This brief essay presents two ‘straws in the wind.’ The title above is the first.  The second is: why does Helsinki have a new mayor with the very un-Finnish sounding family name of Sazonov?

I offer this material, because you will not find it anywhere in US and European mainstream media, and yet it all bears directly on where we may be heading: towards peace or global war?

                                                                *****

Russia’s ballistic missile attack yesterday, Palm Sunday, on the Ukrainian provincial capital of Sumy in the northeast of the country was the number one news item on this morning’s BBC News. They spoke about the 34 reported deaths, including women and children. They showed video images of severely damaged residential buildings and rubble-strewn streets. They told us about President Zelensky’s appeal to Donald Trump to come to Ukraine and see for himself the wanton destruction that Russia continues to inflict on his country even now when talks of a cease-fire are under way.

In short, Kiev is once again attempting a PR blitz in the West as it has done repeatedly since the start of the war.

For their part, the Russians have put out some very specific information about what were their objectives in the latest attack on Sumy and what they actually achieved.  They tell us that they used two Iskander-M hypersonic missiles to obliterate the command staff of the Ukrainian army group called ‘Seversk’ which was holding a meeting at the time. They claim to have killed 60 soldiers and officers of the Ukrainian armed forces including a certain Colonel Yula.

Moreover, they point out that their missile strikes were successful in evading Ukraine’s local electronic warfare gear and Western supplied air defenses.

As regards possible civilian casualties, Moscow blames Kiev for continuing to violate international humanitarian law and placing military personnel and equipment in civilian properties.

But let us go beyond this narrow technical explanation of the attack. The proper context to understand what is going on is the following:  Sumy was the planning and staging center for the Ukrainian invasion of Russia’s Kursk oblast just across the border last August. It is still active supporting what remains of Ukrainian troops inside Kursk and it is the staging point for new attacks on the neighboring Belgorod oblast of the RF.  Moscow has set the objective of taking Sumy and the surrounding territory of Ukraine to create a buffer zone, thereby pushing back the Ukrainian armed forces beyond the range of their artillery and local drones.

                                                                        *****

Finland has been putting out signals of a possible forthcoming relaxation of its hostile measures against Russia.  Following his day of golf with Donald Trump in Mar-a-Lago two weeks ago, their president unexpectedly told his nation and EU Member States that they should prepare for an eventual normalization of relations with Russia.  There has also been talk now of Finland possibly reopening its border crossings with Russia which were closed more than a year ago.

Now today there comes the news that in the weekend’s municipal and local elections in Finland the nation’s capital has just voted in as mayor a certain Daniel Sazonov.  There would be nothing surprising in the fact that this deputy mayor responsible for social issues and health since 2021 has been moved up to mayor.  But there is the little detail of his very Russian family name and the fact that his parents moved to Finland from St Petersburg in the early 1990s.

Sazonov himself was born in Helsinki in 1993.  However, given the almost racist nature of the Russophobia that has swept through Europe since the start of the Special Military Operation, it is certainly noteworthy that the Finnish electorate has overlooked his family heritage and installed him as mayor.

We speak about the Baltic States as the most viciously anti-Russian members of the EU. They alone chose to join Britain and France in the last gathering of the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ that UK Prime Minister called for the purpose of sabotaging the ongoing Trump peace initiative.

Finland, which might also be properly called a ‘Baltic state,’ given its geography, has no big Russian minority in its population dating from Soviet times. To be sure, in recent months we have seen and heard a lot from the Finnish revanchists who curse the Soviets for taking their land during the Finnish-Russian war that just preceded the outbreak of WWII and for the further territorial losses that followed the world war in compensation for Finland’s close cooperation with the Nazis siege of Leningrad.  Yet in the same national elections this weekend, the ‘True Finns’ party, whom we may assume represent those diehards, polled only 7.8% of the vote, 3.3% less than in the last national elections.

Conclusion:  there is some shred of sanity in the Finnish electorate and maybe even some decency.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Warum hat Russland Sumy angegriffen und mit welchen Ergebnissen?

Dieser kurze Aufsatz präsentiert zwei „Strohhalme im Wind“. Der Titel oben ist der erste. Der zweite lautet: Warum hat Helsinki einen neuen Bürgermeister mit dem sehr un-finnisch klingenden Familiennamen Sazonov?

Ich biete dieses Material an, weil Sie es nirgendwo in den Mainstream-Medien der USA und Europas finden werden, und doch hat es alles einen direkten Einfluss darauf, wohin wir uns bewegen könnten: in Richtung Frieden oder globaler Krieg?

                                                                *****

Der gestrige Angriff Russlands mit ballistischen Raketen auf die ukrainische Provinzhauptstadt Sumy im Nordosten des Landes war heute Morgen das Topthema in den BBC News. Sie berichteten über die 34 gemeldeten Todesfälle, darunter Frauen und Kinder. Sie zeigten Videobilder von schwer beschädigten Wohngebäuden und von Trümmern übersäten Straßen. Sie berichteten uns von Präsident Zelenskys Appell an Donald Trump, in die Ukraine zu kommen und sich selbst ein Bild von der mutwilligen Zerstörung zu machen, die Russland seinem Land auch jetzt noch zufügt, wo Gespräche über einen Waffenstillstand im Gange sind.

Kurz gesagt, Kiew versucht erneut, im Westen einen PR-Coup zu landen, wie es seit Beginn des Krieges wiederholt der Fall war.

Die Russen haben ihrerseits einige sehr spezifische Informationen darüber veröffentlicht, was ihre Ziele beim jüngsten Angriff auf Sumy waren und was sie tatsächlich erreicht haben. Sie berichten, dass sie zwei Iskander-M-Hyperschallraketen eingesetzt haben, um den Kommandostab der ukrainischen Heeresgruppe „Seversk“, der zu diesem Zeitpunkt eine Sitzung abhielt, auszulöschen. Sie behaupten, 60 Soldaten und Offiziere der ukrainischen Streitkräfte getötet zu haben, darunter einen gewissen Oberst Yula.

Außerdem weisen sie darauf hin, dass es ihnen mit ihren Raketenangriffen gelungen sei, die lokale elektronische Kriegsführung der Ukraine und die von westlichen Ländern gelieferten Luftverteidigungssysteme zu umgehen.

Was mögliche Opfer unter der Zivilbevölkerung betrifft, so beschuldigt Moskau Kiew, weiterhin gegen das humanitäre Völkerrecht zu verstoßen und Militärpersonal und -ausrüstung in zivilen Gebäuden unterzubringen.

Aber lassen Sie uns über diese eng gefasste technische Erklärung des Angriffs hinausgehen. Der richtige Kontext, um zu verstehen, was vor sich geht, ist der folgende: Sumy war im vergangenen August das Planungs- und Einsatzzentrum für die ukrainische Invasion in der russischen Oblast Kursk direkt hinter der Grenze. Die Stadt unterstützt nach wie vor die verbliebenen ukrainischen Truppen in Kursk und ist Ausgangspunkt für neue Angriffe auf das benachbarte Oblast Belgorod der Russischen Föderation. Moskau hat sich zum Ziel gesetzt, Sumy und das umliegende Gebiet der Ukraine einzunehmen, um eine Pufferzone zu schaffen und so die ukrainischen Streitkräfte außerhalb der Reichweite ihrer Artillerie und lokalen Drohnen zurückzudrängen.

                                                                        *****

Finnland hat Signale für eine mögliche bevorstehende Lockerung seiner feindlichen Maßnahmen gegen Russland ausgesendet. Nach seinem Golftag mit Donald Trump in Mar-a-Lago vor zwei Wochen erklärte der US-Präsident unerwartet seiner Nation und den EU-Mitgliedstaaten, dass sie sich auf eine mögliche Normalisierung der Beziehungen zu Russland vorbereiten sollten. Es wurde auch darüber gesprochen, dass Finnland möglicherweise seine vor mehr als einem Jahr geschlossenen Grenzübergänge zu Russland wieder öffnen könnte.

Heute nun kommt die Nachricht, dass bei den Kommunal- und Lokalwahlen am Wochenende in Finnland die Hauptstadt des Landes gerade einen gewissen Daniel Sazonov zum Bürgermeister gewählt hat. Es wäre nicht überraschend, wenn dieser stellvertretende Bürgermeister, der seit 2021 für soziale Fragen und Gesundheit zuständig ist, zum Bürgermeister aufsteigen würde. Aber es gibt da dieses kleine Detail seines sehr russischen Familiennamens und die Tatsache, dass seine Eltern Anfang der 1990er Jahre von St. Petersburg nach Finnland gezogen sind.

