It never ceases to amaze me how my colleagues in the non-mainstream media express unqualified negativity towards Donald Trump.

Trump’s ‘green light’ to Israel to resume aerial bombardment of Gaza to force Hamas to accept its revised terms of Phase 2 of the cease-fire is taken as proof that Trump is wedded to the Israeli lobby and to the Zionist contributors to his re-election fund.

Trump’s attack on the Houthis and belligerent threats directed at Iran, as the Houthi’s sponsor, are seen as proof of continuation of the ‘forever wars’ legacy of the Democrats.

Moreover, Trump’s selection of Marco Rubio as Secretary State shows his insensitivity to competence for one of the most important posts in his administration.  Rubio is a former Neocon, has held positions with respect to Russia that are diametrically opposed to those attributed to his boss. He is a lightweight, unable to deal as an equal with the likes of Russia’s Sergei Lavrov. His inexperience was most recently demonstrated by his signing in Jedda with the Ukrainians a draft cease-fire agreement which he intended to impose on the Russians, notwithstanding their stated opposition to any such flimsy construct.

                                                                       *****

I do not deny that the aforementioned events do not look good. However, I insist that it is a gross mistake to take them in isolation, on their own merits and to ignore the Big Picture in which Trump is in a titanic struggle with the Deep State at home and with its collaborators abroad, in France, Britain, Germany and the European Institutions who are dead set on frustrating his remaking of U.S. foreign and military policy at their expense.

One big factor in the underappreciation or miscomprehension of what Trump is doing comes from the underappreciation of his political skills.  These skills should have been crystal clear from the very first days of his administration when he successfully pushed through the confirmation process ALL of his candidates for the top slots in his administration.  All, every one, notwithstanding the obvious fact that each and every one did not conceal their plans to apply a wrecking ball to the institutions and policies that had become the bedrock of the U.S. government over the past 30 if not past 80 years.

Was this success in the confirmation votes just the result of the outstanding merits of the candidates and of their brilliant testimony in tough hearings?  Of course not. It was the direct result of Trump’s marshalling his political skills, calling in chits, i.e. IOUs, issuing warnings of hell to pay in the next electoral cycle if he were to be defied.

And why are my peers so unwilling to acknowledge Trump as a very successful wheeler-dealer on Capitol Hill, the likes of whom we have not seen since Lyndon Johnson?  Because they come back to the platitude that Trump is just a real-estate developer, he is a transactional businessman, full stop.

This is, in its own way, as blind as what mainstream says about Vladimir Putin: that his is just a KGB operative, while ignoring his consummate political skills in holding together, consolidating Russian society with all of its diverse and contradictory components.

These analysts in the alternative media are simply mentally stunted: they cannot admit that others might be more capable, more able to learn and grow than they are.

As someone who has a bit of insider knowledge about how Trump operated within his little circle of top managers in his real estate empire that came from my friendship with his long-time vice president for public relations, Norma Foerderer, I say with full confidence that his policy was always to let his people grow to fill all the space available to them however modest their academic or other formal qualifications.

And, by the way, the selection of Rubio as Secretary of State also was a deeply political decision that went far beyond the issue of Rubio’s loyalty which has been adduced by my peers.  No, it was based on a very different self-evident truth:  as an experienced and respected Senator, Rubio could be counted upon to provide substantial help steering Trump’s controversial foreign policies through Senate voting to successful implementation.

                                                              ****

Let there be no doubt about it: the leaders of Great Britain, France, Germany and the European Union are determined to use every means fair and foul to frustrate Donald Trump’s efforts to bring the Ukraine war to an end, likely by conceding the basic terms set down by Vladimir Putin. They rightly understand that the consequences for the world order in which they have flourished will be dire. The USA will withdraw forces from Europe, will step down from its leadership role in NATO, will accept Russia’s demands for a sphere of influence along its borders and for a reversal of plans to introduce American medium range missiles in Europe. The Europeans will be at one another’s throats over who leads their common defense when the outsiders, the fair and just Americans, are no longer there to keep the peace among them.

One must accept that these European leaders are actively seeking to establish common leverage against Trump with his domestic opponents on both sides of Congress and within what remains of the institutions like the Pentagon, USAID, the State Department that oppose the Trump reforms.

In these circumstances, it should not surprise anyone that Donald Trump has been spreading confusion about his intentions at every turn. He has been prepared to back the warlike policies of the Israel Lobby at least for now, while prioritizing the number one issue before him if he is to remake the World Order from the presently unsustainable global hegemony through alliances to Great Power exercising regional hegemony in the Western Hemisphere and sharing global decision-making with two or three other great powers in a Yalta-2 settlement. That number one issue is to reestablish cooperative relations with Russia.

Why such an interpretation of Trump’s doings is beyond the comprehension of my peers escapes me.

                                                                *****

How likely is Trump to succeed in ending the Ukraine War and normalizing relations with Russia? We will know much better tomorrow after the American and Russian presidents have their telephone conversation later today. Trump, Waltz, Witkoff have all been suggesting that they are closing in on an agreement with the Russians on what the peace treaty should look like, and this is key to winning Russian consent to an immediate cease-fire.

Of course, even if the Americans and the Russians agree, there will be major hurdles to overcome in terms of beating down both the Ukrainian politicians and the European war-mongers.  Zelensky’s best known ‘opponents’ for power are as war mad as he.  Starmer, Macron, Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas are not delusional about the correlation of forces on the battlefield as were Biden, Blinken and Sulivan. They are promoters of insane, utterly unworkable policies, and their removal from office through impeachment for abuse of power or through other legal procedures cannot come soon enough.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Warum alternative Medien Trump „ablehnen“

Es erstaunt mich immer wieder, wie meine Kollegen in den Nicht-Mainstream-Medien ihre uneingeschränkte Negativität gegenüber Donald Trump zum Ausdruck bringen.

Trumps „grünes Licht“ für Israel, die Luftangriffe auf Gaza wieder aufzunehmen, um die Hamas zur Annahme der überarbeiteten Bedingungen für Phase 2 des Waffenstillstands zu zwingen, wird als Beweis dafür angesehen, dass Trump mit der israelischen Lobby und den zionistischen Spendern für seinen Wiederwahlfonds verheiratet ist.

Trumps Angriff auf die Huthis und seine kriegerischen Drohungen gegen den Iran, als Sponsor der Huthis, werden als Beweis für die Fortsetzung des Erbes der „ewigen Kriege“ der Demokraten angesehen.

Darüber hinaus zeige Trumps Wahl von Marco Rubio zum Außenminister, dass er bei der Besetzung eines der wichtigsten Posten in seiner Regierung nicht auf Kompetenz achte. Rubio sei ein ehemaliger Neokonservativer und habe Positionen in Bezug auf Russland eingenommen, die denen seines Chefs diametral entgegengesetzt sind. Er sei ein Leichtgewicht, das nicht in der Lage sei, mit Leuten wie dem Russen Sergej Lawrow auf Augenhöhe zu verhandeln. Seine Unerfahrenheit habe sich zuletzt bei der Unterzeichnung eines Entwurfs für ein Waffenstillstandsabkommen mit den Ukrainern in Dschidda gezeigt, das er den Russen habe aufzwingen wollen, obwohl diese sich ausdrücklich gegen ein derart fadenscheiniges Konstrukt ausgesprachen hätten.

                                                                       *****

Ich leugne nicht, dass die oben genannten Ereignisse nicht gut aussehen. Ich bestehe jedoch darauf, dass es ein grober Fehler ist, sie isoliert und für sich allein zu betrachten und das Gesamtbild zu ignorieren, in dem Trump sich in einem gigantischen Kampf mit dem „Deep State“ im Inland und mit seinen Kollaborateuren im Ausland, in Frankreich, Großbritannien, Deutschland und den europäischen Institutionen befindet, die fest entschlossen sind, seine Neugestaltung der Außen- und Militärpolitik der USA auf ihre Kosten zu vereiteln.

