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

I have not commented on this heretofore, but it is high time to say that currently there is a lot of sensational, fake news on youtube with regard to the risks of war erupting between Russia and NATO.

Many of these sensational video postings come from Indian newspapers. But among them, there can be postings of a more serious nature, like the one cited here:

This one is especially interesting because it highlights the risk of armed clash in the Baltic and not from what Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron are doing to provoke the Russians with their ‘coalition of the willing’ or with the arsonist Friedrich Merz and his plans for sending Taurus long range cruise missiles to Kiev with the objective of destroying the Kerch (Crimean) bridge and other major logistical infrastructure of Russia.

The latest problems in the Baltic region are being created by Estonia, which in the past week seized an empty oil tanker on its way to Petersburg. The tanker in question is one of the Russian ‘shadow fleet’ that quite legally have been carrying Russian oil exports and so resisted European sanctions intended to cripple the Russian economy.  More to the point, Estonia has just passed a law allowing its “navy” to seize, divert and even sink Russian commercial vessels in the Baltic which Estonia deems to threaten its security.  The video above correctly sets out the issues.

Aside from the official protests and warnings from the Russian Ministry of Affairs spokeswoman Zakharova that the video exhibits, the Russian talk shows have been devoting attention to the Estonian provocations. Last night’s Solovyov program gave the subject ample time, with the host suggesting that Russia is ready to send military vessels to accompany its commercial ships through the Baltic waters and is ready not only to sink whatever navy Estonia thinks it has and to level the country to the ground.

We can assume that the authorities in Tallinn are watching these Russian shows and are unlikely to take actions that would precipitate the Russian response that has been sketched for them.

I close this brief note with one other observation from last night’s Solovyov show, this time from the retired colonel who regularly appears as panelist.  He remarked that Merz does not know what he is talking about, since the Taurus, while a good missile, is utterly unsuited for a mission of destroying a bridge. Its main use is for destroying underground bunkers and the like. Moreover, the Ukrainians will require some period of time to put any Taurus missiles to use.  It can be carried by the French fighter jets that are on promise, by the Eurofighters which are not yet on delivery schedule to Kiev, but not by the F-16s which they recently received.  Surely a solution will be found to enable use of the Taurus, but not at once. Or to put it more broadly: not in time to save the necks of the floundering Ukrainian armed forces now under strong pressure from a Russian offensive.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Russische Schiffe auf See: Moskau droht mit Konsequenzen für Provokationen in der Ostsee! | TN World

Ich habe mich bisher noch nicht dazu geäußert, aber es ist höchste Zeit zu sagen, dass derzeit auf YouTube viele sensationelle Fake News über die Risiken eines Krieges zwischen Russland und der NATO kursieren.

Viele dieser sensationellen Videobeiträge stammen aus indischen Zeitungen. Aber darunter gibt es auch Beiträge von ernsthafterer Natur, wie der hier zitierte:

Dieser Beitrag ist besonders interessant, weil er das Risiko eines bewaffneten Konflikts im Baltikum hervorhebt und nicht das, was Keir Starmer und Emmanuel Macron tun, um die Russen mit ihrer „Koalition der Willigen“ oder mit dem Brandstifter Friedrich Merz und seinen Plänen, Taurus-Langstreckenraketen nach Kiew zu schicken, um die Kertsch-Brücke (Krim) und andere wichtige logistische Infrastrukturen Russlands zu zerstören, zu provozieren.

Die jüngsten Probleme in der Ostseeregion werden von Estland verursacht, das in der vergangenen Woche einen leeren Öltanker auf dem Weg nach Petersburg beschlagnahmt hat. Der betreffende Tanker gehört zur russischen „Schattenflotte“, die ganz legal russische Ölexporte transportiert und sich damit den europäischen Sanktionen widersetzt, die die russische Wirtschaft lähmen sollen. Noch entscheidender ist, dass Estland gerade ein Gesetz verabschiedet hat, das seiner „Marine“ erlaubt, russische Handelsschiffe in der Ostsee, die Estland als Bedrohung seiner Sicherheit ansieht, zu beschlagnahmen, umzuleiten und sogar zu versenken. Das obige Video stellt die Probleme korrekt dar.