Sazonov selbst wurde 1993 in Helsinki geboren. Angesichts der fast rassistischen Natur der Russophobie, die seit Beginn der militärischen Spezialoperation durch Europa fegt, ist es jedoch sicherlich bemerkenswert, dass die finnischen Wähler sein familiäres Erbe übersehen und ihn zum Bürgermeister gewählt haben.

Wir sprechen von den baltischen Staaten als den bösartigsten antirussischen Mitgliedern der EU. Sie allein haben sich dafür entschieden, sich Großbritannien und Frankreich bei der letzten Versammlung der „Koalition der Willigen“ anzuschließen, die der britische Premierminister einberufen hat, um die laufende Friedensinitiative von Trump zu sabotieren.

Finnland, das aufgrund seiner geografischen Lage auch als „baltischer Staat“ bezeichnet werden könnte, hat keine große russische Minderheit in seiner Bevölkerung, die aus der Sowjetzeit stammt. In den letzten Monaten haben wir allerdings viel von finnischen Revanchisten gehört und gesehen, die die Sowjets verfluchen, weil sie ihnen während des finnisch-russischen Krieges, der dem Ausbruch des Zweiten Weltkriegs unmittelbar vorausging, ihr Land weggenommen haben und weil sie nach dem Weltkrieg weitere Gebietsverluste hinnehmen mussten, als Ausgleich für die enge Zusammenarbeit Finnlands mit den Nazis bei der Belagerung Leningrads. Bei den gleichen landesweiten Wahlen an diesem Wochenende erhielt die Partei „Wahre Finnen“, die vermutlich diese Ewiggestrigen vertritt, nur 7,8 % der Stimmen, 3,3 % weniger als bei den letzten landesweiten Wahlen.

Schlussfolgerung: Die finnischen Wähler sind nicht völlig verrückt und vielleicht sogar noch anständig.

Transcript submitted by a reader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBgTqSZe7lM


NewsX World:

0:05
Moving on, US envoy Steve Witkoff met the Russian president Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg, as Donald Trump urged the Russian president to get moving on a ceasefire in Ukraine. The Kremlin said that the meeting lasted over four hours and focused on finding solutions for Ukraine. This was Witkoff’s third meeting with Putin this year, and the special envoy from Russia, Kirill Dmitriev, called the meeting productive. After the meeting, Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov said that the meeting emphasized the Ukrainian settlement.

And however, the talks come at a time when US-Russia talks aimed at agreeing on a ceasefire ahead of a possible peace deal to end the war in Ukraine appear to have stalled due to disagreements over the terms for a complete halt in hostilities.

0:52
In recent days, Ukrainian officials have sent Washington a list of targets they believe Russia has struck in violation of the energy infrastructure ceasefire agreed upon by the two countries last month. Trump has further expressed frustration with Putin over the state of talks with respect to the ceasefire. The US president also wrote on social media, “Russia has to get moving. Too many people are dying, thousands a week, in a terrible and senseless war.” Earlier, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov also said that Putin and Witkoff might discuss the possibility of the Russian leader meeting Trump face to face.

1:33
All right, Mr. Gilbert Doctorow, Russian affairs expert, is joining us on the program. Sir, appreciate you taking out the time and speaking with us. Well, when the conversations actually imply that they were productive, what do you make out of it? Does this mean that this four-hour conversation between Mr. Witkoff and Vladimir Putin is going to be, you know, a step in the direction of peace, or do you think that probably unless you get Ukraine to be on the same page, it’s not possible?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 2:06
It’s very difficult to make sense out of these talks that are going on between the Trump administration and Mr. Putin and his team. The first thing I’ll say is that from the Russian perspective, the visit by Witkoff was not expected. He was added to Mr. Putin’s otherwise very full agenda in St. Petersburg because he was there for a conference with his senior naval officers, finance minister, and primary manager of Russia’s commercial and military shipbuilding. And they were talking about plans for adding to the Russian fleet in the coming years. That took most of his day.

2:52
Mr. Witkoff probably added St. Petersburg to his travel plans because he is in Oman today. And he’s in Oman largely because it was set up for him by the Russians. So it was appropriate that he would look for a meeting with Mr. Putin before he goes into the meeting with the Iranian foreign minister today.

Otherwise, I see in the meeting and the visit by Witkoff yesterday, very promising [glitch] we’re reading tea leaves. What do I mean by tea leaves? First fact, he didn’t come by himself this time. He came with his wife. That added a personal note, which suggests a growing warmth in the relationship and gives us reason for optimism that whatever Mr. Trump is saying publicly, there is something serious going on, hinting at a Russian-American agreement on how [glitch] the ceasefire. The ceasefire is the least of it. The Russians are only interested in the end game. How will this war end? Does America agree to Russia’s acquiring permanently and legally the territories of the Donbass, the four oblasts that it has recaptured largely? Is America keen on establishing fully normal relations with Russia and lifting sanctions?

4:24
These are the questions that move the Russians. And I have reason to believe, not just because he took his wife and they did a little bit of high-level sightseeing. They went to see the most important synagogue in St. Petersburg and most important synagogue in the Tsarist Empire when it was built. And they visited the most important Russian Orthodox church in St. Petersburg, the St. Isaac’s Cathedral. He spent three hours in conversations with Dmitriev at the Grand Hotel Europe. That is not a normal venue for high-level talks. And it persuades me that this was a last-minute decision to come and visit Petersburg.

The Russians did not have much time, because Witkoff would be on a very tight schedule ahead of his flight to Oman. Therefore the meetings they had were all in downtown Petersburg in unusual venues. The meeting that was four and a half hours with Vladimir Putin was in what’s called the Presidential Library, a building about which none of us has heard much. It was opened in 2009 and dedicated to Boris Yeltsin, who had died a couple of years earlier. But you never see it. It wasn’t mentioned in any government meetings. So it was chosen precisely to keep Mr. Witkoff’s stay in Petersburg tightly controlled within a few downtown city blocks of Petersburg.

5:55
All of this means, suggests to me, that the visit to discuss the situation in Iran was very important to Trump and Witkoff. They take the Russian efforts very seriously. And that is an example of why Mr. Trump is keen on reestablishing normal relations with Russia, because there are things which the countries can cooperate on.

NewsX: 6:21
Right. So one last question before we let you go. Do you think that America has gone out on a limb and Donald Trump is also staking his reputation when it comes to, in fact, striking a deal– which Donald Trump is good at– between Ukraine and Russia that eventually will bring peace in this part of the world? But so far, there hasn’t been a credible overture, if we can call it that, from President Putin towards peace.

Doctorow: 6:52
Well, he has stated specifically the conditions under which Russia would implement in full [edit] partial ceasefires. And they have been stymied by opposition from the [glitch] this free navigation in the Black Sea. One of the conditions is the lifting of bank sanctions on the bank that handles all Russian agricultural exports.

The EU refuses to do that. So there are obstacles that are created to the conclusion of even a partial ceasefire, which Russia has nothing to do with. It’s the EU’s attempt to sabotage the whole business. Nonetheless, I think it’s a big mistake to focus all attention on a partial ceasefire, full ceasefire. That’s not it.

7:45
The question is, where does this war end? Europe doesn’t want it to end. And we are all aware of that. So the question for the Russians is what is Mr. Trump going to do to Europe to get them to back off and let a peace be made?

That is the real question, Not Mr. Putin’s willingness, non-willingness to end the war. That’s a phony question that is put up by England and by France, who want desperately for this war to continue.

NewsX: 8:12
So always a pleasure having you. Thank you so much for speaking to News X World.

Moving on. Well, Hamas says it is hope–

This five-minute interview yesterday morning is interesting for the opportunity I was given to explain why the visit on Friday of Donald Trump’s personal emissary Steve Witkoff to Petersburg for a meeting with President Putin was likely taken on short notice.  It was less for purposes of continuing talks on ending the Ukraine war that it was for consultations on how to proceed Saturday in talks with the Iranian Foreign Minister in Oman which Putin had arranged.  Judging by the comments from the White House today that the Iranian talks were constructive and that a further meeting is planned in one week’s time, we may conclude that Vladimir Putin has helped to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for Trump on Iran just as he did for Barack Obama in September 2013 by agreeing with Bashar Assad on the destruction of Syria’s stock of chemical weapons.

If so, then this augurs well for a ‘U.S. brokered’ peace in Ukraine.  Not a cease-fire but a genuine peace, essentially on Russian terms.  Putin will have demonstrated what benefits can accrue to the U.S. from normal, cooperative relations with Russia.