Ein wichtiger Faktor für die Unterschätzung oder das Missverständnis dessen, was Trump tut, ist die Unterschätzung seiner politischen Fähigkeiten. Diese Fähigkeiten hätten bereits in den ersten Tagen seiner Amtszeit deutlich werden müssen, als er den Bestätigungsprozess ALLER seiner Kandidaten für die Spitzenpositionen in seiner Regierung erfolgreich durchgesetzt hat. Alle, jeder einzelne, ungeachtet der offensichtlichen Tatsache, dass nicht jeder seine Pläne verheimlichte, die Institutionen und Richtlinien, die in den letzten 30, wenn nicht sogar 80 Jahren zum Fundament der US-Regierung geworden waren, zu zerschlagen.

War dieser Erfolg bei den Bestätigungswahlen nur das Ergebnis der herausragenden Verdienste der Kandidaten und ihrer brillanten Aussagen in harten Anhörungen? Natürlich nicht. Es war das direkte Ergebnis von Trumps politischem Geschick, das er einsetzte, indem er Schuldscheine, sogenannte IOUs [I owe you – ich schulde Dir etwas], einforderte und für den nächsten Wahlzyklus mit der Hölle drohte, falls man sich ihm widersetzen sollte.

Und warum sind meine Kollegen so wenig bereit, Trump als einen sehr erfolgreichen Geschäftemacher auf dem Capitol Hill anzuerkennen, wie wir ihn seit Lyndon Johnson nicht mehr gesehen haben? Weil sie immer wieder auf die Plattitüde zurückkommen, dass Trump nur ein Immobilienentwickler sei, ein Geschäftsmann, der Geschäfte mache, und damit habe sich’s.

Das ist auf seine eigene Art genauso blind wie das, was der Mainstream über Wladimir Putin sagt: dass er nur ein KGB-Agent sei, während er dessen vollendeten politischen Fähigkeiten ignoriert, die russische Gesellschaft mit all ihren vielfältigen und widersprüchlichen Komponenten zusammenzuhalten und zu festigen.

Diese Analysten in den alternativen Medien sind einfach geistig verkümmert: Sie können nicht zugeben, dass andere fähiger sein könnten, lernfähiger und entwicklungsfähiger als sie selbst.

Als jemand, der aufgrund meiner Freundschaft mit dessen langjährigen Vizepräsidentin für Öffentlichkeitsarbeit, Norma Foerderer, ein wenig Insiderwissen darüber hat, wie Trump innerhalb seines kleinen Kreises von Top-Managern in seinem Immobilienimperium agierte, sage ich mit voller Überzeugung, dass es seine Politik war, seine Leute wachsen zu lassen, damit sie den ihnen zur Verfügung stehenden Raum ausfüllen, wie bescheiden ihre akademischen oder anderen formalen Qualifikationen auch sein mögen.

Übrigens war die Wahl von Rubio zum Außenminister auch eine zutiefst politische Entscheidung, die weit über die Frage von Rubios Loyalität hinausging, die von meinen Kollegen angeführt wurde. Nein, sie basierte auf einer ganz anderen, offensichtlichen Wahrheit: Als erfahrener und angesehener Senator konnte man sich darauf verlassen, dass Rubio bei der Abstimmung im Senat wesentliche Hilfe leisten würde, um Trumps umstrittene Außenpolitik erfolgreich umzusetzen.

                                                              ****

Es besteht kein Zweifel: Die Staats- und Regierungschefs Großbritanniens, Frankreichs, Deutschlands und der Europäischen Union sind entschlossen, Donald Trumps Bemühungen, den Ukraine-Krieg zu beenden, mit allen Mitteln, ob fair oder unfair, zu vereiteln, wahrscheinlich indem sie die von Wladimir Putin festgelegten Grundbedingungen akzeptieren. Sie gehen zu Recht davon aus, dass die Folgen für die Weltordnung, in der sie sich entfalten konnten, verheerend sein werden. Die USA werden ihre Truppen aus Europa abziehen, ihre Führungsrolle in der NATO aufgeben, Russlands Forderungen nach einer Einflusssphäre entlang seiner Grenzen und nach einer Rücknahme der Pläne zur Einführung amerikanischer Mittelstreckenraketen in Europa akzeptieren. Die Europäer werden sich gegenseitig an die Gurgel gehen, wenn es darum geht, wer ihre gemeinsame Verteidigung anführt, wenn die Außenstehenden, die fairen und gerechten Amerikaner, nicht mehr da sind, um den Frieden unter ihnen zu wahren.

Man muss akzeptieren, dass diese europäischen Staats- und Regierungschefs aktiv versuchen, mit ihren innenpolitischen Gegnern auf beiden Seiten des Kongresses und innerhalb der verbliebenen Institutionen wie dem Pentagon, USAID und dem Außenministerium, die sich den Trump-Reformen widersetzen, eine gemeinsame Hebelwirkung gegen Trump zu etablieren.

Unter diesen Umständen sollte es niemanden überraschen, dass Donald Trump bei jeder Gelegenheit Verwirrung über seine Absichten stiftet. Er ist bereit, die kriegerische Politik der Israel-Lobby zumindest vorerst zu unterstützen, während er das Thema Nummer eins priorisiert, wenn er die Weltordnung von der derzeit unhaltbaren globalen Hegemonie durch Allianzen mit Großmächten, die regionale Hegemonie in der westlichen Hemisphäre ausüben, neu gestalten und die globale Entscheidungsfindung mit zwei oder drei anderen Großmächten in einer Jalta-2-Regelung teilen will. Dieses Thema Nummer eins ist die Wiederherstellung kooperativer Beziehungen zu Russland.

Warum eine solche Interpretation von Trumps Handeln für meine Kollegen unverständlich ist, ist mir ein Rätsel.

                                                                *****

Wie wahrscheinlich ist es, dass es Trump gelingt, den Ukraine-Krieg zu beenden und die Beziehungen zu Russland zu normalisieren? Wir werden es morgen besser wissen, nachdem der amerikanische und der russische Präsident heute im Laufe des Tages ihr Telefongespräch geführt haben. Trump, Waltz und Witkoff haben alle angedeutet, dass sie kurz vor einer Einigung mit den Russen darüber stehen, wie der Friedensvertrag aussehen soll, und dies ist der Schlüssel, um die Zustimmung Russlands zu einem sofortigen Waffenstillstand zu erhalten.

Selbst wenn sich die Amerikaner und die Russen einig sind, gibt es natürlich noch große Hürden zu überwinden, um sowohl die ukrainischen Politiker als auch die europäischen Kriegstreiber zu besänftigen. Die bekanntesten „Gegner“ Zelenskys, die ebenfalls nach Macht streben, sind genauso kriegslüstern wie er. Starmer, Macron, Ursula von der Leyen und Kaja Kallas machen sich keine Illusionen über das Kräfteverhältnis auf dem Schlachtfeld, wie es Biden, Blinken und Sulivan taten. Sie sind Befürworter einer wahnwitzigen, völlig undurchführbaren Politik, und ihre Amtsenthebung durch Amtsenthebungsverfahren wegen Machtmissbrauchs oder durch andere rechtliche Verfahren kann nicht früh genug erfolgen.

Germany is back!

A day or so ago, Germany’s new chancellor Merz addressed supporters with the good news that ‘Germany is Back!’

Why not cheer the boys and girls up with some good news?  If Trump can claim with glee that ‘America is Back’ as he did as from his inauguration speech, why shouldn’t others have the same right to a rosy future via return to the past?

Halt!  Germany is Back!  Which Germany?  Since most of the content of Merz’s new plan to restore growth to the German economy comes from plans to build up production of German armaments so that his country becomes the defense ‘leader’ in Europe, maybe he should have consulted with some sociologists and historians before he opened his mouth. Listening to Merz today, just like listening to the still foaming at the mouth Annalena Baerbock at the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs, you hear echoes of a past that the world still shudders from. The Hitlerite past is only 80 years ago and is still in the living memory of people who walk the earth today.