Abgesehen von den offiziellen Protesten und Warnungen der Sprecherin des russischen Außenministeriums, Zakharova, die das Video zeigt, widmen auch russische Talkshows den estnischen Provokationen große Aufmerksamkeit. In der Solowjow-Sendung von gestern Abend wurde diesem Thema viel Zeit gewidmet, wobei der Moderator andeutete, dass Russland bereit sei, Militärschiffe zur Begleitung seiner Handelsschiffe durch die baltischen Gewässer zu entsenden und nicht nur die gesamte estnische Marine zu versenken, sondern auch das Land dem Erdboden gleichzumachen.

Wir können davon ausgehen, dass die Behörden in Tallinn diese russischen Sendungen verfolgen und wahrscheinlich keine Maßnahmen ergreifen werden, die eine russische Reaktion provozieren würden, die ihnen bereits vorgezeichnet ist.

Ich schließe diesen kurzen Beitrag mit einer weiteren Beobachtung aus der Solowjow-Sendung von gestern Abend, diesmal von einem pensionierten Oberst, der regelmäßig als Diskussionsteilnehmer auftritt. Er bemerkte, dass Merz keine Ahnung habe, wovon er rede, da die Taurus zwar eine gute Rakete sei, sich aber für die Zerstörung einer Brücke völlig ungeeignet sei. Sie werde hauptsächlich zur Zerstörung von unterirdischen Bunkern und ähnlichem eingesetzt. Außerdem würden die Ukrainer einige Zeit benötigen, um Taurus-Raketen einsatzfähig zu machen. Sie können von den französischen Kampfflugzeugen transportiert werden, die zugesagt wurden, von den Eurofightern, deren Auslieferung an Kiew noch nicht geplant ist, aber nicht von den F-16, die sie kürzlich erhalten hatten. Sicherlich wird eine Lösung gefunden werden, um den Einsatz der Taurus-Raketen zu ermöglichen, aber nicht sofort. Oder allgemeiner ausgedrückt: nicht rechtzeitig, um den unter starkem Druck der russischen Offensive stehenden ukrainischen Streitkräften das Leben zu retten.

As I have said from time to time, the requests I receive almost daily from one or another media outlet prompt me to speak or write about current events to which I otherwise might not give due attention.

So it was yesterday evening when Sputnik International requested my thoughts on President Putin’s just announced 30 hour ‘humanitarian’ cease fire for Easter. I imagine that Sputnik will put this material on line some time later today. But the earlier this appears, the better, so as not to be overridden by other ‘breaking news.’

Accordingly, here below are the questions and my answers to Sputnik:

) How do you expect Easter truce announced by Vladimir Putin to affect the ongoing peace resolution progress?

I believe it will have no impact on the ongoing peace resolution progress because the “compromise” solution that the Trump Team is putting forward, namely the General Kellogg solution and not the Witkoff (Russia-friendly) solution will not be acceptable to either of the warring parties. The Ukrainians do not accept loss of the territories of Donbas, Kherson, Zaporozhia and Crimea. The Russians do not accept the notion of security guaranties to one side only, to Kiev, in the form of Western (NATO) troops on the ground and the preservation intact of the present Russia-hating, neo-Nazi directed regime in Kiev. So the peace process from Trump will fail.

2) Do you expect the Kiev regime to comply with the truce conditions?

No, the Kiev regime will not comply. There will be violations which the Russians will announce.

3) What signal is being sent to Trump?

The signal is that the Russians are ready for peace and the Ukrainians are not. But this is just Public Relations. Let us be honest about it. It is very important PR for Russia and so I believe the President Putin’s proposal was an excellent move by Russia.

*****

As of now, the Russians have reported that the Ukrainians violated the cease-fire hundreds of times over the past night, sending drones and artillery shells their way. Of course, for their part, Kiev was already last night denouncing alleged Russian violations. And yet the tally is not exactly equal. The major Western media were obliged to report Vladimir Putin’s speech to the armed forces yesterday ordering the cease fire, and he looked very earnest on screen. By contrast, Volodymir Zelensky’s taped response looked scrappy and ill-prepared.