Transcript submitted by a reader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxPFg8uatqs

Prof. Glenn Diesen: 0:00
Hi everyone and welcome. I am joined today by Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, an international affairs analyst and historian. And I wanted to speak with you today about what is happening to the political West, that is the United States and Europe, which has been more or less joined by the HIP since the Second World War. And I guess much of the world now is looking towards Europe with some bewilderment.

That is, Europe doesn’t want to negotiate a war that has effectively already been lost. Europe doesn’t want to reconsider sanctions that don’t work. They’re happy to steal sovereign funds. They want to spend money now on weapons they can’t afford. We see the US leaving Europe, yet there’s no real outreach to the rest of the world.

0:47
Indeed, I just saw Kaja Kallas, the foreign policy chief of the EU, blaming China for being the main enabler of Russia in Ukraine. So it’s again, not clear to me what scolding China is meant to achieve, especially in public. The media is still all about the warmongering, war with Russia, the world’s largest nuclear power. Well, again, one could go on, but how do you explain this posture? I’ve attempted to challenge some of these lack of ideas, but usually the main knee-jerk reaction is some Hitler analogy and reference to Russian propaganda.

So how do you explain what is happening in Europe at the moment? Because we’re not really discussing course correction, which should be the main issue, I guess.

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 1:41
Well, just how bizarre, or simply speaking stupid, these developments in Europe are, hit home to me yesterday, or the day before yesterday, when I saw on Russian television the visiting delegation from Belgium, led by the Prime Minister, Bart De Wever, and his Minister of Defense, Minister of Commerce and Foreign Affairs. They had in their group the leaders of some of Belgium’s most important arms manufacturers.

And although Belgium is very well known for its superb chocolates. It also has a pretty good arms industry, always did. These were light arms for the most part, but nonetheless, the technologies were there. And there was Mr. De Wever shaking the hand warmly of Wilensky, and of his whole crew, and they all looked very satisfied with themselves.

2:36
And this brought to mind my own experiences going back to the 1970s when detente had its moment of bloom and detente had its moment of wilt. And I entered the field more or less in the wilting period when some very conservative American companies decided to go into the Soviet Union and to show that they also were highly competent in international affairs.

Well, they went in, of course, in the waning days. What I’m seeing now strikes me [as] the utter stupidity of coming into Kiev when the regime is on its last legs, and everybody knows that, and coming in and offering a billion euros in military assistance this year and every year, at the very moment when the Prime Minister is in very tough conflict with the labor unions in Belgium and with the broader public for the measures of austerity he’s introduced domestically. We’ve had rail strikes, we’ll have many more of them, because he just raised the retirement age for tram drivers and bus drivers from 55 to 67.

3:46
Now that’s a hell of an increase in one year. And of course the people are indignant. And of course they’re afraid of cuts in social welfare, healthcare, and so forth. And here this guy is speaking of giving away a billion euros to a regime that’s about to collapse. Where are their brains? I have to wonder.

But I don’t want to suggest that the problem of Europe is a lack of brains, not at all. The problem of Europe has been very heated brains. The notion that Europe has borrowed ideology and followed in the footsteps of Washington is rubbish. Europe has had– they have a lot of thinkers here; there are a lot of well-educated people. And whether they’re using their education properly or not is a separate question.

4:39
But it’s not for lack of training and will to enter into political dialogue that Europeans have suffered. On the contrary, here in Europe we’ve had thinkers of neocon principles. They didn’t all have to read Robert Kagan. They didn’t all have to read Fukuyama. We had our own here in Europe. You are living very close to the home of one of the biggest thinkers in Europe and actors, Carl Bildt. Carl Bildt was never at a loss for words in spreading the theories of the neocon movement.

So there has been an indigenous neoconservatism in Europe of considerable proportions. There also has been the co-optation of many of Europe’s leaders going back to when they were still relatively young and formative by American agencies. These future leader programs that they had been brought into, whether it was the absolute nitwit Baerbock or Kaja Kallas. Well, you can go to a whole list– or Leo or Macron– a whole list of personalities who in one way or another, at various early stages in their career, were co-opted by American propaganda organizations. And so they were instilled. They had their hotdogs on the White House lawn. They saw the glory of being part of the rulers of the human race.

6:07
And these people have been very deeply embedded in the American unipolar ideology. And it is shocking to them and dismaying to them and unacceptable to them that one Donald Trump, who was known to be a rather shallow thinker, would disrupt the game, would overturn the chessboard, and would make everything that they had believed in since they were wearing short trousers … history. That’s where we are today. That’s why they dig in. And that’s why they refuse to follow what their eyes tell them: that the United States will in response to, well, I’ve got this book, the United States is ready to drop its support of Europe. So Europe goes in and runs against the American policy of concluding a peace.

7:05
Well, the ideology you refer to is best, I guess, described as liberal hegemony, the idea that the great power rival of the past can be overcome if the West sustains its collective hegemony, because this would allow us to elevate the role of liberal democratic values. Because there seems to be– well again, the whole political class over the past few decades have been raised to a large extent on this idea that we, as you mentioned Fukuyama, we can transcend that history now, that as long as the West dominates, has its hegemony, then this is a victory for liberalism and again perpetual peace to delve into Kant. Is this where the–

7:52
Well, I guess if you want to move away from this, you have to then argue that, well, perhaps we did something wrong the past 30 years when instead of mitigating the security competition with great powers, we would just make sure that we would transcend history by simply having perpetual liberal hegemony. Is this the main problem or do you see the ideologies differently?

Doctorow:
The ideology is very deep. It runs very deep. And it starts with things, little simple notions, which seem self-evident, but are absolutely based on nothing: the notion that democratic countries are peace-loving because they are strongly supported by the populations, and therefore they do not have to go and solve their political problems by fighting wars abroad.

8:45
Whereas autocratic, authoritarian countries are necessarily warlike. And since Europe is a project of peace, we have to be against those countries. They are warlike because they are fragile, because they do not enjoy the support of the population, and so they tend to look for foreign wars to to maintain their hold over their populations.

That’s a very simple notion, dead wrong of course, but try to find people in the European political classes who would disagree with that. This is the whole European-values story that is the whole of the institutions that are three kilometers away from me, the European institutions, they are all infected with these ideas. And to shake their heads and to bring them back to common sense is a vast task.

Diesen:
Well, we keep still referring to Europe often as some kind of a cohesive, united entity; but we kind of bet everything on this alliance with the United States. We even agreed in the 90s to redivide the continent by expanding NATO, even though we knew from the 90s that this would likely cause conflicts with the Russians, and many pushed back against this and warned. But nonetheless, the American pacifier in Europe was seen as a central component of the collective hegemony or liberal hegemony.

10:20
But what happens now that Americans will most likely depart, at least to some extent, as it’s shifting its priorities around the world? Do you see already cracks in the European unity or what direction do you predict?

Doctorow:
The cracks are there, but they’re not running deep enough to provide you and me with much satisfaction. There are two countries that stand out where the leaders have been remarkably bold, in the same way that Trump was bold, to run up against the united opposition of everybody around. I’m speaking of course of Hungary and Slovakia.

11:02
The others are whispering among themselves. We know that there are some unreported approaches to Putin that one or another leader has made. But from my experience in politics, people who tell you that, “Oh, well, when they speak among themselves, off the record, they understand, European leaders understand that Ukraine has lost the war” and so on and so forth. But in politics, what people say among themselves behind closed doors is irrelevant. The only thing that counts is what they say when they’re given a microphone in public space.

And in public space, they’re all nominally united. How long that will go on when the moment of truth comes and Donald Trump says, “Are you with me or are you against me on accommodating the Russian requirements for entering into a ceasefire?” And that will be the moment of truth, which will likely end in the United States pulling the plug on Ukraine and it’s going down in flames. There Europe will have to scramble, the European leaders will have to scramble, to find an explanation that does not take them down with Ukrainian flames.

Diesen: 12:20
That moment of truth might come sooner rather than later. Indeed, Trump has always made the point that either the conflict has to be solved soon or it might not be solved at all. Why do you see him as being in such a rush to finish this war off now, or either negotiating now or just walking away? What is the time pressure here?

Doctorow:
Well, we had a good reminder of why he’s moving fast in the last week when we saw very big opposition, widespread opposition to his chaotically introduced new tariffs and attempt to extricate the United States from its unsustainable annual trade imbalance or trading deficits that are no longer able to be financed.

13:20
There were widespread demonstrations. I think Russian television put up on screen some of these which they said spread to 1,400 cities and towns across the United States. I’d like to stop for a moment and say something that I don’t see, I think I’ve seen anywhere else but was on Russian television. They had their interviews, they had their journalists go into the crowd. Probably was in Washington. And they interviewed a few kids, I mean, guys in their young twenties, early twenties, who were carrying these signs about how horrible the tariffs are and so forth.