Maybe the German thinking that a page has turned and they are not responsible for the sins of the fathers has gone too far, too fast. 

That thinking was launched by the Alternative for Germany party, which is generally denounced as overly tolerant of Nazism and as extreme Right, though such accusations are very much exaggerated.  This thinking is virtually the only policy plank from AfD that all other parties in Germany have adopted happily.  It is also a very big mistake, since it blinds people like Merz to the resistance in other Europeans to the idea of German military dominance on the Continent.

Macron does not yet say out loud that he is not delighted for France to take orders from a German High Command, but he is contesting the German claims to be defense leader by touting his own readiness to provide a nuclear umbrella for the Allies from his four or whatever nuclear warheads that are ready to go.  There will be more, of course, if Macron can persuade the others to provide the funds for nuclear rearmament that France by itself does not possess.

For their part, the other Europeans to the East, namely the Russians, remember all too well what ‘Germany is Back’ means for them.  Seeing German Leopard tanks in their own Kursk region was an instant reminder that Kursk had been one of the most hotly contested territories, had been the site of the biggest tank battles in WWII.  Germany is Back!  Indeed.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation into German below (Andreas Mylaeus)

Deutschland ist zurück!

Vor etwa einem Tag verkündete der neue deutsche Kanzler Merz seinen Anhängern die gute Nachricht: „Deutschland ist zurück!“

Warum nicht auch die Jungen und Mädchen mit guten Nachrichten aufheitern? Wenn Trump mit Freude behaupten kann, dass ‚Amerika zurück ist‘, wie er es in seiner Antrittsrede tat, warum sollten dann nicht auch andere das gleiche Recht auf eine rosige Zukunft durch eine Rückkehr in die Vergangenheit haben?

Halt! (sic!) Deutschland ist zurück! Welches Deutschland? Da der Großteil von Merz’ neuem Plan zur Wiederherstellung des Wachstums der deutschen Wirtschaft aus Plänen zum Aufbau der deutschen Rüstungsproduktion stammt, damit sein Land zum „Verteidigungsführer“ in Europa wird, hätte er vielleicht einige Soziologen und Historiker konsultieren sollen, bevor er den Mund aufmacht. Wenn man Merz heute zuhört, genau wie der immer noch vor Wut schäumenden Annalena Baerbock im deutschen Außenministerium, hört man Echos einer Vergangenheit, vor der die Welt immer noch zurückschreckt. Die Hitler-Vergangenheit liegt erst 80 Jahre zurück und ist immer noch in der lebendigen Erinnerung der Menschen, die heute auf der Erde leben.

Vielleicht ist die deutsche Denkweise, dass ein neues Kapitel aufgeschlagen wurde und man nicht für die Sünden der Väter verantwortlich ist, zu weit gegangen, zu schnell.

Diese Denkweise wurde von der Partei Alternative für Deutschland ins Leben gerufen, die allgemein als zu tolerant gegenüber dem Nationalsozialismus und als rechtsextrem angeprangert wird, obwohl solche Anschuldigungen stark übertrieben sind. Diese Denkweise ist praktisch der einzige politische Standpunkt der AfD, den alle anderen Parteien in Deutschland bereitwillig übernommen haben. Es ist auch ein sehr großer Fehler, da er Menschen wie Merz den Widerstand anderer Europäer gegen die Idee einer deutschen militärischen Dominanz auf dem Kontinent verschleiert.

Macron sagt noch nicht laut, dass er nicht erfreut darüber ist, dass Frankreich Befehle von einem deutschen Oberkommando entgegennimmt, aber er bestreitet den deutschen Anspruch, Verteidigungsführer zu sein, indem er seine eigene Bereitschaft anpreist, den Alliierten einen nuklearen Schutzschild aus seinen vier oder wie vielen auch immer einsatzbereiten Atomsprengköpfen zur Verfügung zu stellen. Es werden natürlich noch mehr werden, wenn Macron die anderen davon überzeugen kann, die Mittel für die nukleare Aufrüstung bereitzustellen, die Frankreich allein nicht besitzt.

Die anderen Europäer im Osten, nämlich die Russen, erinnern sich ihrerseits nur allzu gut daran, was „Deutschland ist zurück“ für sie bedeutet. Als sie deutsche Leopard-Panzer in ihrer eigenen Region Kursk sahen, wurde ihnen sofort bewusst, dass Kursk eines der am heißesten umkämpften Gebiete und Schauplatz der größten Panzerschlachten im Zweiten Weltkrieg war. Deutschland ist zurück! In der Tat.

Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko and Russia’s terms for a cease fire

This morning’s online edition of Le Monde has a front-page article entitled “Direct report on the war in Ukraine: Russia reiterates its conditions for a truce, including the certainty that Ukraine will not join NATO.”  The article attributes this statement to Deputy Russian Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko, without explaining who he is and what that tells us about the Russian position.

In this brief survey of latest news on the war and prospects for peace negotiations, I open with a remark on Grushko drawn from my own past experience in one-on-one talks with him here in Brussels going back to the days when he served as Russian Ambassador to NATO, a post he held for five years or more. I think in particular of his role in the days just prior to the launch of the Special Military Operation. In mid-January 2022, Grushko held talks in Brussels with NATO leadership relating to the Alliance’s response to the ultimatum that Deputy Minister Ryabkov had sent to Washington and Brussels in mid-December 2021 calling for a roll-back of NATO infrastructure and personnel to the status quo in 1994, i.e., before the waves of NATO expansion eastward. Note that up to the start of the war Russia maintained three fully-staffed embassies in Belgium: the one headed by Grushko accredited to NATO, an embassy accredited to the European Union (unfilled since the start of the war) and an embassy accredited to the Kingdom of Belgium (still active).

It was perfectly clear from my earlier meetings with Grushko that he was in the Liberal camp of Russian diplomatic personnel, very much dedicated to normal relations with the West. He held these hopes to the very end, as I understood when I heard his debriefing on talks with NATO about the Russian ultimatums.  This took place on 13 January in the Russian embassy, Brussels. He still hoped for better times. Soon afterwards Grushko was transferred back to Moscow.

The relevance of this observation is that Grushko’s coming forward a day ago to restate the Russian position on its hard terms for entering into peace negotiations demonstrates that the Ministry, on instructions from Vladimir Putin, is firm and unwavering in its demands, namely neutrality for Ukraine, territorial concessions to acknowledge Russian annexation of the Donbas and Novaya Rossiya oblasts, no foreign troops or infrastructure in Ukraine. One may say that these are non-negotiable and will either be accepted by Trump or the war will go on as long as needed to bring about Ukrainian capitulation. From statements to the press by Waltz, Rubio and Witkoff this past weekend, it appears that Team Trump is working to agree details on these demands with the Russians so that success is within reach, though by no means guaranteed.

Note: I speak here of ‘peace negotiations’ because the Russians are uninterested in a 30-day ceasefire for a variety of reasons I set out below. They insist on entering at once into talks for a durable peace on terms that respect their security concerns.

                                                                                    *****

Last evening’s Vladimir Solovyov talk show had a lot of empty blather from his usual panelists, plus RT director Margarita Simonyan. As usual, Simonyan took the conversation away from the concrete issues of the day, of which there are many, to the cultural realm in her exploration of the very peculiar words of the Ukrainian national hymn which open with “So long as Ukraine has not yet perished…” – which is almost a word for word borrowing from the opening words of the Polish national hymn, and points to a shared culture of death and self-destruction.