Finally, I wish to add here a further consideration on the seemingly poor judgment of Team Trump in advancing the Kellogg solution as the end game to the war. Surely, they understood as I do that this solution would be unacceptable to both warring parties. Accordingly, it is entirely possible, if not likely that Trump chose it precisely in order to provide himself with a justification before his opponents in the States and abroad for washing his hands of Ukraine when the parties reject it.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation into German below (Andreas Mylaeus)

Präsident Putins 30-stündiger Oster-Waffenstillstand

Wie ich bereits mehrfach erwähnt habe, veranlassen mich die Anfragen, die ich fast täglich von verschiedenen Medien erhalte, dazu, mich zu aktuellen Ereignissen zu äußern, denen ich sonst möglicherweise nicht die gebührende Aufmerksamkeit schenken würde.

So war es auch gestern Abend, als Sputnik International mich um meine Meinung zu Präsident Putins gerade angekündigtem 30-stündigen „humanitären“ Waffenstillstand zu Ostern bat. Ich gehe davon aus, dass Sputnik diesen Beitrag im Laufe des Tages online stellen wird. Je früher er erscheint, desto besser, damit er nicht von anderen „Eilmeldungen“ überlagert wird.

Nachfolgend finden Sie daher die Fragen von Sputnik und meine Antworten darauf:

1) Wie wird sich die von Wladimir Putin angekündigte Oster-Feuerpause Ihrer Meinung nach auf die laufenden Friedensbemühungen auswirken?

Ich glaube, dass dies keinen Einfluss auf den laufenden Friedensprozess haben wird, da die „Kompromisslösung“, die das Trump-Team vorschlägt, nämlich die Lösung von General Kellogg und nicht die (russlandfreundliche) Lösung von Witkoff, für keine der beiden Konfliktparteien akzeptabel sein wird. Die Ukrainer akzeptieren den Verlust der Gebiete Donbass, Cherson, Saporischschja und Krim nicht. Die Russen akzeptieren nicht, dass nur einer Seite, nämlich Kiew, Sicherheitsgarantien in Form von westlichen (NATO-)Truppen vor Ort und der Aufrechterhaltung des derzeitigen russlandfeindlichen, neonazistisch geprägten Regimes in Kiew gegeben werden. Daher wird der Friedensprozess von Trump scheitern.

2) Rechnen Sie damit, dass das Kiewer Regime die Feuerpause einhalten wird?

Nein, das Kiewer Regime wird sich nicht daran halten. Es wird zu Verstößen kommen, die von den Russen bekannt gegeben werden.

3) Welches Signal wird an Trump gesendet?

Das Signal lautet, dass die Russen zum Frieden bereit sind, die Ukrainer jedoch nicht. Aber das ist nur Public Relations. Seien wir ehrlich. Es ist sehr wichtige PR für Russland, und daher halte ich den Vorschlag von Präsident Putin für einen ausgezeichneten Schachzug Russlands.

*****

Bislang haben die Russen gemeldet, dass die Ukrainer in der vergangenen Nacht hunderte Male gegen die Waffenruhe verstoßen und Drohnen und Artilleriegeschosse in ihre Richtung abgefeuert haben. Natürlich hat Kiew seinerseits bereits gestern Abend angebliche Verstöße Russlands angeprangert. Und doch ist die Bilanz nicht ganz ausgeglichen. Die großen westlichen Medien waren verpflichtet, über die gestrige Rede Wladimir Putins vor den Streitkräften zu berichten, in der er die Waffenruhe angeordnet hat, und er wirkte auf dem Bildschirm sehr ernst. Im Gegensatz dazu wirkte die aufgezeichnete Antwort Wolodymyr Selenskys zerfahren und schlecht vorbereitet.

Abschließend möchte ich noch eine weitere Überlegung zu der offenbar schlechten Entscheidung des Trump-Teams anfügen, die Kellogg-Lösung als Endspiel für den Krieg voranzutreiben. Sicherlich haben die ebenso wie ich verstanden, dass diese Lösung für beide Kriegsparteien inakzeptabel wäre. Dementsprechend ist es durchaus möglich, wenn nicht sogar wahrscheinlich, dass Trump sich genau dafür entschieden hat, um sich vor seinen Gegnern im In- und Ausland zu rechtfertigen, wenn die Parteien diese Lösung ablehnen und er sich aus der Ukraine zurückziehen kann.