And they had some brochures, leaflets to hand out. And the Russian reporters went up to them and they asked, can you tell me why you’re opposing this? Well, it was a sputter. The fellow couldn’t say a word. He didn’t understand what the tariff business was all about. He had been handed this very nicely produced sign, and he was handed the printed leaflets denouncing Trump.

And the conclusion of the journalists was, “Hey, this was a color-revolution operation. This was just like Maidan. These guys have been paid to party on the street against Trump. And for them, it’s a big party and they don’t really know what it’s about.”

Well, USAID obviously didn’t finance this. That question is: who did? The Russians didn’t ask it. I’ll ask it. Now I give the answer: certainly the likes of George Soros.

This would be– his fingerprints have to be all over this type of operation. So somebody is paying for that, and they were paid demonstrations. They weren’t just enthusiasts for the Democratic Party coming out on the streets. No, no. So that will have to be investigated.

15:13
But the main point I wanted to make is: the Russians saw a surprising weakness in Trump’s domestic situation. And they were right, as we know, because he reversed path yesterday. And he’s postponed for 90 days implementation of the really serious tariffs that are supposed to be directed against offenders, big offenders, except for China, which is singled out for continuing very heavy tariffs [that] amount to a blockade. Well, the Russians are concerned about Mr. Trump and his standing domestically, because they understand that he is the best hope they’ve had for detente since Richard Nixon.

16:00
And they don’t want to see his policies eviscerated, they don’t want to see him lose his present standing. But even before this crisis arose, everyone was looking at the dates. April 20th is when he wants to have a final solution to the dispute with Iran over its nuclear program and its general military capabilities. April 20th was the final date that he said he wants to have for conclusion of a ceasefire at least between Russia and Ukraine. And why [this date]?

16:39
Well, it’s the hundred days. It’s the period in the start of a new administration when they get a free pass, when the opposition, and particularly it was true in this case, when the opposition is still in a state of licking its wounds and disorganized, and he wanted to rush through as much of his domestic and foreign policy as he could, while he has absolute control on Capitol Hill.

So that’s what the rush was all about. The question is, of course, what is the relevance of his personal needs to solving the Ukraine war? That is a really American perspective that the whole world will dance around the tune that Donald Trump is playing on his flute. The conclusion of the war is a very complex issue and cannot be resolved just because Donald Trump says, “Hey, this is my deadline.”

Diesen: 17:36
Well, when the deadline is reached and there’s still no peace, where does it go from here? Because there’s different pathways. He can escalate pressure on the Russians, more weapons effectively getting pulled into owning the Ukraine war. He can put pressure on the Europeans [by] various means. He can again challenge the legitimacy of Zelensky and cut weapons supplies, intelligence, the logistics to pressure the Ukrainians. But … or he can just wash his hands of it and walk away. What do you see as the most likely path forward for Trump, just to abandon this?

Doctorow: 18:21
Well, a lot will depend on the depth of the political damage he has done to himself by this whole affair with the tariffs. If he has solved the problem for the coming 90 days by giving this pause so that all 70 countries can come and as he said in a remarkably foolish statement last today to the Republicans, “come and kiss my ass”.

Trump:
Because I’m telling you, these countries are calling us up, kissing my ass. They are dying to make a deal. Please, please, sir, make a deal. I’ll do anything. I’ll do anything, sir.

Doctorow: 19:05
If that goes as he hopes and he does strike separate deals, then he will remain strong politically, domestically, and he can pursue what is essentially an unpopular policy of reconciliation with Russia, unpopular in the States, I mean. So the Russians are watching this very attentively because, as I said, it really is for them of decisive importance. Do they have a talking partner who can take to conclusion his proposals for detente or don’t they have such a partner?

19:44
Well, obviously the Europeans are attempting to sabotage his peace agreement, which is a reason for contempt, but there seems to be a wider contempt for Europe. And Indeed, this has been shown in the different messages which have been released, for example, the Signal messages, but very openly the way JD Vance has spoken. But I don’t think it’s only with the Trump administration. You can go back to 2014 with Victoria Nuland’s “F the EU” comments. It’s something when you speak to American leaders or diplomats and all, they confirm that there is some contempt for Europe, but also that this has been increasing. How do you explain this given that this was the main partnership of the United States for decades? Where does this contempt come from?

Doctorow: 20:41
Well, Europeans in leadership positions today are contemptible. Objectively speaking, this is the weakest set of leaders of major European countries that we’ve seen since the beginning of the European Union. There were intellectuals, there were high-level, well-educated people who, for one reason or another, occupied positions of power. There were people who were of extraordinary personal quality and courage, who headed major European states, not minor European states like Slovakia and Hungary.

21:23
They’re gone. The leaders of the main European countries are one-by-one weak, inexperienced, they are cut off from the world at large, and they never were deeply engaged. Or they’re highly educated, enormously superficial people like Macron. Macron was the French equivalent of Sunak. Same background and same utter superficiality. They are– they were hyped. They were sold to the public by parties on the side, not least of them being the CIA.

22:06
And we’ve gotten– well, there’s a whole sequence of leaders in France who were installed essentially by the CIA by sidelining and destroying the political careers of the intelligent, effective, normal political candidates who otherwise should have won. And this is, France is the most egregious case, the most obvious case, but other countries as well.

The– Merz does not enjoy popularity as he’s about to assume the chancellorship. And how and why would he? The man is cold as can be. His program is built on war. And it’s– many Germans may want to revisit World War II out of the never-ending revanchism that has never been burned out of the country.

23:07
But nonetheless, the majority of Germans don’t want to revisit World War II and to go in a face-to-face with the Russians. So Germany has a serious problem. Now, it’s not– maybe we’ll be lucky and Baerbock will be sent off to the UN. But that such a person ever could occupy that position, tells you why Americans, particularly sophisticated Americans, whether they speak with hillbilly accent or not, would look upon Europe with contempt.

Diesen: 23:43
When you see the German military leaders, all the way up to generals, the way they spoke during the invasion of Kursk, where they almost celebrated, well, not almost, they did celebrate, saying that this is a humiliation of Russia.

They haven’t seen this since World War II. This is quite extraordinary. It’s hard to believe that it’s real that this kind of comments are still made. But on the topic of, I guess, political immaturity, what do you make of the European war plans at the moment? I don’t think people appreciate how dangerous the situation is.

Europe with its supply weapons, America as well, of course, has been contributing to the deaths of tens of thousands of Russians. We have the foreign policy chief openly threatening to destroy Russia, break it into smaller pieces. They casually speak about war against Russia, again, the world’s largest nuclear power. And all of this at a time when the Europeans do not have a proper army and they no longer have the clear backing of the United States any more. So Europe could face a very angry Russia soon, which it sees as an absolute necessity to restore its deterrent.

25:02
As we learn now from the “New York Times” article that this has been mostly a NATO war against Russia since the invasion. I mean, this is on black and white. So again, it’s very hard to believe that this is real, this rhetoric coming out. Do you see this as merely a bluff or do you see evidence of them effectively losing their minds here? There seems to be some collective irrationality here.

25:37
Not entirely. I think the Russians are partly to blame for this delusionary thinking in Western Europe. They have not struck back. Their red lines have been crossed repeatedly. They did not strike back. Having a lawyer as your head of state has advantages and disadvantages. Mr. Putin did not use the moments that were before him to punish Europe directly for its crossing red lines. And the result was the widespread thinking in the West that they didn’t respond because they’re weak.

26:24
That, unfortunately, has fed into this delusionary thinking that we see around us today. And I cannot say that the Russians did not contribute to that very unfortunate end result. The Chinese are playing a different game. I don’t– if anybody thinks that the Chinese will not use an attack on Iran to take over Taiwan within a matter of days or weeks, they really need to have their head examined. Because the Chinese by their very swift response to Trump’s tariffs, they have shown themselves to be militant. They have stated publicly, they made references publicly to the century of shame, to their having been colonized, and that they will not put up with this type of diktat coming from the likes of Donald Trump or from anybody else.

27:33
Unfortunately, the Russians did not behave in such a manner. And so they encouraged– this is not over one or two cases, but over the last three years– they encouraged a misunderstanding of why they were being reasonable and not hitting back. The Chinese will hit back, whatever the consequence. And that is a different game.

Diesen: 28:01
I think this was always the dilemma for the Russians. If they would retaliate against NATO, on one hand they could risk escalating and triggering World War III. If they do not, then as you said, you will embolden NATO. And indeed it’s what we see in our newspapers as well, that “while Russia doesn’t defend its red lines, they’re weak; we can do what we want”. So this is the usual dilemma, I guess, in terms of response. But that’s what I meant if the United States is pulling a bit back, Russia’s calculations in terms of how hard it can hit back, I would assume that this would change.