In the midst of this idle chatter, there was one outstanding panelist, Colonel Buzhinsky, who is an occasional contributor to the program, bringing real military experience to bear on his analyses. Buzhinsky pointed out that a 30-day truce is utter nonsense.  In practice, it takes a week or more for shooting to stop along a line of contact that runs between 1,000 and 2,000 km. Moreover, a cease-fire must be monitored by personnel on the ground. All talk about how U.S. and other satellites can assure the proper observance of the cease-fire is groundless. There are climatic issues that interfere with satellite imaging; there are night-time conditions among other factors making such remote, hands-off monitoring imperfect and unreliable. And so some agreement about deployment of neutral monitors is essential. As for actual deployment of monitors, it may take up to six months given the vast length of the line of contact.

That is, per Buzhinsky, monitors, not peace-keepers.  He insists that the British plan for sending troops to Ukraine is a subterfuge for de facto establishment of British bases in Ukraine, with likely emphasis on positioning such bases on the Black Sea coast, where they will be a permanent threat to Crimea and to Russian naval assets.  The French also have in mind putting troops into the Odessa area, which they have coveted for more than two centuries. This is all totally unacceptable to Russia.

                                                            *****

Finally, both the Evening with Vladimir Solovyov and News of the Week broadcasts yesterday directed attention to the fate of the several thousand Ukrainian troops who are now completely surrounded in several pockets within the Kursk oblast and face conditions of surrender or annihilation. President Trump has appealed to Vladimir Putin to release them on humanitarian grounds.  However, as last night’s Russian state television made crystal clear by its reportage on the devastation that Ukrainian forces inflicted on Kursk in the seven months of their occupation going back to the August incursion last year, war crimes have been committed against the civilian population including torture and summary execution. Under Russian law these acts are categorized as terrorism and under no circumstances is simple release to be considered. All those who are detained will undergo a filtration process of debriefing to ascertain their degree of involvement in the crimes.

President Putin said clearly to Zelensky:  order these soldiers to lay down their arms and we will spare their lives and treat them decently, otherwise they face destruction.  Zelensky responded yesterday on television that Putin is lying, that his troops are not surrounded and are performing their orders.  Meanwhile, the United States satellite intelligence supports the Russian claims of the entrapment of the Ukrainians, which alone explains Trump’s appeal to Putin.

When you watch the testimony of the Russians in Kursk who spent seven months in their cellars, deprived of heat, electricity, water, food and fearing for their lives when the Ukrainians by night came around to steal whatever they could, you involuntarily wish for the extermination of these Ukrainian bastards.

                                                                         ****

I note in conclusion that in his latest online video talk Professor Nicolai Petro at the University of Rhode Island discusses the likelihood of a military coup in Ukraine overthrowing the Zelensky regime. I have had some joint projects with Petro in the past.  He is one of the best-informed experts on Ukraine, bringing to the table not only academic knowledge but personal knowledge from years of travels in Ukraine, where he also has owned an apartment.

I do not know how close a military coup is to realization, but I do believe that it is the only way out of the Ukrainian mess.  There are NO responsible, level-headed leaders of an opposition in Ukraine who could succeed Zelensky and take the country back to normalcy. The big names – Poroshenko, Tymoshenko – are themselves as insane as Zelensky in their fervor to continue the war to victory over Russia.  Ten years of brain-washing have rendered Ukrainian civil society unable to understand their own interests.  The only hope for the country will be some kind of imposed technocratic leadership, most likely coming from the military where some shreds of realism may yet have survived. It will take several years of exposure to real news reporting, to real consideration of the vast losses of men and wealth that the country has suffered before the country is ready for democracy.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Der stellvertretende Außenminister Alexander Grushko und Russlands Bedingungen für einen Waffenstillstand

Die Online-Ausgabe von Le Monde von heute Morgen hat auf der Titelseite einen Artikel mit dem Titel „Direkter Bericht über den Krieg in der Ukraine: Russland bekräftigt seine Bedingungen für einen Waffenstillstand, einschließlich der Gewissheit, dass die Ukraine nicht der NATO beitreten wird.“ Der Artikel schreibt diese Aussage dem stellvertretenden russischen Außenminister Alexander Grushko zu, ohne zu erklären, wer er ist und was uns das über die russische Position sagt.

In dieser kurzen Übersicht über die neuesten Nachrichten zum Krieg und die Aussichten auf Friedensverhandlungen beginne ich mit einer Bemerkung zu Grushko, die auf meinen eigenen Erfahrungen aus Einzelgesprächen mit ihm hier in Brüssel beruht, die bis in die Zeit zurückreichen, als er als russischer Botschafter bei der NATO tätig war, ein Amt, das er fünf Jahre oder länger innehatte. Ich denke insbesondere an seine Rolle in den Tagen unmittelbar vor dem Beginn der militärischen Sonderoperation. Mitte Januar 2022 führte Grushko in Brüssel Gespräche mit der NATO-Führung über die Reaktion des Bündnisses auf das Ultimatum, das der stellvertretende Minister Ryabkov Mitte Dezember 2021 an Washington und Brüssel geschickt hatte und in dem er eine Rückführung der NATO-Infrastruktur und des NATO-Personals auf den Status quo von 1994 forderte, d.h. vor den Wellen der NATO-Osterweiterung. Es ist zu beachten, dass Russland bis zum Beginn des Krieges drei voll besetzte Botschaften in Belgien unterhielt: die von Grushko geleitete, bei der NATO akkreditierte Botschaft, eine bei der Europäischen Union akkreditierte Botschaft (seit Beginn des Krieges unbesetzt) und eine beim Königreich Belgien akkreditierte Botschaft (noch aktiv).

Aus meinen früheren Treffen mit Grushko ging eindeutig hervor, dass er zum liberalen Lager des russischen diplomatischen Personals gehörte und sich sehr für normale Beziehungen zum Westen einsetzte. Er hielt an diesen Hoffnungen bis zum Schluss fest, wie ich verstand, als ich seine Nachbesprechung über die Gespräche mit der NATO über die russischen Ultimaten hörte. Dies fand am 13. Januar in der russischen Botschaft in Brüssel statt. Er hoffte immer noch auf bessere Zeiten. Bald darauf wurde Grushko nach Moskau zurückversetzt.

Die Bedeutung dieser Beobachtung liegt darin, dass Grushkos Auftritt am Vortag, bei dem er die russische Position zu den harten Bedingungen für die Aufnahme von Friedensverhandlungen bekräftigte, zeigt, dass das Ministerium auf Anweisung von Wladimir Putin in seinen Forderungen fest und unerschütterlich ist, nämlich Neutralität für die Ukraine, territoriale Zugeständnisse zur Anerkennung der russischen Annexion der Oblaste Donbas und Nowaja Rossija, keine ausländischen Truppen oder Infrastruktur in der Ukraine. Man könnte sagen, dass diese nicht verhandelbar sind und entweder von Trump akzeptiert werden oder der Krieg so lange andauert, bis die Ukraine kapituliert. Aus den Presseerklärungen von Waltz, Rubio und Witkoff vom vergangenen Wochenende geht hervor, dass das Team Trump daran arbeitet, sich mit den Russen auf Einzelheiten dieser Forderungen zu einigen, sodass ein Erfolg in greifbare Nähe rückt, wenn auch keineswegs garantiert ist.

Anmerkung: Ich spreche hier von „Friedensverhandlungen“, weil die Russen aus verschiedenen Gründen, die ich im Folgenden darlege, kein Interesse an einem 30-tägigen Waffenstillstand haben. Sie bestehen darauf, sofort in Gespräche über einen dauerhaften Frieden einzutreten, und zwar zu Bedingungen, die ihre Sicherheitsbedenken berücksichtigen.

