030653722?t=wtQA-vs4B-6-zFw9IUj8nw&s=19

https://inosmi.ru/20250425/soglashenie-272760070.html

LegitTargets: ein Interview mit Resonanz

Diese Community wächst, auch dank der freundlichen Einladungen neuer, zusätzlicher Gastgeber, an aufgezeichneten Gesprächen über die wichtigsten relevanten Entwicklungen im Krieg zwischen Russland und der Ukraine teilzunehmen. So war es auch bei den Gastgebern dieser Woche bei LegitTargets, die ihre Videos auf X und anderen Plattformen verbreiten.

Im Mittelpunkt dieses Interviews stand meine Aussage, dass ein Friedensabkommen zwischen Russland und der Ukraine unwahrscheinlich ist und die beste Entscheidung, die Trump treffen kann, der Rückzug aus dem Prozess wäre.

Natürlich werden solche Aussagen auf der Grundlage der aktuellen Lage getroffen, und wenn sich die Lage ändert, ändert sich auch die Einschätzung. Das gestrige Treffen zwischen Trumps Gesandtem Steve Witkoff und Präsident Putin in Moskau deutet darauf hin, dass zumindest zwischen den beiden Großmächten eine Einigung über die Friedensbedingungen näher gerückt ist. Problematisch bleibt jedoch, die Europäer und Selensky dazu zu bewegen, den Bedingungen zuzustimmen.

Die Gespräche zwischen Witkoff und Putin wurden heute Morgen in den russischen Medien ausführlich diskutiert. Ich höre dort nicht die giftigen Verurteilungen Putins, der nicht alles auf eine Karte setzt und Kiew zerstört, wie ich sie von einigen meiner Kollegen in den alternativen US-Medien höre, die sozusagen royalistischer sind als der König selbst.

Ich finde es interessant, dass mein LegitTargets-Interview vom russischen Nachrichtenaggregator Inosmi in einem russischen Voice-over-Video aufgegriffen wurde und daraufhin Artikel in verschiedenen russischen Printmedien erschienen sind.

Siehe Originalbeitrag von LegitTargets unten und Repost von Inosmi auf Russisch. https://x.com/LegitTargets/status/1915517034030653722?t=wtQA-vs4B-6-zFw9IUj8nw&s=19

https://inosmi.ru/20250425/soglashenie-272760070.html

I inform the community that tomorrow, 24 April I travel to Russia, where I will remain until 11 May. Most of the time I will be in St Petersburg, though for several days I will be visiting Moscow.

As usual, during this trip I will be issuing several reports on how the Russian home front is doing during the ongoing Ukraine war.

I will return again to Russia in mid-June to attend the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, which could be especially interesting this year if the rapprochement with the United States continues.

It has been a busy day.  This evening’s chat with Professor of the University of Southwest Norway Glenn Diesen was a special treat.

Our discussion focused on the likelihood that Trump will wash his hands of the Ukraine conflict now that Zelensky has given him the perfect pretext by his refusal to acknowledge the loss of Crimea and his attempt to divert attention from this intransigence by directing attention only to a 30-day ceasefire.

As I have said elsewhere, Zelensky’s stubbornness comes from the fact that should he agree to territorial concessions to Russia he will be lynched by the radical neo-Nazi gang who since 2014 have been the force behind his throne.

My remarks in this interview are optimistic about Trump doing the right thing and shutting down military assistance and satellite intelligence to Kiev after he walks away.  However, I note here that that the expert panelists and host Vyacheslav Nikonov on this evening’s Great Game talk show are less sanguine and fear that Trump will sanction Russia as well as Ukraine when he slams the door on the peace process.

Time will tell.

Transcript submitted by a reader

Napolitano: 0:33
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for “Judging Freedom”. Today is Wednesday, April 23rd, 2025. Professor Gilbert Doctorow joins us from Brussels. Professor Doctorow, always a pleasure.