28:38
I wanted to ask you also about this limited ceasefire, because I’m not sure what the purpose of it exactly was. If it was trust building or if they were going to add to it to move towards a more comprehensive peace agreement, but it consisted of not hitting energy infrastructure and also resuming the Black Sea grain corridor for commercial vessels. Well, it doesn’t seem like it’s been a great success. I think this would be an understatement. But what is it that went wrong with it? And what are the, why the ramifications of this failed, limited ceasefire?

29:24
It failed because the Europeans grabbed upon it as another means of continuing the war. Until Trump put out his ceasefire proposal and the first meetings were held with regard to it, the Europeans were saying, “No, no ceasefire, The Russians have to pull back, take their troops out of all of Ukraine and so forth, and have to pay reparations” and blah blah blah.

And then suddenly they saw, “Hmm, the Russians are not keen to conclude the ceasefire, and we can use that.” So the Europeans all seized on this ceasefire proposal that was under preliminary discussion between the Russians, United States and the Ukrainians as a means of continuing the war because you see, the Russians don’t want peace.

30:19
So it took on a life of its own. When from the Russian standpoint, the ceasefire agreement was an irrelevancy; it was only to be an appendage to an understanding between the United States and Russia about what the endgame would be. How would the war end? With who getting what? That apparently has been under discussion. I have no doubts that there is far-reaching agreement between the United States and Russia on what the end game looks like.

30:49
But obviously, nobody has signed on a dotted line. Therefore, the Russians cannot consider it as a given. And it has not been dictated by Washington to Kiev on a take it or leave it basis, yet. That may come as we come closer to the date, April 20th. But from the Russians standpoint, the ceasefire by itself had no value at all.

Trust building, yes, but other things had to happen in the same timeframe. And these were identified during the first meeting that Witkoff had with the Russians in Saudi Arabia. It was the reopening of diplomatic channels, the restoration of the rights and capabilities of the respective embassies and restoration of consulates in both countries. That was to go in the same timeframe.

31:52
Not much progress has been made by the way, on the latter point. The Americans have spoken about technical facilities for the proper functioning of the embassy. But they have not spoken about something that the Russians considered rightly very important: restoration of their property rights. The Russian embassy in San Francisco was confiscated. It was sealed. American intelligence agents went through it and sealed it all.

The Russian rest and recreation dachas in Long Island and somewhere around Washington were seized and the Russians say give it back. It’s a diplomatic property, it should be in their hands. So these issues are still under discussion and are quite important.

Diesen: 32:46
Well my last question is just what do you see happening on the battlefield? Because if diplomacy is not moving forward, one can assume that Russia would then lean more into the military option of resolving the war. Do you see any big trends worth noting?

Doctorow:
Well, it’s still unclear when or if the Russians will stage a major offensive to wipe out the Ukrainian army in Donbass. That isn’t clear. There is discussion of it. I believe that the appointment of one General Popov to head the storm operations is indicative that a major assault is being considered, if not planned.

33:41
But otherwise, the Russians are very busy, liberating the last 30, 40 square kilometres of Kursk. They’ve got two settlements on the border within Kursk that are partly held by Ukrainians, and they’re still flushing them out. These are heavily fortified. And then at the same time, to divert attention from that, the Ukrainians stage another border incursion in the next-over oblast. So the rest of that is in slow progress, progress but not with wild speed.

And of course, day by day, the Russians are moving on the Donbass frontline as advancing, but not with overwhelming speed or results. Pokrovsk still has not been taken. It is the single largest logistics hub supplying the front lines of Ukraine and Donbass, and it is still under challenge by the Russians, but being held essentially by the Ukrainians. So this moves, but not with blinding speed.

Diesen: 35:03
Well, I’ve seen some reports about huge movements of Russian equipment and troops. Again, the fog of war, it’s unclear how accurate some of the information is, but it appears to be the case. So as we’re approaching Trump’s deadline or losing his patience with this, I fear all hell could break loose in terms of a military option being intensified.

So anyways, Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, thank you again so much for your time. It’s always excellent to speak with you.

Doctorow: 35:42
It was a pleasure.

The brief summary that Professor Diesen has attached to this 35-minute interview reads:

“The US seeks to readjust to a multipolar world, and Europe’s relevance and priority have declined. Beyond Europe’s efforts to sabotage Trump’s peace initiative in Ukraine and the tariff wars, there is a deeper contempt for Europe that is no longer concealed.”

Why does Washington show its contempt for Europe?  Simply put, because the European leaders, especially those in charge of the largest and most powerful European states are…contemptible.  They may have solid post graduate degrees, but they are superficial thinkers. Macron, like former British Prime Minister Sunak, put his service within U.S. brokerage houses on his CV but he has no analytical skills in the political sphere and changes his foreign policy posture with the kind of volatility that we associate with Donald Trump, while lacking a broad vision that Team Trump has of the future Great Power driven world order.

 A whole succession of capable French candidate presidents going back to Dominique Strauss-Kahn (2012), to Francois Fillon (2017) were sidelined, no doubt with CIA assistance, to bring to power the dimwit Francois Hollande, followed by the chameleon, Emmanuel Macron. Neither has been up to the challenges of the day both domestically and in international affairs, so that France as a country has sunk under them. What we have seen a week ago in the court-ruling barring the leading French candidate Marine Le Pen from participating in the next presidential elections is a further confirmation that French democracy is completely degraded.

Germany, the other ‘locomotive’ in the European Union tandem, is doing no better.  Chancellor Olaf Scholz was an empty vessel who oversaw the deindustrialization of his country.  The incoming chancellor Friedrich Merz is a vessel half filled with war mania and not much else.

Of course, the interview covered the waterfront of issues relating to the American-EU frictions or confrontations about how/whether the Ukraine war should end soon with Russia as the clear victor.

Transcript submitted by a reader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYtbF28aIFY

Napolitano: 0:32
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for “Judging Freedom”. Today is Wednesday, April 9th, 2025. Professor Gilbert Doctorow joins us now. Professor Doctorow, always a pleasure, my dear friend, and thank you for accommodating this schedule. Does the Kremlin trust Donald Trump?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 0:55
With reservations. It’s not a question of his personality, which is volatile, and they’ve known about it for a long, long time. It was his personality that caused the Kremlin to be against his election in 2016. They preferred a known quantity to an unknown, volatile person. And that is his situation which concerns them.

And I’ve seen on Russian television the last five, six days, a change in the way they treat Trump. That is to say less respectful, calling out the contradictions that undermine his credibility as a negotiating partner. For example, going from three weeks ago to speaking of reducing the Pentagon budget by 8% a year, and a couple of days ago, talking to Netanyahu, boasting that it’s now going to a trillion dollars, which is 150 billion above the last budget amount.

These contradictions are now coming in for criticism. And the reason, the underlying reason for criticism, is they fear that his weakness, after his having unleashed this tsunami of tariffs, that his domestic weakness jeopardizes his ability to bring through a rapprochement with their country.

Napolitano: 2:26
Very interesting. You mentioned that the Kremlin was rooting for Mrs. Clinton in 2016 on the theory that she was a known quantity. I understand that. Was the Kremlin rooting for Kamala Harris six months ago?

Well, President Putin said clearly that he was rooting for Biden. And then by– one could assume, that he passed that along to Kamala Harris. Even more so, the reason for the rooting was discussed on television a night ago. This was in “The Great Game” that is moderated by a couple of people, but the principal moderator is Vyacheslav Nikonov, who is a Duma member, a very senior person, very close to the Kremlin. And Nikonov is saying that Trump is unforeseeable, that he could do as much damage and create as much chaos as he’s doing now.

3:40
They were rooting for Biden, you could say most likely for Harris, because they thought that their election would bring about the self-destruction of the United States. And now to their amazement, Trump seems to be doing a still better job of it.

But I’d like to put this in brackets. Russians are enjoying the situation, whichever way it goes, because they’re ready for whichever way it goes. And despite their critical remarks about Trump, last night’s talk show also brought out the remark that the forthcoming meeting, the direct or indirect, whichever it actually is, between the United States and Iran at the level of foreign minister on the Ukrainian side, sorry, on the Iranian side, at the level of Witkoff on the American side, that would take place in Oman, was brokered by Russia.

4:38
So Russia is doing its best to prevent the situation in the Middle East from escalating to an all-out war between the United States, Israel, and Iran.