                                                                                    *****

In der Talkshow von Vladimir Solovyov am vergangenen Abend gab es viel leeres Geschwätz von seinen üblichen Diskussionsteilnehmern und der RT-Direktorin Margarita Simonyan. Wie üblich lenkte Simonyan das Gespräch von den konkreten Themen des Tages, von denen es viele gibt, in den kulturellen Bereich, indem sie die sehr eigentümlichen Worte der ukrainischen Nationalhymne untersuchte, die mit „So lange die Ukraine noch nicht untergegangen ist …“ beginnen – was fast eine wörtliche Anlehnung an die Eröffnungsworte der polnischen Nationalhymne ist und auf eine gemeinsame Kultur des Todes und der Selbstzerstörung hinweist.

Inmitten dieses Geschwätzes gab es einen herausragenden Diskussionsteilnehmer, Oberst Buzhinsky, der gelegentlich Beiträge zu der Sendung leistet und seine Analysen auf echte militärische Erfahrung stützt. Buzhinsky wies darauf hin, dass ein 30-tägiger Waffenstillstand völliger Unsinn sei. In der Praxis dauert es eine Woche oder länger, bis die Schießerei entlang einer Kontaktlinie, die zwischen 1.000 und 2.000 km lang ist, eingestellt wird. Darüber hinaus muss ein Waffenstillstand von Personal vor Ort überwacht werden. Alle reden darüber, wie US-amerikanische und andere Satelliten die ordnungsgemäße Einhaltung des Waffenstillstands sicherstellen können, aber das ist grundlos. Es gibt klimatische Probleme, die die Satellitenbildgebung beeinträchtigen; es gibt Nachtbedingungen und andere Faktoren, die eine solche ferngesteuerte, automatische Überwachung unvollkommen und unzuverlässig machen. Daher ist eine Einigung über den Einsatz neutraler Beobachter unerlässlich. Der tatsächliche Einsatz von Beobachtern kann angesichts der enormen Länge der Kontaktlinie bis zu sechs Monate dauern.

Das heißt, laut Buzhinsky, Beobachter und keine Friedenstruppen. Er besteht darauf, dass der britische Plan, Truppen in die Ukraine zu entsenden, ein Vorwand für die de facto Errichtung britischer Stützpunkte in der Ukraine ist, wobei der Schwerpunkt wahrscheinlich auf der Positionierung solcher Stützpunkte an der Schwarzmeerküste liegt, wo sie eine ständige Bedrohung für die Krim und die russischen Marineeinrichtungen darstellen werden. Die Franzosen haben auch vor, Truppen in die Region Odessa zu entsenden, die sie seit mehr als zwei Jahrhunderten begehren. Für Russland ist dies alles völlig inakzeptabel.

                                                            *****

Schließlich lenkten sowohl die Sendung „Abend mit Vladimir Solovyov“ als auch die Sendung „Nachrichten der Woche“ gestern die Aufmerksamkeit auf das Schicksal der mehreren tausend ukrainischen Soldaten, die nun in mehreren Kesseln innerhalb des Oblast Kursk vollständig eingeschlossen sind und vor der Entscheidung stehen, sich zu ergeben oder vernichtet zu werden. Präsident Trump hat Wladimir Putin aufgefordert, sie aus humanitären Gründen freizulassen. Wie das russische Staatsfernsehen gestern Abend in seiner Reportage über die Verwüstungen, die die ukrainischen Streitkräfte in den sieben Monaten ihrer Besetzung von Kursk seit dem Einfall im August letzten Jahres angerichtet haben, jedoch unmissverständlich klarstellte, wurden Kriegsverbrechen gegen die Zivilbevölkerung begangen, darunter Folter und Massenhinrichtungen. Nach russischem Recht werden diese Handlungen als Terrorismus eingestuft und eine einfache Freilassung kommt unter keinen Umständen in Betracht. Alle Inhaftierten werden einem Filterverfahren zur Befragung unterzogen, um den Grad ihrer Beteiligung an den Verbrechen zu ermitteln.

Präsident Putin sagte Zelensky deutlich: „Befehlen Sie diesen Soldaten, ihre Waffen niederzulegen, und wir werden ihr Leben verschonen und sie anständig behandeln, andernfalls droht ihnen die Vernichtung.“ Zelensky antwortete gestern im Fernsehen, dass Putin lügt, dass seine Truppen nicht umzingelt seien und ihre Befehle ausführten. Unterdessen stützen die Satelliteninformationen der Vereinigten Staaten die russischen Behauptungen über die Einkesselung der Ukrainer, was allein Trumps Appell an Putin erklärt.

Wenn man sich die Aussagen der Russen in Kursk ansieht, die sieben Monate lang in ihren Kellern verbracht haben, ohne Heizung, Strom, Wasser, Nahrung und in ständiger Angst um ihr Leben, wenn die Ukrainer nachts kamen, um zu stehlen, was sie konnten, wünscht man sich unwillkürlich die Vernichtung dieser ukrainischen Bastarde.

                                                                         ****

Abschließend möchte ich darauf hinweisen, dass Professor Nicolai Petro von der University of Rhode Island in seinem neuesten Online-Videogespräch die Wahrscheinlichkeit eines Militärputsches in der Ukraine erörtert, der das Regime von Selensky stürzen könnte. Ich habe in der Vergangenheit einige gemeinsame Projekte mit Petro durchgeführt. Er ist einer der am besten informierten Experten für die Ukraine und bringt nicht nur akademisches Wissen, sondern auch persönliche Erfahrungen aus jahrelangen Reisen in die Ukraine ein, wo er auch eine Wohnung besaß.

Ich weiß nicht, wie nah ein Militärputsch an der Verwirklichung ist, aber ich glaube, dass dies der einzige Ausweg aus dem ukrainischen Chaos ist. Es gibt KEINE verantwortungsbewussten, besonnenen Oppositionsführer in der Ukraine, die Zelensky nachfolgen und das Land wieder zur Normalität zurückführen könnten. Die großen Namen – Poroschenko, Timoschenko – sind in ihrem Eifer, den Krieg bis zum Sieg über Russland fortzusetzen, selbst genauso wahnsinnig wie Zelensky. Zehn Jahre Gehirnwäsche haben die ukrainische Zivilgesellschaft unfähig gemacht, ihre eigenen Interessen zu verstehen. Die einzige Hoffnung für das Land wird eine Art aufgezwungene technokratische Führung sein, die höchstwahrscheinlich aus dem Militär kommen wird, wo vielleicht noch ein Rest Realismus überlebt hat. Es wird mehrere Jahre dauern, bis das Land bereit für die Demokratie ist, in denen es sich mit echter Berichterstattung auseinandersetzen und die enormen Verluste an Menschenleben und Reichtum, die das Land erlitten hat, wirklich in Betracht ziehen muss.

Transcript submitted by a reader

https://www.urmedium.net/c/presstv/132998

PressTV: 0:09
Hello and welcome to Spotlight. Iran, China and Russia have called for an end to all of illegal unilateral sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Western countries led by the United States and provoked by the Israeli regime have been pressuring Iran and imposing bans on the country for decades now. Their main pretext in recent years has been Iran’s nuclear program. Tehran has constantly proven its good will and proven the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program by fully cooperating with the IAEA and allowing comprehensive inspections of its facilities by the UN agency.

0:43
Now the new US president is trying to increase the pressure even further by using the language of threats, which the leader of the Islamic revolution has strongly condemned and rejected. Let’s discuss that issue and more with our guests on tonight’s Spotlight Edition. We have independent international affairs analyst Gilbert Doctorow joining us from Brussels. And also, executive committee member of the Hamilton Coalition to stop the war, Mr. Ken Stone is joining us from Hamilton, Canada.

1:21
Well, gentlemen, welcome to the program. Let’s start off with Mr. Doctorow in Brussels. Please share with us your views regarding the talks between China, Russia, and Iran in Beijing. The three countries diplomats exchanged views on Iran’s peaceful nuclear program and of course the illegal sanctions imposed on Tehran.