Before we get into the Rubio-Zelensky standoff and what General Kellogg is doing and saying, what is the perception in Europe as to whether the passing of Pope Francis is of any geopolitical significance?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
That is an angle that I haven’t seen discussed. Of course there’s discussion of whether or not there’ll be an African cardinal named to succeed him, whether it’ll be a reformer, because he had an understudy who will take over, or whether it’ll be a traditionalist. But that is the dogma side; and the personality of Francis as a pope of the people, that is the line that almost all European media are examining and promoting. I don’t see a geopolitical side, the way you could if you looked at what happened after the death of John Paul II. That was indeed geopolitical. This one isn’t.

Napolitano: 1:56
One wonders why just two months ago, the pope called for an investigation in Gaza as to whether or not there was genocide going on. I mean, talk about too little too late. Couldn’t he have sent Cardinal Perlan, the Secretary of State, to Netanyahu saying “Stop, stop suppressing Christianity, stop slaughtering Palestinians”?

Doctorow:
Well, he took many stands. He was a person who was not afraid to speak against the prevailing wisdom. And as a Russian observer, I’m of course thinking of what he told Zelensky to wave the white flag and to do the brave thing and spare his people. So you can look at many things that he has said and done. Some of them may not be so attractive as the one you just mentioned.

But overall, as regards my territory, he was highly regarded, Putin in particular had very kind and warm words in his eulogy because he saw him three or four times. So that is the Russian angle. The West-European angle, as I said, is to question dogma, whether traditionalist or reformist would take over.

Napolitano; 3:16
Right. I think you know where I’m coming from, and I’m going to drop the subject, but I’m an old-fashioned pre-Vatican II Latin-mass-attending style Catholic. So I thought that Francis deviated substantially from the deposit of faith which he’s supposed to preserve.

Doctorow:
Your traditionalism has particularly importance here in Belgium, because a country like this, when it abandoned the Latin mass, abandoned a unified church and country. So it’s–

Napolitano:
Is Vladimir Putin a serious believing Russian, member of the Russian Orthodox Church?

Doctorow:
This is absolutely true. He has very close from nations with the patriarch Kirill. There’s a great deal of mutual respect, and both of them are doing their best to be patriots. So there’s a lot that binds them together. As to faith, yes, I think nobody would question today that Mr. Putin, the ex KGB operative, so to speak, is indeed a believer.

Napolitano: 04:24
I have a close friend who’s a Roman Catholic priest in one of the very, very traditional orders, who has a close friend who’s a Russian Orthodox priest who tells my priest friend that President Putin’s confessor travels with him so that wherever he is he can go to confession. I’ve never really heard of that in the modern era, you know European kings had that, two, three hundred years ago. I’ve never heard that in the modern era. If true, and I believe it is, it’s utterly … utterly remarkable.

5:03
Okay, you mentioned President Zelensky. Is he free politically to enter into a peace accord, or does he do so at the risk of his own life?

Doctorow:
I think the latter is true. This traps him in an impossible losing position, whatever he does. And I think this last couple of days we’ve seen him smoked out. Well, in the last four days we’ve seen him smoked out. The first move that President Putin made for this purpose, as a public relations move, very clever move, was to announce the 30-hour ceasefire for Easter. There he caught Mr. Zelensky on the back foot, didn’t know what to say, looked and sounded very disagreeable, unpleasant, ugly in fact, when he finally conceded that the Ukrainians would follow suit.

6:02
Now something much more important has come up, and that is the announcement that was really extensively reported in the “Financial Times”, that President Putin is willing to make a substantial concession for purposes of negotiating a peace, namely not to insist on Russia taking over the full territory of the four provinces in Eastern Ukraine that they incorporated formally into the Russian Federation, after the referendum. That looked like a big concession, that even the “Financial Times” was speaking of it in those terms. And then you have– that was pressure on Zelensky to also make a move. And indeed Zelensky did not make a move, which explains Mr. Rubio’s cancellation of attending the negotiations or talks in London today.