Napolitano:
But how do you, how do the elites view Trump? I mean, he’s caused a six-trillion-dollar loss in shareholder value. He’s professed, all this in the past week, he’s professed impatience with President Putin, even using a barnyard phrase, he’s pissed off at him. And he keeps threatening to bomb Tehran. How do the elites in Moscow take that?

Doctorow: 5:21
They’re not happy with these contradictions and with these excesses in his behavior and his bullying. At the same time, they don’t walk away from him, because he’s the best hope that they’ve had in 50 years or 80 years and coming to something– well, let’s go back to Nixon, the best hope since Nixon of having a detente between the two countries. And so they are not, they were enjoying the oddities about his behavior and the damage that he’s doing to American credibility globally. But there are, and I hear on Russian television, statements about his tariff policy, which are far more calm, restrained, and reasonable than most things you hear on major American media.

6:07
They are viewing this as something which was sold under a false name, because if it had been sold under its proper name, it would have caused even more damage to the American economy than the tariffs. Namely, the real cause is the imminent financial collapse of the United States, if it had continued on its merry way of unlimited borrowing by raising the federal budget limits regularly as Biden did and suffering the continuing one-trillion-dollar-plus current account deficits which are finally financed by borrowing.

So from the standpoint of the Russians, even the negative side, that the market, “Oh, the market will go down, oh, there’ll be a recession.” When the Russians are saying something, you don’t hear an American commentary, but there’s a lot of logic to it. Trump will not be bothered if there is a recession, because that will drastically cut the imports.

Napolitano: 7:09
This presumes that the 100-percent tariffs on Chinese goods will be paid, that is, that will not result in a diminution of the demand for Chinese goods. I mean, is Joe six-pack with his MAGA hat going to pay 60 dollars for a toaster that normally costs 30?

Doctorow:
Maybe 30 was too little. Look, I look around me at [sound glitch] white Coutts, and particularly at these small household items that are on sale here in Belgium, and which are almost all coming from China. And the prices are ridiculous.

Napolitano:
Ridiculously high, or low?

Doctorow:
Low. When I paid $50 for a microwave, that’s ridiculous. When I paid $50 for a Canon printer, that’s ridiculous. These are half of, maybe four times less than the price could or should be if they were to be at levels competitive with European or other global supplies.

Napolitano:
I would imagine you’re in a minority view there. I would imagine most consumers are happy to pay $50 for a printer.

Doctorow:
How many printers do you buy a year? How many microwaves you buy? That will not be reflected in the consumer shopping basket.

Here in the, let’s say in the States, yes, of course, the avocados are coming from Mexico. Yes, the February strawberries are coming from Mexico. Excuse me, who buys avocados? Is it the poor people who can barely make ends meet, or is it your upper middle class and the food fashionists? This is– who is the criticism coming from?

It’s coming from wealthy people. The media are not poor folks. And they are making the hullabaloo about all this. But when I ask where is the– who’s gonna be paying for all this? Poor people or rich people? I put my money on the rich people paying. If you buy a French bottle of cognac for 80 euros, and it goes up to 160, what difference does it make? Because if you’re buying that bottle–

Napolitano: 9:13
I don’t drink cognac, but if I were into it, I wouldn’t pay double the price. It would sit on a dock at Port Newark where there still are 100,000 bottles of Stolichnaya vodka waiting to be distributed.

But that goes back to the Joe Biden era. How do we know that the Russians played this careful and delicate role of putting the Americans and the Iranians together? And I wonder how Bibi Netanyahu reacted to that. I know you read “The Economist” as I do. “The Economist” Has a great piece out last night– I don’t know how they know this unless somebody was in the room –reporting that Netanyahu’s trip to the United States on Monday was a dismal failure from his perspective.

He thought he was going to talk Trump into saying something antagonistic about President Erdogan of Turkey, and Trump said, “Oh no, he’s my friend.” He thought he could talk Trump into preparing for war against Iran, and Trump says, “Oh no, we’re going to negotiate.” And Bibi said, “Negotiate with whom?” And Trump said, “Directly with them.”

Doctorow:
Well, what you’re calling up is precisely what I heard on the BBC of all people yesterday morning.

Napolitano:
Wow.

Doctorow:
So “The Economist” may be a little bit exceptional. The BBC is the British government speaking. And they said exactly what you said, that there was shock on the face of Netanyahu, and that his visit was a loss.

Napolitano: 10:46
So this is a side of Trump which libertarians and small-government people and pro-peace people cheer on, that he could say to somebody like Netanyahu whose slaughter in Gaza he’s financing, “No, no, no. Hold off, Bibi. We’re going to try and talk first.”

That old Winston Churchill line of “Jaw Jaw is better than war war”, meaning it’s better to talk than to fight, and you don’t fight until after you’ve exhausted all the talking. This is the anti-Joe Biden and the anti-Tony Blinken style of diplomacy. Does the Kremlin respect its US counterparts? I mean, can you put Marco Rubio and Sergey Lavrov in the same category as diplomats?

Doctorow: 11:44
No, you can’t. But Rubio is, first of all, he’s not really controlling the foreign policy. That’s coming out of Donald Trump directly with Witkoff. He has a more decorative function than an actual controlling function. So his– and the Russians appreciate that fully, they want to deal with Witkoff.

Not because Rubio has no experience, but simply they want to deal with the person who has the ear of the president, and that person is Wilkoff.

Napolitano:
Right. What do you expect will happen on May 9th? Has the Kremlin announced if Trump is going to come, or– they haven’t announced it, or we would know it. I know President Xi is going to be there. This is the 80th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany in Russia.

It’s effectively the end of World War II. It’s a grand event as I understand it. I mean, I’m very low on the totem pole; I’ve been invited to it. And I know the President of the United States has been invited. I would imagine the Kremlin would love to have him there.

Doctorow:
Well, it depends on whether there’s some success in reaching a final agreement between the United States and Russia over the end game of the war. Not about the ceasefire. The ceasefire is almost irrelevant. It’s the end game. I think they’re close to that.

13:10
And then indeed they might invite him. But I think that for timing’s purposes, it probably is better if this take place in June, when he will not be under the shadow of Xi. Something was said in passing by Trump during his meeting with Wang Yi the other day, at least this last week, the Chinese foreign minister, And he said that Mr. Xi would be the highest guest at the May 9th.

Now just a moment, Modi is also coming. That was not an offhand remark. That was a signal. I think that Russians are telling the Indians, hey, look, the Chinese are doing a lot more for us than you are. And so Mr. Xi will be the most important guest at the May 9 celebrations.

14:06
Under those circumstances, I think Trump could reasonably decide it’s not the moment to be there.

Napolitano:
But you have either told me or agreed with the concept that Trump and Putin are looking for another Yalta. They’re all looking for a grand reset. What better time? China, India, Russia, the United States, all you need is Brazil and you have your Yalta.

Yes, but I think it has to be eased into, because right now frictions in China are so high that it would be– they don’t want fireworks at the 9th of May celebration. Or at least they don’t want them to be taking place before midnight There’s another opportunity, and that is the June 18th- 21st when there will be the International Economic Forum in St. Petersburg. The Russians are already expecting a very large business delegation. I think they would be very happy to prepare for a very large US government delegation.

15:10
Indeed, that would not be a Yalta of the four powers sitting together, but it could prepare for that Yalta. I would just add, parenthetically, that I hope to see that, I expect to see that firsthand because I signed up to be present of the Forum.

Napolitano:
Oh, that’s terrific. Does the Kremlin believe that the US is preparing for war with Iran. So in other words, stated differently, when Trump says “We will bomb Tehran worse than they can imagine”, I’m paraphrasing, how does the Kremlin react to that?

Doctorow: 15:48
They take it very seriously. And this is precisely because as we’ve discussed in the past, Russia is not ready to intervene in the war directly. They’re too busy with their cleanup operations in Ukraine. But for that reason, they placed all emphasis on prevention rather than reaction. And this brokerage of the meeting that will take place in Oman this coming weekend is an example of that.

The Chinese of course are really hopping mad at the States. And they are certainly ready to, not just to help prevent, but to react to anything that the United States should do by way of attacking Iran. And that is a hundred percent.

Napolitano: 16:35
What about the Kremlin’s reaction to Hegseth’s saber rattling in Japan, basically saying to the Chinese, don’t even think about Taiwan. I mean, it’s almost inconceivable.

It is inconceivable that the United States could repel a Chinese military effort to take over Taiwan. It would result in the destruction of Taiwan, I would think. But what do the Russians think when Hegseth makes those, what I would say are thoughtless and needlessly provocative, even absurd statements?

Doctorow: 17:13
I agree entirely with your characterization of the statements. At the same time, we’re all operating under a set of limitations because of the way the United States and the other major players are conducting themselves today.