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
I think this has a great symbolic value. Of course it’s not going to change anything in American conduct in the coming days. But it’s a statement that will be important in months to come if, as I expect, Mr. Trump pursues his plans for a reorganization of the governance of the world, from the present management regionally and internationally by coalitions the United States has put together, to a sharing of responsibility with other major powers. By that I mean China and Russia and India. This is likely to come.

2:26
In these circumstances, I would not take any particular statements, accusations, threats, bullying that Mr. Trump has directed against Iran as having any real seriousness. You have to understand that Mr. Trump is in the middle of a massive reform, a wrecking ball against institutions and structures that have been put together in the States for 30, 40 years. He is taking on the deep state directly, going at the jugular.

Mr. Kennedy was murdered for saying just saying a few things that are in line with what Mr. Trump is trying to do now, that is to end the Cold War. Trump has gone beyond lectures at the American University, which is what did in John Kennedy, to actually taking on and firing the people who have been responsible for wars, who have been destructive of democracy all around the world, and who worked for USAID, who worked for the CIA. This is dramatic.

3:37
In this context of a fight to the end that’s going on in the States, Mr. Trump is using language in a way to disarm and to confuse his opponents. Part of that is the bluster and bullying that he has directed at Iran. However, if you look a bit deeper, I think it’s reasonable to expect that Mr. Trump is not in the pocket of Netanyahu, as Joe Biden was.

He is not agreeing to pursue an attack on Iran, which for Mr. Netanyahu is his lifelong ambition. And another example of how in the Middle East, Trump is doing things that are at variance with the rather negative impression he’s made by his remarks about resettling Gaza, was the start of direct talks with Hamas, without the Israelis present. These are things that you have to look at very carefully with a microscope, I understand, because the big picture is all very negative in what he’s doing in the Middle East.

But there are these little hints that give me encouragement that he is not going to be Mr. Joe Biden, that he has no intention of being Genocide Joe, as genocide Donald. So I would be more optimistic. And in this context, what was done in the agreement of Iran, Moscow, and China is very important.

5:19
And also note who was there. Who was the Russian representative? This was Ryabkov. He’s a Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. He’s a tough guy. This is the one who prepared the rollback of NATO that was delivered to Washington and Brussels in December of 2021.

PressTV: 5:38
Ken Stone, Chinese and Russian diplomats have called for the lifting of the quote “unlawful” sanctions imposed against Iran. They reiterated Tehran’s right to peaceful use of nuclear energy. Give us your analysis, please, of the joint statement following the trilateral meeting. An analyst that we spoke to actually earlier here on Press TV believes that this meeting is a clear expression of solidarity with Iran.

Stone: 6:02
I heartily agree with the assessment that the trilateral meeting was a clear expression of solidarity with Iran. After all, both Russia and China are also subject to unilateral and illegal US and Western sanctions, including those from Canada against their countries.

And these sanctions, these unilateral sanctions, are flagrantly illegal, and they are in fact an act of war, and that’s recognized under international law and the United Nations Charter. In Chapter 7, the Charter says that there’s only one body in the world that can apply coercive economic measures, loosely known as economic sanctions against countries, and that is the United Nations Security Council. Any other sanctions that are leveled by countries such as Canada, the UK, the US against countries mostly in the global south, are acts of war.

They are strictly illegal, and they’re used to force compliance on usually poor and weak countries to come in line with US foreign policy, or they even can be used and have been used in the form similar to a medieval siege of creating regime-change in countries, such as in Iraq between the first and second Gulf War, and recently in Syria, where the government of Bashar al-Assad was brought down largely by these economic sanctions, which impoverished the country and put 80 percent of the people food insecure.

7:50
And we know that these sanctions have often killed more people than bullets. For example, in Iraq, 500,000 Iraqi children were killed between the two Gulf Wars by a lack of access to food and medicines, due to these illegal US sanctions. And when she was confronted about this fact, the former foreign minister of the US, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, said it was worth it, the deaths of 500,000 children. So we know that Russia, China, and Iran are smarting from these sanctions, and they have worked very hard to develop means to get around these illegal sanctions, such as the formation of the BRICS and the talks about the creation of alternate monetary and banking systems.

8:51
So the three countries definitely were in solidarity with Iran about the illegal sanctions. They were furthermore, If you want me to continue, I’ll talk about the peaceful uses of– Tehran’s right to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Under the NNPT, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes to the utmost degree and in fact under the treaty other members are obliged, they are obliged to help Iran develop their nuclear program–

PressTV:
Absolutely.

Stone:
–which Iran has benefited from. So I would say that on those two points and on other points, the Russians and the Chinese were a hundred percent in solidarity with Iran.

PressTV: 9:42
Gilbert Doctorow, talking about the sanctions, there were some important points that Mr. Ken Stone brought up. The ill intentions in these sanctions are evident with preventing access to much-needed medicine and treatment for Iranian patients. So the hostilities [were] not just aimed at the government, but ordinary Iranians were suffering as a result of these sanctions. The imposition of US sanctions on a list of other countries, namely Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, Lebanon, they’ve had devastating humanitarian consequences. Talk to us more about the aspect of punishing ordinary civilians with these illegal sanctions.

Doctorow: 10:23
Well I think that my co-panelist has touched upon it very well by making reference to Madeleine Albright. There is no humanitarian concern. There is absolute callousness in the levels of the American State Department, USAID, and other institutions that should be concerned about the impact on the general population of such sanctions, but are not.

And this is, of course, it’s part of a much bigger picture. Right now, Iran is doing well not to be under attack from Israeli and American airplanes and rockets. That’s already a positive. It’s good that we can talk about alleviating the pain of the sanctions. The issue before Iran is one of time. Right now, the Trump administration is very preoccupied with finding a settlement of some kind, some kind of ceasefire in Russia.

Mr. Witkoff, who otherwise has responsibility for the Middle East, is particularly engaged right now on that big issue. The Middle East, in a sense of the Gaza situation, is a second major distraction, shall we call it, for the United States. So Iran’s time to get the attention of Mr. Trump and his colleagues is yet to come.

11:49
It is understandable that Iran was officially offended by Trump’s language and lack of dignity. I agree completely with that assessment. However, these are early days, and I do expect that when Trump is able to move on to dealing with Iran, the situation will be improved. That is not to say at once, but we’re very well aware that the issues that the United States is introducing now go well beyond the question of Iran having a nuclear weapons program. The United States’ ambition is to cripple the development of missiles in Iran, to cripple the relationship that Iran has with its fellow members of the resistance, the proxies.

12:38
These are all the most ambitious sides to the Trump administration view of what it can or should achieve in Iran. I don’t think any of it is achievable, but it will take some time before, as I say, the administration can focus its mind on Iran and see the realities.

PressTV:
Ken Stone, there were years of accusations that Iran was seeking to build a nuclear weapon. Then came the JCPOA deal, which resulted in inspections and etc. Then the US pulled out of the deal. Why should the US be trusted? And is Iran right to ask for assurances when the US has shown it can’t be trusted even when it signs deals?

Stone: 13:24
If you want my opinion, I don’t believe the US can be trusted. Under Obama, it obliged Iran to join the JCPOA. It never lived up to its side of the bargain in the JCPOA. The US sanctions were not totally lifted, which was a violation of the agreement. And then along came Trump in 2018 and abrogated the deal altogether, because as Mr. Doctorow has pointed out, Trump wanted to renegotiate the deal and put an end to Iran’s conventional missile program.

But of course, the Iranian government knows full well that the United States of America has never forgiven the people of Iran for rising up in a popular revolution in 1979 and knocking over their puppet, the Shah of Iran, which reduced the hegemony of the US, their power over West Asia considerably. And they have been trying ever since to overthrow the Iranian state.

14:38
And that includes the war that they sponsored by Saddam Hussein that lasted for eight years against Iran and resulted in millions of deaths. And it includes also the fact that Mr. Trump himself ordered the assassination of General Soleimani, an Iranian high commander, a general, while he was on a mission of peace, bringing a document to a meeting in Iraq at which the Saudi Arabians were going to attend in order to build a rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which the US and Israel definitely did not want.