And it put the Russians exactly where they want to be, to be shown in favor of concessions to reach a lasting peace where the Ukrainians are still holding on to their maximus position. I don’t think that Zelensky has a choice. If he were to make concessions, it would be at the price of his own life.

Napolitano: 7:21
The “Financial Times” article to which you refer reflects, I’ll read the headline, “Putin’s offer to halt war at current front line piles pressure on Ukraine”. The current front line must be fairly close to a hundred percent of the four oblasts, no?

Doctorow:
No, close to a hundred percent in Lugansk; but from the beginning, Lugansk was largely in Russian hands. Donetsk, it’s about 60%, maybe 70% in Russian hands. And the other two, Zaporozhzhye and Kherson, are probably closer to 50%. The Kherson city indeed is in Ukrainian hands, although the territory of the oblast is, as I say, 50% Russian.

8:12
So he would be making an important concession, but just let’s keep in mind that Piskofin, asked about this “Financial Times” report, said it was fake news. That is to say, formally speaking, the Russians have disowned that. And there’s a reason for it. This was a tactical move by the Kremlin addressing the West, addressing Washington in particular. But it was not supposed to be known within Russia, because it would raise many, many questions about Putin’s loyalty to the missions of the war that were embarrassing.

So it was really addressing Washington and if the “Financial Times” is correct, then this was somehow by connivance passed along to them to do exactly what they did, a front-page long article, but was not intended to be known or examined closely within Russia itself.

Napolitano: 9:19
Is it known in Russia and has there been any reaction to it amongst either the elites or the common folks?

Doctorow:
I can’t say about a reaction, because that will only come up this evening. It was really last night’s news after Russian state news and Russian talk shows already had closed down. So this evening, I expect there’ll be discussion of it.

Napolitano: 9:45
Very interesting. So your view is that this is a true and accurate report. They just aren’t sure that it should have been leaked.

Doctorow:
No, I think they’re happy it was leaked, because the intention was to do exactly what has happened, to call out the seriousness of Mr. Zelensky and all of his discussions of an unconditional 30-day ceasefire, blah, blah, blah, and show that when push comes to shove, he doesn’t want to give up anything. He said yesterday that he would not acknowledge Crimea as Russian, and that is the proof positive that he has dug in his heels and is against a peace with Russia.

Napolitano: 10:30
Is that the reason for which Secretary of State Rubio is not going to London either today or tomorrow or wherever they are, to resume the negotiations?

Doctorow:
I’m certain it is. This gave those within the Team Trump the hand that I’ve said they wanted, which is to have a good reason to abandon the talks and to pull out support from under Ukraine and to proceed with a rapprochement or détente with Russia as if the war never took place.

Napolitano: 11:09
Except that the person they’re sending, well, it was going to go either way, but had Secretary Rubio been there, this person would have been second amongst the American negotiators; now he’s first. And that’s the belligerent old neocon, General Kellogg. I mean, who’s going to take credibly anything that he says, after the proposal he made of dividing Ukraine up amongst the “allies”, as if it were Europe in August of 1945?

Doctorow:
Well, Kellogg’s presence is supposed to be holding the hands of the British and the French and Zelensky. He is not– he’s there kind of decorative, he’s an extra on the stage. I don’t, certainly the Russians don’t take him with any seriousness, and he’s doing that role. I don’t believe that he understands how he’s being used without being honored, but that’s his role.

12:11
His presence there gives an appearance of American continuity, but the reality is, I think it’s disruptive. I don’t believe that this procedure will go on very long.

Napolitano: 12:25
Let’s go back to the 30-hour ceasefire. How did it go? I agree with you, it was a brilliant PR move, and it caught President Zelensky flat-footed, but was it honored?