That’s to say, there’s a lot going on, Judge, that we are not privy to, and we have no right to be privy to, and that contradicts what we read in the papers and we hear from our colleagues every day. There is something going on, as we just learned with respect to the revival of talks between Iran and the United States. There are things going on behind our backs. And as I said, we have no right to that information, but it puts us in an embarrassing situation, since we are making our judgments with only partial information.

Napolitano: 18:07
What is the Kremlin’s position on Trump’s avaricious attitude toward Greenland?

Doctorow:
They’re amused. This is a subject of discussion on the talk shows, showing how Trump is keen on destroying capitalism and in reverting to kind of predator practices of the United States that arose early in its history. They’re not shocked. They are mildly surprised that this is going on. Of course, they condemn it.

But they find amusement in looking at this kind of behavior from the perspective of Marxist ideology, Marxist critiques. Remember the people who are now the presenters and hosts on the Russian state television are of a certain age. And went to school, they all had to go through these courses of Marxism-Leninism. So now with a certain sense of humor, they see what justification there was in that Marxism and Leninism for the present conduct of the United States of America.

Napolitano: 19:24
Unbelievable. I shouldn’t say unbelievable, but it’s a remarkable bit of bitter irony. How much longer does the Kremlin expect the special military operation to continue and is President Putin under any public pressure, there is public pressure in Russia, you’ve told us that, is President Putin under any public pressure to get this over with?

Doctorow:
Surely he is. Of course, this would not be in the newspapers, very rarely would be in some social media critical of the way things are being conducted. You hear reference to this in Putin’s own speeches when he speaks, when he does mention it occasionally, that there is a restlessness, and he tries to explain himself why he’s proceeding prudently and not waging an all-out offensive in any one place.

As you– this is proper, because after all, as I’ve said several times, and which runs against the general understanding of the way the war is running, that the imminent collapse of the Ukrainian army is an incorrect evaluation. When you listen day by day to what the Russian reporters are saying from the front, there is a very active Ukrainian electronic warfare, drone warfare, which inhibits big movements by the Russian army. And they are moving forward incrementally. They’re taking chunks of Kursk back. They’re only less than 50 square kilometers of Kursk.

21:02
At the same time, they’re now fighting offensives, attacks in the neighboring oblast where the Ukrainians have brought in fresh troops and have been rampaging at border towns. So the war is not over. The war is proceeding even if the Russians are making very serious advances. We’ve heard about several places, Chasov Yar was one of them. This is a town which is partly taken by the Russians.

This is a major juncture of transportation, but hasn’t been taken yet completely. And so it is with one or two other of these nexus towns that are key to supplying the Ukrainian front. They are still under attack and not taken. So we have to, we can’t get ahead of ourselves that Mr. Zelensky is, or his generals, are fighting back.

They aren’t just raising their hands and running away. This, of course, has to shape our understanding of where things are going. But it would change dramatically if Trump simply stopped supplying anything to Ukraine That would shorten the period to the end of this war dramatically.

Napolitano:
Is that a card that Donald Trump has to play in his negotiations with President Putin, whether it’s over grand reset or peace in Ukraine?

Doctorow: 22:35
Well, I think so. I think that both sides are aware of that. But if they reach an agreement on how they should look at the end of the day when the papers are to be signed by someone rather on behalf of Ukraine, then they can agree on when Trump will stop warfare aid.

Napolitano: 22:54
Professor Gilbert Doctorow, a pleasure, my dear friend. We’ve been all over the place, but I deeply appreciate you letting me do that and pick your brain on all these topics.

And keep sending me your writings. They’re very instructive to me as to what your thinking is and what information you’re getting to us. So I look forward to seeing you next week, my friend.

Doctorow:
Thanks so much.

Napolitano:
Of course. Coming up later today at 1 30 this afternoon, Pepe Escobar; at three o’clock, Phil Giraldi; at four o’clock, the always worth waiting for Max Blumenthal.

23:30
Judge Napolitano for “Judging Freedom”.

In every human endeavor that goes on for years there are those bold folks who come in early and there are those fools who come in at close to the bitter end, unaware of how others will see the futility of their arrival as late-comers.

Our Belgians are clearly in the second category.

In the last two days, Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever took a government and business delegation to Kiev to show solidarity with a regime that is living its last days and to offer a billion euros of military assistance to Ukraine. This billion can only come at the expense of the overtaxed working-class Belgians who are now engaged in national strike actions against the radical hike in retirement age that De Wever is imposing on metro drivers and other transport personnel. Do you really want your bus or tram to be driven by a 67-year-old? I don’t. And his cost cutting will extend to health and other social services, though the particulars are not yet spelled out.

But back to Kiev.

If you consult yesterday or today’s French speaking national newspapers you will only find a very small article on the Belgian official visit to Kiev. Given the political situation here, I don’t think De Wever wants his visit to be widely discussed in Brussels. I learned about it from yesterday’s Russian state television, which showed video clips of the prime minister, defense and foreign affairs ministers in Kiev shaking hands with Zelensky and his boys, smiling broadly and looking very pleased with themselves. They were joined by top representatives of Belgium’s arms industry.

All of which brings us to the question of the one billion euros per year that De Wever pledged to provide to Kiev. Will that be cash? Very unlikely. What it is almost certain to be is arms of one kind or another manufactured in Belgium. It will be a handsome gift to the Belgian industry at the moment when it is poised to expand in keeping with the European directives preparing the continent for war with Russia by 2030 or before.

Without further comment, I say to Team De Wever: ‘have a nice day’!

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

9. April 2025

Der belgische Premierminister Bart De Wever reist mit seiner Delegation nach Kiew

Bei jedem menschlichen Unterfangen, das sich über Jahre hinzieht, gibt es die mutigen Leute, die früh kommen, und es gibt die Narren, die erst kurz vor knapp kommen, ohne zu wissen, wie andere die Sinnlosigkeit ihres Zuspätkommens sehen werden.

Unsere Belgier gehören eindeutig zur zweiten Kategorie.

In den letzten beiden Tagen reiste der belgische Premierminister Bart De Wever mit einer Regierungs- und Wirtschaftsdelegation nach Kiew, um Solidarität mit einem Regime zu zeigen, das seine letzten Tage erlebt, und um der Ukraine eine Milliarde Euro Militärhilfe anzubieten. Diese Milliarde kann nur auf Kosten der überbeanspruchten belgischen Arbeiterklasse gehen, die sich derzeit in landesweiten Streikaktionen gegen die radikale Erhöhung des Rentenalters engagiert, die De Wever U-Bahn-Fahrern und anderem Transportpersonal aufzwingt. Wollen Sie wirklich, dass Ihr Bus oder Ihre Straßenbahn von einem 67-Jährigen gefahren wird? Ich nicht. Und seine Kosteneinsparungen werden sich auch auf das Gesundheitswesen und andere soziale Dienste erstrecken, auch wenn die Einzelheiten noch nicht bekannt sind.

Aber zurück nach Kiew.

Wenn Sie die französischsprachigen Zeitungen von gestern oder heute lesen, werden Sie nur einen sehr kleinen Artikel über den offiziellen Besuch Belgiens in Kiew finden. Angesichts der politischen Lage hier glaube ich nicht, dass De Wever möchte, dass sein Besuch in Brüssel breit diskutiert wird. Ich habe davon aus dem gestrigen russischen Staatsfernsehen erfahren, das Videoclips des Premierministers und der Verteidigungs- und Außenminister in Kiew zeigte, wie sie Selensky und seinen Jungs die Hand schütteln, breit lächeln und sehr zufrieden mit sich selbst aussehen. Zu ihnen gesellten sich führende Vertreter der belgischen Rüstungsindustrie.

All dies bringt uns zu der Frage nach der 1 Milliarde Euro pro Jahr, die De Wever Kiew versprochen hat. Wird das Bargeld sein? Sehr unwahrscheinlich. Was es mit ziemlicher Sicherheit sein wird, sind Waffen der einen oder anderen Art, die in Belgien hergestellt werden. Es wird ein schönes Geschenk für die belgische Industrie sein, die sich gerade anschickt, im Einklang mit den europäischen Richtlinien, die den Kontinent auf einen Krieg mit Russland bis 2030 oder früher vorbereiten, zu expandieren.

Ohne weitere Kommentare sage ich dem Team De Wever: „Ich wünsche Ihnen einen schönen Tag!“

‘Judging Freedom’ edition of 9 April: Did the Kremlin Underestimate Trump?