15:20
So, I mean, I’m just giving you a couple of examples here. I do not believe the US can be trusted. They have proved that over and over again. And I do believe that the Iranian government should go ahead on using the language of the NNPT and their friendship with Russia and China to improve and expand their peaceful nuclear program.

PressTV: 15:48
Mr. Doctorow, on that note the leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei says experience has shown that negotiations with the US have no effect on solving Iran’s problems and that the negotiations with the US are neither wise nor smart nor honourable. Do you see it in that light as well?

Doctorow:
Not exactly. I understand the aggravation, disappointment. You really, disappointment is an element because with the change of administration in Iran, there was hope that an accommodation could be reached with the states, and that was dashed rather quickly. So the ire, the anger over this disappointed hope for a change for the better is perfectly understandable.

16:33
However, nothing is forever. The United States cannot be trusted, but exactly who can be trusted? In this world, the old Russian wisdom that became commonplace internationally under Gorbachev and Reagan, that is, trust but verify. That verification is of great importance to ensuring honesty and transparency. And so in the case of Iran’s eventual accommodation with the United States, it will not be the honesty or the integrity, which is doubtful among many American senior politicians.

It will be a question of who is standing by Iran, and this was exhibited by the latest agreements between the Russians, the Chinese, and Iran, and who is going to enforce or monitor the implementation of whatever is agreed. So I would not be so pessimistic, even if at the present moment, the anger is real and justified.

PressTV: 17:36
Ken Stone, would you like to respond to that?

Stone:
I’d like to say that Donald Trump’s approach to Iran is wrong-headed and will have the opposite effect–

PressTV:
Yes.

Stone:
–of his intention to bring some kind of rapprochement or understanding or rejuvenation of the JCPOA to fruition. When you come into power and reinstall your maximum pressure campaign, you know, sanctioning every tree and every street in the country and threatening force against the country, a proud country such as Iran, you are going to get exactly the opposite effect that you are nominally aiming for.

18:28
And so I think that it will backfire on the US. I would suggest that if the US wants to achieve friendship with Iran, the thing that he should do first is to remove all the US sanctions on Iran and cease all the hybrid war that’s been going on between the US, from the US point of view, against Iran. And I’m talking about here the NGOs that operate in, or have operated to try and bring about disturbances and regime change in Iran, about other coercive economic measures that the US government is using against Iran.

19:19
And instead show that he’s serious about peace and the fact that he wants to see Iran not have a nuclear weapon by exerting what Qatar, six days ago, I think, called for, the government of Qatar. And they said Israel should be subjected to all the provisions of the International Atomic Energy Agency. It should have to declare the nuclear weapons stockpile it has built up with the help of France and the United States over the past 50 years. And it should be subject to inspections, very intense inspections the way Iran was during the period of the JCPOA.

20:12
So I think his whole approach is backwards, and it will end in failure or in war. And the war with Iran would be disastrous. It would probably lead to a regional conflict between West Asia and maybe a world war.

PressTV:
You meant to say Iran, you said Iraq, Mr. Ken Stone. Anyhow.

Stone:
Sorry.

PressTV: 20:38
Yeah, no problem. Mr. Doctorow, some important points brought up there by Mr Stone; I want you to address all of them as we wrap up the show. Your thoughts on this approach riddled with military threats by Donald Trump coupled with those of the war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu against Iran.

Ayatollah Khamenei has warned that Iran is prepared to deliver a decisive response. Also on a separate note, Mr. Stone mentioned the sheer hypocrisy regarding the Israeli regime which evades the NPT, it evades cooperation with the IAEA, has openly admitted to nuclear sabotage, terrorism, and assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, and of course, assassination of many other figures, which we don’t have time to really cover right now.

Doctorow: 21:25
The difference between me and Mr. Stone is that he is taking Donald Trump’s words at face value. I don’t. I played at the beginning of this. My point is that Trump is involved in a titanic struggle to cut down the deep state and to end those forces within the American institutions that have been promoting war globally, and a cold war with Russia and with China. This means that he has a great many enemies, and he is using confusion as a tool to neutralize his enemies. They don’t know what he’s doing.

22:07
When he made these obnoxious remarks about Iran, was he addressing Iran or was he addressing the people on Capitol Hill who otherwise give him a lot of trouble? I think it was the latter. I think he was trying to shut them up by feeding them this line about Iran when he has no intention of following through on it. Give him time.

I follow closely what he’s doing in Russia. And most everyone, all peers of mine, are completely confused by what he’s trying to do. I think I’m not confused. I think I understand that he is working in contradictions from day to day just to shut everybody up while he gets to the main points that will lead to success.

22:55
So this is his modus operandi. It is not normal. It is not what academically-minded people expect, like Mr. Stone, like myself in general, and people around me. We think of people who behave in a more transparent way. Mr. Trump’s strength is not transparency. It’s confusion; and look at what he does, not what he says.

PressTV: 23:21
Okay, I’m going to have to just to continue with the points, I’m going to have to disagree with you there, Mr. Doctorow, because of looking at the decades of US animosity towards Iran and Washington’s anti-Iran policies. But regardless of that, also, if you may talk to us about this hypocrisy that we’re seeing towards the Israeli regime, which I just mentioned, they evade the NPT, they’ve evaded cooperation with the IAEA, and of course, all the admissions of nuclear sabotage, terrorism and etc.

Doctorow:
Is that for me?

PressTV:
Yes.

Docrorow: 23:59
OK, look, the question of hypocrisy that the United States under Trump today vis-a-vis Israel, the relations with Israel are, I am certain, not what they appear to be. We know where Joe Biden was. He was a hundred percent in the pocket of Netanyahu. That was a personal issue.

In general, there’s a lively debate in the States, particularly in the off mainstream, my peers, over whether the Israel is the tail that is wagging the dog or whether Washington is the head that is wagging Israel, the tail. That is an open question. And the two sides of this issue are being debated by people who are quite serious and quite experienced. There’s no answer to it. But I would say right now that more likely Mr. Trump is not a continuation of Joe Biden, that he is not a great fan of Netanyahu. And so give it some time.

25:03
All right. Sorry, sir. We’re going to have to leave it there. We’re short of, fresh out of time for tonight’s show. Independent international affairs analyst Gilbert Doctorow, joining us from Brussels; and also Executive Committee member of the Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War, Mr. Ken Stone. Joining us from Hamilton, Canada. Gentlemen, thank you for contributing to tonight’s show. And also a special thanks to our viewers for staying with us on tonight’s program.

25:22
It’s good night for now. See you next time.

Yesterday evening’s 25-minute long ‘Spotlight’ program on Press TV put me together with a well prepared activist, fellow panelist Ken Stone, from Hamilton, Canada. The discussion was skillfully led by one of Press TV’s senior presenters, Bardia Honardar.

I note in particular that the Russian side to the resolution condemning unilateral sanctions on Iran was led by Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Ryabkov, who is the leading ‘tough guy’ in the Ministry with respect to the United States. It was Ryabkov who in December 2021 presented the Russian ultimatums to the USA and NATO over rollback of NATO to its 1994 borders.

My main point in the discussion is that presently the Trump Administration is very busy fighting on all fronts domestically and in relations with Europe while it roots out the Deep State and its policies of never ending wars. Otherwise its attention is primarily focused on ending the Russia-Ukraine war for the sake of a reset of global governance, secondarily on preventing return of war in Gaza. Only after these issues progress will it be possible for Washington to devote due attention to reconfiguring relations wih Iran.

https://www.urmedium.net/c/presstv/132998

I am pleased to share this link with the community. This 26 minute panel discussion is at a high level and raises issues you will not find elsewhere in international news outlets

Postscript: As I mentioned yesterday, there were two interviews with NewsX, one, a panel discussion, in the late afternoon which is posted above and the other in the morning when I had 10 minutes to myself. The broadcaster has just sent that link which I copy below

As I have said on a number of occasions, I am grateful to the unscheduled periodic requests I receive from several Indian global broadcasters and from Iran’s Press TV for keeping me on my toes, pushing me to follow more closely than I otherwise would what mainstream is saying about breaking news and preparing in my mind my thoughts on where they get it wrong and what is actually going on before our eyes that is historic and should be so presented to my community even if that means multiple postings on a given day.