Doctorow: 12:41
The bottom line, the remarks, but let me, before I get to the bottom line, the remarks of the Russians, but they counted 4,000 Ukrainian violations of the ceasefire. A lot of these were artillery shells that were fired. Some of them were drones, some of them were airplane configuration drones, which are quite dangerous of course, but mostly were shot down. They counted 4,000. The Ukrainian strangely– usually they wait for the Russians to say something and then take it on as their own or maybe double it– the Ukrainians only claimed 2,000 violations by the Russians. But that’s just, these are just words.

13:23
The bottom line is what Vladimir Putin said at the end Sunday after making this announcement of violations, that indeed the Ukrainian attacks on the line of confrontation were significantly fewer than before or after the 30-hour ceasefire.

Napolitano:
How is the attitude amongst the Russian people toward the war? I mean, did many expect it to go on this long and be this methodically slow?

Doctorow:
Oh, not at all. And I’m sure there’s widespread disappointment that it has gone this slowly. Look, we were talking several months ago about the imminent Russian capture of Pakrovsk. This is a logistics nexus. It’s maybe 10, 15 kilometers away from the front lines today.

The Russians were focusing in, they were coming around from the north side and cutting it off. Wait a minute, nothing’s happened. That’s to say They have not taken Pakrovsk. And this is typical of what’s going on. There are a lot of small, incremental captures of this town or that town, but not any change in the battlefield that you could consider decisive.

14:48
And it’s because Putin is doing everything possible to minimize Russian casualties and because the war is not what everyone’s talking about. Yes, we all know about the artillery problem and Ukraine has a 10 to 1 disadvantage in its artillery shells. But wait a minute, the war has changed. The war now is dominated by the drones. And the drones, thank you very much, the Ukrainians are doing very well. They got several thousand from Britain, drones. They make their own drones. And the drones are hazardous, dangerous, and not easy to stop. Russian reporters who died in the last several weeks — these were drone attacks on their cars.

15:31
And the Russians do not mask their army, precisely to avoid large casualties from drone attacks. Also, look, nobody’s talking much about the casualty figures. Going back two, three months ago, every day the Russians were reporting 2000, 1800, 2200, in that range, Ukrainians killed or mutilated, that is, so their further participation in the war is excluded. Wait a minute, we don’t see that now. Now I watch Russian television, and on this front, over 200 Ukrainians were killed, now on that front– the daily figures are down sharply.

And that means that essentially the level of violence has gone down precisely because of drone warfare.

Napolitano: 16:19
Interesting. Are you suggesting that President Putin’s offer to draw the line where the military is now is a product of a military necessity as well as a political acumen?

Doctorow:
I would turn that around. It’s a result of political necessity. Because militarily the Russians can overwhelm Ukraine. There’s no question about it. But with what results? Just remember that about less than two weeks ago, the Russians marked because they’ve been– as they come down the countdown to the 80th anniversary of the capture of Berlin and the end of the European war– the Russians every few days have on the television screen, on the television screen, some other town or city that was captured by the Red Army in the closing months of World War II. And they had, very recently, it was marking the capture of Vienna, which cost the Russians, in three days, four days, 150,000 dead soldiers.

Mr. Putin is not Stalin. He cannot afford to have that type of horrible losses that xxxx xxxx xxxx to take cities. So this is dictated by political necessity. There would be political chaos if he were to sacrifice lives so irresponsibly.

Napolitano: 17:47
Is the threat by Marco Rubio, and somewhat endorsed by his boss, to turn off the spigot of military supplies a serious one in your view?

Doctorow:
I think it is, and this is the key question, that Mr. Trump wants to wash his hands of the Ukrainian war. I think that’s almost a given. But what follows upon that? Is he going to continue the intelligence sharing? Is he going to do, as you say, turn on or off the spigot? This will really be the decisive element, factor, in whether we can say this is, this WAS Biden’s war, or this IS Trump’s war. And I imagine the president is well aware of that distinction.

Napolitano: 18:35
Well the president has said it’s Biden’s war and it’s not his. I think most Americans recognize that right now it is his, after 100 days in office. He campaigned saying the war would be over within 24 hours of his election. As far as we all know here in the US, the spigot is still flowing. And it doesn’t consist of cash any more, but it consists of all the military equipment Kiev wants and all the intelligence data that Kiev needs.