Our chat went off in many directions.  I was given every opportunity to pepper the discussion with a perspective on who will pay for the tariffs that runs against what you hear not only on mainstream but largely on alternative media as well, namely that the tariffs will hit the wealthy Americans more than it will the poor folks, and that the shopping basket measures of inflation will be little affected.   You may disagree, but do hear me out

Transcript submitted by a reader

https://www.urmedium.net/c/presstv/133259

PressTV: 0:00
China and the European Union have promised retaliation against the US trade war, following President Donald Trump’s threat of additional tariffs.

Lin Jian: 0:11
China will take the necessary measures to firmly safeguard its legitimate and lawful rights and interests. If the US side ignores the interests of the two countries in the international community and insists on fighting a tariff war or a trade war, China will fight to the end.

Olof Gill, EC:
Two things are happening. The first is our proposed response to the US steel and aluminium tariffs. That is being voted on by member states tomorrow. If they give us a mandate to move forward with those countermeasures, I expect that will happen early next week.

Also early next week, as the second phase of our response to US tariffs, this time on cars and reciprocal tariffs, we will basically be presenting our plan in the same way as we did with with steel and aluminium.

Press TV: 1:07
This after Trump’s threat of an additional 50 percent tariff on Chinese imports. Trump also rejected the EU zero for zero tariff offer by demanding that the block buy 350 billion dollars worth of energy from Washington to get tariff relief. Trump’s sweeping tariffs have shaken markets globally, with many major indexes experiencing the sharpest decline in years.

1:37
We’re going to take a look at the global effects of these tariffs in this part of our news program. I’d like to welcome a couple of guests to discuss this topic. Daniel Patrick Welch, political commentator out of Boston, and Gilbert Doctorow, independent international affairs analyst out of Brussels. Thank you both for being with me. I’m going to start it off in Boston and Daniel. Your thoughts that– tell me, what do you think the actual goal is? What is Trump trying to accomplish by doing what he is doing?

DP Welch: 2:15
Well, I think it’s important to distinguish between what he’s trying to accomplish and what he’s trying to pretend to accomplish. The idea of restructuring manufacturing and having, as Lutnick says, the Commerce Secretary, millions of Americans back screwing iPhones together is a pipe dream and a fantasy aimed at shoring up the base of the American working class to make them support it when it is purely against their interests.

The real goal is to shift more money to the ruling class, as always, and to kind of reimagine some Smoot-Hawley nightmare where they will control, again, the bulk of international trade, and with these fake ideas of tariffs versus simple math. “Well, we’re gonna reciprocate, we’re gonna give these–“

That’s not how it works. It works with trade imbalances. And there’s a formula for that, and there always has been. There’s not– and so he’s using muscle, again, like the Don. They should not call him the Donald. They should call him the Don. He is a mafioso and trying to bully the rest of the world into doing the US bidding. And it is bound to fail late in the game, and it will incite more retaliation than ever before.

PressTV: 3:54
Gilbert, your thoughts on this; where do you see this going? I mean, I’m sure that Donald Trump, obviously he has economists that he has talked to that he’s consulted.

We have seen the stock markets around the world taking a hit. Of course, Trump says that that’s good and that’s what needs to happen right now. I mean, your thoughts, is he getting expert opinion? Is there a possibility that this would work to benefit Americans, as Trump says?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 4:31
The rollout of these tariffs was given one explanation. This is reindustrialization, bringing jobs back to the States. That is a convenient cover for what he’s doing. Of course, many economists have explained, just as my fellow panelist said, that to bring back industry is not such a simple matter, and it doesn’t happen overnight, even if Mr. Trump is talking about several trillion dollars of investments in the States that various companies have promised to make.

The reality is different, and it’s much more dangerous than Mr. Trump wanted to make public. This was introduced to avoid the financial collapse of the United States. That is the reason. The United States has these enormous trade deficits which have to be financed. The United States has an immense federal deficit, which has been extended, increased, each year of the Biden administration to gargantuan proportions that are an enormous burden on future generations. The United States has taken this action to cut its losses.

PressTV: 5:56
OK, explain that. You’ve mentioned that a couple of times. Explain what you mean, because what people are seeing right now is actually that the US is going to take a hit as well as many countries around the world. So what do you mean when you say that the US is doing this to cut its losses?

Doctorow: 6:15
If the United States take a hit and if there is a recession, that also plays into Donald Trump’s game. The point is, if there’s a recession, the imports, the consumption will go down sharply. And that is the essential problem. The United States has been living way above its means because of the cheap supplies coming in from Asia in particular. If he’s right and if his tariffs work, then there will be pain to pay, but not by the poor people. The main consumers who will be affected will be the ones who are buying 70,000- and 100,000-euro cars from Germany.

7:07
That’s not your average worker. They will be the ones who are buying the 30-, 40-, 50-euro bottles of French wine or of cognac. They can afford if it goes up to 70 and 100 and 150 euros. It doesn’t make any difference to them. For the average working person who now buys a microwave oven for 50 dollars– which is a ridiculously low price, thanks to Chinese dumping in the States– so if he pays 100 after Trump’s tariffs, it’s still less than half the price of a microwave made in the States or in Western Europe and sold.

The point is, it is not– people who are buying their groceries in the supermarkets will not see the inflation that Mr. Trump’s tariffs are creating. The wealthy people will, and they can afford it. Therefore, the pain in the States is vastly exaggerated, because the people who are writing about it are the ones who will be paying for it all, not you and me. It’s a very, this is a very difficult thing to get your arms around.

8:18
I don’t agree at all with the fellow panelist that the poor people and the folks will be paying for the rich people. Not at all. For once, it’ll be the other way around.

PressTV: 8:27
So are you saying, Gilbert, that this is good for Americans at the end of the day?

Doctorow:
It’s good for America. The country will go under financially if it doesn’t do something drastic. Nobody expected Trump to be revolutionary, but he is. None of the preceding presidents had the guts to do what he has done.

PressTV: 8:50
OK. Daniel, your thoughts. So Gilbert is saying that actually this is something very positive, and it’s good for America. You’re in the United States. Tell me overall the general perspective in the United States right now regarding these tariffs.

Welch:
Well, I think that my fellow guest has made good points about the difference between perception and reality. The Democratic Party wants to launch an attack against this as simply evil, and it does have specific economic tailwind that has followed it through the ages.

Of course, protectionism has been a major part of industry since the Industrial Revolution. But if you look at that history, you have what happened when you incite what is called the Kinderberger spiral, where you have tariffs leading to reciprocation, reciprocation leading to more tariffs, et cetera. And between 1929 and 1933, you had a 67-percent drop in international trade. The idea that this doesn’t affect people at the bottom, I think, is not correct.

10:18
And he said the idea that it will take years. That is the whole point. Billionaires don’t give a damn about how long it takes or even rich people. They don’t care as long as they don’t want to buy an $80,000 car next year. But you can have a supply shock that is like the pandemic that comes from this kind of upheaval that hurts the bottom for the time being.

And the time being for most of us is all we have. We don’t have 10 years to rebuild the infrastructure that has been outsourced since 1980. There’s no way that you can have these factories up and running and recreate manufacturing in this country overnight. That can’t and won’t happen. It’s not their goal for it to happen. And it will, yes indeed, the same way all changes hurt people at the bottom, without any acknowledgement from the people in the middle and at the top. This is dangerous, and–

PressTV: 11:25
Well, Daniel, let me just jump in here. I mean, Gilbert said that actually what Trump is doing is courageous, that no one else has tried to deal with this, because we’re talking about a thirt-six trillion dollar US debt right now. He’s saying that something has to be done. I mean, your thoughts about that side of things?

Welch: 11:44
Well, I think that what he’s doing in effect is accelerating the trend toward de-dollarization and systemic staving off of American hegemony. What these economies are doing is finally responding, finally responding to the system that has shut them out or kept them in check. And now they have no reason not to, because the push is coming from the other side.

PressTV:
OK.

Welch:
It’s trade imbalances that matter. If trade from China goes down by 20 percent, then that could be more than they’re actually exporting now. They’re at $510 billion. If this costs $506 billion, then you’re already out of whack It’s not the simple math of “He had a 20-percent tariff, therefore. I’m going to put a 20-percent tariff.” It depends on the difference in your trade.

Yes. Yes, Gilbert is right about the the debt, but that has been the swan song of these Milton Friedman economists for a generation: that “we have to get the national debt under control and pay for it now, and therefore we’re going to make all these changes that are going to hurt the average worker.” Moving a microwave from 50 to 100 dollars is death to a lot–

PressTV: 13:21
All right, I would love to continue this conversation. It’s been interesting, but unfortunately we’re out of time. I appreciate both of you being with me; David Patrick Welch, political commentator out of Boston; and Gilbert Doctorow, independent international affairs analyst out of Brussels.