Doctorow:
Well, the notion that it’s all the equipment that Kiev wants is a notion coming from Washington, not from Kiev. The Americans, like the Europeans, have supplied a lot of junk to Kiev, and everybody knows that, and I doubt that it stopped. They were cleaning out the stables.

They were cleaning out the warehouses for junk that had been accumulated and was still on the books, And that’s all shipped to Kiev at the prices that were in the books, not the real value. So how much this all can help Kiev is really, is questionable, but hasn’t turned the tide in the last three years. It’s certainly not going to turn the tide now. It’s a moral boost to Ukraine, which is valuable, of course. War is psychological, not just physical, but as to enabling them to fight on, it’ll take more than what’s in the U.S. pipeline.

Napolitano: 20:08
What happens if the US does turn off that spigot?

Doctorow:
Nobody knows. Look, the shows, the talk shows and the discussion, interview programs that are on, the responsible ones that are on YouTube, have experts who are military experts. I’m not one, but I follow closely what they’re saying. And there’s cacophony.

20:29
There’s a very broad array of dates that people give for when the war can end. Of course, nobody knows for sure because the psychological element is unpredictable, a mental collapse. But the reality is, that I see, is that as I’ve mentioned in past programs, the Ukrainians are putting up young soldiers who have some adequate training, who at least, who have the respect of the Russian soldiers on the ground, who have to deal with them. And as I say, the numbers game changed because just looking at artillery shells doesn’t tell you the real status of the war, just as just looking at numbers of soldiers doesn’t give you the real status. It’s this war that no one anticipated, but developed of its own course, this war of drones and electronic warfare.

Napolitano: 21:22
What does your crystal ball tell you will be the status of things in four, five or six months?

Doctorow:
The war will be over. I think that one way or another there’ll be a collapse of spirit in Ukraine when the United States pulls out. That is going to sap, undermine their confidence, and confidence is decisive in the fate of a war. So there will be some change, some significant change.

Capitulation, let’s hope so, because that would be kindest at the human parameter for the Ukrainians, if they just got it over with as Pope Francis had requested. But I can’t see this going beyond this calendar year.

Napolitano:
And if there is capitulation, I would think that President Zelensky would have to flee the country.

Doctorow:
Ahead of the capitulation.

Napolitano:
Yes, yes, ahead of the capitulation.

Doctorow:
With as many of his local managers and his British minders as they can take with him, because that regime will be gone.

Napolitano: 22:34
Got it. Professor Doctorow, thank you for an excellent conversation, starting with the Pope and ending with fleeing Kiev, but very, very insightful and deeply appreciated. [cough] Pardon me. And thank you for accommodating my schedule this morning. All the best to you. We’ll see you next week.

Doctorow:
Bye bye.

Napolitano: 22:56
Thank you. Oh and safe travels professor.

Coming up later today at 2 o’clock, Max Blumenthal, some of the things going on in Israel you just won’t believe.

And at three o’clock, Phil Giraldi. Why are the Israelis suppressing Christianity in its birthplace?

23:18
Judge Napolitano for “Judging Freedom”.

I am especially pleased with today’s chat with Judge Andrew Napolitano which covered a lot of ground that seems to be overlooked by others, yet bears directly on any prognosis of how the war will end and in what time frame.

I have in mind the following separate elements.

There is the new savvy Kremlin use of Public Relations to influence Washington’s handling of the negotiations. This began with Vladimir Putin’s announcement of a 30-hour Easter cease-fire which caught Zelensky off guard and exposed his reluctance to do anything constructive to lower the violence and enter into negotiations for a peace.  Then a day ago there was the cleverly leaked news that Putin is prepared to halt the Russian advance, freeze the border at the present line of engagement in Donbas and not insist on full takeover of the 4 oblasts that were annexed by Russia but are only partly occupied by Russia today.  This major concession put pressure on Kiev to respond in kind, as The Financial Times noted in its large front-page report on the subject yesterday evening.  But instead of also offering to retreat from his maximalist position, Zelensky responded with a firm refusal to give up claims to Crimea. This intransigence surely is what prompted US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to decide against participating in the ‘peace talks’ between the UK, France and Ukraine in London today.  I believe it is the first clear sign of an eventual Trump abandonment of its peace initiative, washing his hands of the whole affair and letting Ukraine and its Western backers sink to defeat while the USA proceeds with its reengagement with Russia.

I also had an opportunity to explore with Judge Napolitano how the war has changed dramatically from even a few months ago.  Back then the Russians were reporting 2,000 ‘kills’ of Ukrainian soldiers daily. Now it is more like 200 or 300. The reason? Because the battlefield is now dominated not by big troop movements but by drones which are directed by hundreds of skilled gamers and computer nerds on each side.   Artillery shells are no longer the issue. It is reconnaissance and kamikaze drones that are the dominant feature on the battlefield.

These are just two of the issues we discussed that I expect readers to find refreshing.

.

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Ausgabe „Judging Freedom“ vom 23. April: Sind die Friedensgespräche zwischen der Ukraine und Russland fruchtlos?

Besonders erfreut bin ich über das heutige Gespräch mit Judge Andrew Napolitano, in dem viele Aspekte angesprochen wurden, die von anderen offenbar übersehen werden, aber für die Prognose, wie der Krieg enden wird und in welchem Zeitrahmen, von direkter Bedeutung sind.

Ich denke dabei an die folgenden einzelnen Elemente.

Da ist zum einen die neue geschickte Nutzung der Öffentlichkeitsarbeit durch den Kreml, um Washingtons Verhandlungsführung zu beeinflussen. Dies begann mit Wladimir Putins Ankündigung einer 30-stündigen Oster-Waffenstillstandsvereinbarung, die Selensky überraschte und seine Zurückhaltung offenbarte, irgendetwas Konstruktives zu unternehmen, um die Gewalt zu deeskalieren und Friedensverhandlungen aufzunehmen. Dann wurde vor einem Tag geschickt die Nachricht durchsickern gelassen, dass Putin bereit sei, den russischen Vormarsch zu stoppen, die Grenze an der derzeitigen Frontlinie im Donbass einzufrieren und nicht auf der vollständigen Übernahme der vier von Russland annektierten, aber heute nur teilweise besetzten Oblaste zu bestehen. Dieses große Zugeständnis setzte Kiew unter Druck, ebenfalls zu reagieren, wie die „Financial Times“ gestern Abend in ihrem großen Bericht zu diesem Thema auf der Titelseite feststellte. Doch anstatt ebenfalls einen Rückzug von seiner maximalistischen Position anzubieten, reagierte Selensky mit einer entschiedenen Weigerung, seine Ansprüche auf die Krim aufzugeben. Diese Unnachgiebigkeit hat sicherlich US-Außenminister Marco Rubio dazu veranlasst, sich gegen eine Teilnahme an den „Friedensgesprächen“ zwischen Großbritannien, Frankreich und der Ukraine heute in London zu entscheiden. Ich glaube, dies ist das erste klare Zeichen dafür, dass Trump seine Friedensinitiative aufgibt, sich aus der ganzen Angelegenheit zurückzieht und die Ukraine und ihre westlichen Unterstützer in die Niederlage sinken lässt, während die USA ihre Annäherung an Russland fortsetzen.

Ich hatte auch Gelegenheit, mit Judge Napolitano zu erörtern, wie sich der Krieg seit einigen Monaten dramatisch verändert hat. Damals meldeten die Russen täglich 2.000 „getötete“ ukrainische Soldaten. Jetzt sind es eher 200 oder 300. Der Grund dafür? Weil das Schlachtfeld nicht mehr von großen Truppenbewegungen dominiert wird, sondern von Drohnen, die von Hunderten von erfahrenen Spielern und Computerfreaks auf beiden Seiten gesteuert werden. Artilleriegeschosse spielen keine Rolle mehr. Auf dem Schlachtfeld dominieren nun Aufklärungs- und Kamikaze-Drohnen.

Dies sind nur zwei der Themen, die wir diskutiert haben und die den Lesern meiner Meinung nach neu sein dürften.

Transcript submitted by a reader
————-

Joining us now out of Brussels is Gilbert Doctorow, Independent International Affairs Analyst. For more on the story, Mr. Gilbert Doctorow, pleasure to check in with you. Hope you’re safe and doing well this afternoon out there in Brussels. Your initial thoughts on the ramifications iInvolved here of this multi-year, we could call it a multi-decade pact between Tehran and Moscow.

Doctorow: it underlines the closeness of the two countries. And that is particularly relevant at this moment when the United States is negotiating on its sanctions relating to the Iranian nuclear program. Now I mention this because Russia is perceived by Donald Trump’s team as a useful and important intercessor and intermediary and advisor on its dealings with Iran.

This was perfectly clear nine days ago. Mr. Trump’s personal emissarysst, Steve Witkoff, stopped off for half a day in St Petersburg on his way to negotiations with the Iranians in Oman. I believe that dealt with Iran and on what role Russia will play when the terms of the inspections, the verifications are clarified by the parties, that is to say, between Iran and the United States. The role of Russia is particularly important today. I have spoken in the past of how Iran is bracketed by two major world powers, China and Russia. And this is in BRICS, This is in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and so forth. China at the present time is in very difficult relations with the United States.

China is important in the background as a threat to the United States, not to do something stupid with respect to Iran, because China has many possibilities of inflicting great pain on the United States if Washington makes mistakes. In the case of Russia, military action on behalf of Iran is improbable and unnecessary. It’s not incorporated into the terms of the cooperation agreement. But the closeness of the two countries, their political alignment on major international and regional questions is well known to Washington. And it is in the interests both of Iran and of Russia that that they will be going forward in parallel as relations with Washington realign for both countries

Press TV: Mr. Doctorow, a lot of people feel it is U.S. policies that have pushed Iran closer to Moscow and Beijing for that matter, not just for Iran, but for many other countries as well as of late. Or do you feel that for Iran in particular it’s just a natural evolution given the geopolitics of the country, of the three countries involved here and their cultural and political similarities you just alluded to.

Doctorow: And geography. The logistical alignment of mutual interests of Iran and Russia are a major factor in the rapprochement. Both countries will experience greater prosperity and greater security as these important projects and logistics in the North-South Corridor are developed.

They were talking points in the past. They were almost stagnant for a couple of decades. But I think now in the new circumstances of closer relations between Iran and Russia, they will be developed and will give a big economic boost to add to the geopolitical importance of this relationship.


Good stuff. Always a pleasure sir. Stay safe out in Brussels today and every day afterwards. Gilbert Doctorow joining us, independent international affairs analyst, joining us out of Brussels. Stay safe.

Press TV, Iran:  Putin has officially ratified a 20-year strategic partnership agreement with Iran

That Russia has in the past day fully ratified the strategic partnership agreement with Iran was not featured on Russian state news, to my knowledge, but it is understandable that Teheran takes special comfort from this formal completion of their special relationship with Russia. And it is for this reason that this morning Press TV invited my comment on the development.

https://www.urmedium.net/c/presstv/133398

Regrettably there were some technical problems with the skype connection which cut off some of what I was saying, particularly at the start of the interview. Nonetheless the main points are clear enough: namely that the closeness of Teheran and Moscow have made Putin an essential adviser to Witkoff on how to deal with the Iranians and to reach an agreement that will look good enough to silence the war hawks on Capitol Hill and in Tel Aviv, yet still respect the sovereignty and dignity of Iran.   As I say here, I foresee a possible role for Russia in the eventual inspection and verification procedures that will be embodied in any US-Iran agreement on their nuclear program.

Though Iran’s security is greatly enhanced by its being bracketed by two big friends, China and Russia, these two Great Powers provide rather different support to Iran.  China presently is engaged in a hot trade war with the United States and cannot offer any assistance on the diplomatic front, but, especially due to its combative posture vis-à-vis Washington can and does threaten the US with real harm to its interests if Washington were to do something stupid against Iran.  For its part, the Russians offer precisely the diplomatic support to Iran that is very timely for the talks with Washington.

At the same time, Russia’s being useful to Team Trump in reaching an accord with Iran demonstrates concretely what benefits can accrue to Washington if it treats Russia with greater civility. And this will contribute to the realization of US-Russian détente.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Press TV, Iran: Putin hat das 20-jährige strategische Partnerschaftsabkommen mit dem Iran offiziell ratifiziert

Dass Russland in den vergangenen Tagen das strategische Partnerschaftsabkommen mit dem Iran vollständig ratifiziert hat, wurde meines Wissens in den russischen Staatsnachrichten nicht erwähnt, aber es ist verständlich, dass Teheran diese formale Vervollständigung seiner besonderen Beziehungen zu Russland als besonderen Trost empfindet. Aus diesem Grund hat Press TV heute Morgen mich um einen Kommentar zu dieser Entwicklung gebeten.

https://www.urmedium.net/c/presstv/133398

Leider gab es einige technische Probleme mit der Skype-Verbindung, die dazu führten, dass einiges von dem, was ich sagte, abgeschnitten wurde, insbesondere zu Beginn des Interviews. Nichtsdestotrotz sind die wichtigsten Punkte klar genug: nämlich, dass die Nähe zwischen Teheran und Moskau Putin zu einem wichtigen Berater Witkoffs gemacht hat, wenn es darum geht, wie mit den Iranern umzugehen ist und ein Abkommen zu erreichen, das gut genug aussieht, um die Kriegsfanatiker auf dem Capitol Hill und in Tel Aviv zum Schweigen zu bringen, und das dennoch die Souveränität und Würde des Iran respektiert. Wie ich hier bereits sagte, sehe ich eine mögliche Rolle für Russland bei den eventuellen Inspektions- und Überprüfungsverfahren, die in jedem Abkommen zwischen den USA und dem Iran über das iranische Atomprogramm enthalten sein werden.

Obwohl die Sicherheit des Iran durch seine Einbettung in zwei große Freunde, China und Russland, erheblich verbessert wird, unterstützen diese beiden Großmächte den Iran auf recht unterschiedliche Weise. China befindet sich derzeit in einem heißen Handelskrieg mit den Vereinigten Staaten und kann keine Unterstützung an der diplomatischen Front anbieten, kann aber, insbesondere aufgrund seiner kämpferischen Haltung gegenüber Washington, den USA mit einer realen Beeinträchtigung derer Interessen drohen, falls Washington etwas Dummes gegen den Iran unternehmen sollte. Die Russen ihrerseits bieten dem Iran genau die diplomatische Unterstützung, die für die Gespräche mit Washington genau zum richtigen Zeitpunkt kommt.

Gleichzeitig zeigt die Tatsache, dass Russland dem Team Trump bei der Erzielung eines Abkommens mit dem Iran behilflich ist, ganz konkret, welche Vorteile sich für Washington ergeben können, wenn es Russland mit mehr Höflichkeit behandelt. Und dies wird zur Verwirklichung der amerikanisch-russischen Entspannung beitragen.

In the new issue of this francophone Belgian magazine of commentary you will find on pages 20-24 excerpts from an hour-long interview which I gave to their lead journalist Daniel de Wolff not long ago.  In the near future they will be putting a video of the interview on the internet.

https://www.zebre-magazine.com/mon-zebre-digitale/zebre-magazine-04