So it was today when India’s News X World twice reached out to me, first for a solo 10 minute interview in the morning and then again in the early afternoon to join a panel discussion with two Indian professors and one Indian former ambassador. In both instances the topic was yesterday’s response by Vladimir Putin to the temporary cease-fire agreed by Team Trump and Vladimir Zelensky’s hand picked group of negotiators that the American President was now strongly urging Putin to sign on to.

As I had forecast the day before, Putin’s answer was a ‘Yes, but…’ He generously thanked Donald Trump for all his efforts to bring about a peace, but noted that others, including the BRICS leaders, have been similarly engaged and spent valuable time trying to help find a way out of the crisis. He also explained that there are many open questions about the implementation of such a cease-fire to ensure that it is not used by Kiev just to buy some time to rotate its soldiers, bring in newly mobilized troops and otherwise get a respite from the bashing they are now receiving at Russian hands, most notably by their forcible expulsion from Kursk in which they left behind some of the most advanced military hardware they had received from the USA, the correspondence they had with their generals, their small arms as they fled for their lives in disarray.

What is most remarkable in the day that has passed since Putin made his position clear at a press conference in Moscow following talks with the visiting President of Belarus Lukashenko is that there has been almost no condemnation of Russia in major media for turning its back on peace. Surely the White House has signaled to the press that such negativism would not be helpful when future allocation of presidential time to journalists is decided. For his part, we may assume that Volodymyr Zelensky was warned by Washington to just shut up. All that he could say to the press was that Vladimir Putin was ‘being manipulative.’ Gosh, isn’t that what pre-negotiation maneuvering is all about? Does anyone mean to say that Donald Trump is not ‘manipulative’?

The Financial Times reporting this morning on Putin’s response was mostly factual and without much ‘spin.’ Putin’s arguments against acceptance of the cease-fire without reworking the terms were reproduced rather faithfully.

Of course, CNN was less objective. It sneaked into its report from the first sentences the reminder that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had been an act of ‘unprovoked’ aggression. It tried to present President Putin’s conditions for proceeding as representing something new and unhelpful, whereas as we all know Putin has in recent days not added any new conditions to ending the war than he had set out very clearly back in June 2024 when addressing Russia’s ambassadors at an annual gathering in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs headquarters. And yet, the tone was still respectful, not venomous.

In my participation in the News X panel discussion, the link to which I hope to be able to present here later today or tomorrow, depending on how efficient the production team in India works, I was especially pleased to set out my view that the mildly positive position on the cease-fire taken by Putin is explained by what other talks are ongoing in great secrecy with the Trump administration, and most particularly in the time that Trump envoy Steve Witkoff spent in Moscow yesterday. We know nothing about this and, to be sure, at this stage we have no right to know since the parties are at the very start of a difficult discussion. But there is reason to believe that the substance of Witkoff’s mission was not to go into lines on the map representing the future borders of Ukraine and Russia after a peace treaty is signed. My peers have rightly said that such military affairs are entirely out of the competence of real estate developer Witkoff. But he surely has the ability to take forward Donald Trump’s plans for a thorough reset of Russian -American relations in what will become a new governing board of the world at which Russia, the USA, China and India have seats. Note: for the first time since 1945 Europe will have no seat at the table. The EU countries have totally discredited themselves as a force for peace in the world.

I recommend to the community what one or another of the Indian panelists had to say about India being a potential provider of ‘peace-keeping troops’ or ‘monitors’ dispatched to Ukraine upon conclusion of any cease-fire/ peace treaty. The distinction in what these outsiders will be called is of great importance. Let us be perfectly clear: the idea of sending ‘peace-keepers’ to Ukraine is predicated on the assumption of Russian aggression which has to be deterred by a suitably capable outside military force on the ground. Why exactly Russia would violate the cease-fire terms and Ukraine would peaceably abide by them is something that no one wants to open up to discussion.

On the other hand, a monitor group would be doing an essential service to the cause of peace, and the idea was already hinted at by Vladimir Putin in his remarks at his press conference yesterday. This new group of monitors would do what the OSCE was supposed to do in monitoring the Minsk – 2 agreements but never properly performed because of the countries involved were mealy-mouthed Europeans and their rapporteurs did not dare report what they witnessed, since it would be taken as prejudicial to Ukraine.. BRICS countries will certainly have no reason to hush up who actually starts any violations of the agreements. And since the assumption will be that either side is capable of violations, they will be strictly monitors, not a fighting force for deterrence.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Wladimir Putins „Ja, aber …“-Antwort auf Trumps Waffenstillstand: Wie es am Morgen danach aussieht

Wie ich bereits mehrfach gesagt habe, bin ich dankbar für die außerplanmäßigen Anfragen, die ich regelmäßig von mehreren indischen globalen Sendern und vom iranischen Press TV erhalte, weil sie mich auf Trab halten und mich dazu drängen, genauer als sonst zu verfolgen, was die Mainstream-Medien über aktuelle Nachrichten sagen, und mir Gedanken darüber zu machen, wo sie falsch liegen und was tatsächlich vor unseren Augen vor sich geht, was historisch ist und meiner Gemeinschaft so präsentiert werden sollte, auch wenn das bedeutet, dass ich an einem bestimmten Tag mehrere Beiträge veröffentlichen muss.

So war es auch heute, als mich der indische Nachrichtensender News X World zweimal kontaktierte, zuerst für ein 10-minütiges Solointerview am Morgen und dann erneut am frühen Nachmittag, um an einer Podiumsdiskussion mit zwei indischen Professoren und einem ehemaligen indischen Botschafter teilzunehmen. In beiden Fällen ging es um die gestrige Reaktion von Wladimir Putin auf den vorübergehenden Waffenstillstand, auf den sich das Team Trump und Wladimir Zelenskys handverlesene Verhandlungsgruppe geeinigt hatten und zu dessen Unterzeichnung der amerikanische Präsident Putin nun nachdrücklich aufforderte.

Wie ich am Tag zuvor vorausgesagt hatte, lautete Putins Antwort „Ja, aber …“. Er dankte Donald Trump großzügig für all seine Bemühungen, Frieden zu schaffen, merkte jedoch an, dass andere, darunter die BRICS-Führer, sich ebenfalls engagiert und wertvolle Zeit damit verbracht hätten, einen Ausweg aus der Krise zu finden. Er erklärte auch, dass es viele offene Fragen zur Umsetzung eines solchen Waffenstillstands gibt, um sicherzustellen, dass er von Kiew nicht nur dazu genutzt wird, Zeit zu gewinnen, um seine Soldaten auszutauschen, neu mobilisierte Truppen einzusetzen und anderweitig eine Atempause von den Schlägen zu bekommen, die sie derzeit von russischer Seite erhalten, insbesondere durch ihre gewaltsame Vertreibung aus Kursk, bei der sie einige der modernsten militärischen Ausrüstungsgegenstände zurückließen, die sie von den USA erhalten hatten, die Korrespondenz, die sie mit ihren Generälen geführt hatten, ihre Handfeuerwaffen, als sie in Unordnung um ihr Leben flohen.

Das Bemerkenswerteste an dem Tag, der vergangen ist, seit Putin seine Position auf einer Pressekonferenz in Moskau nach Gesprächen mit dem zu Besuch weilenden belarussischen Präsidenten Lukaschenko klargestellt hat, ist, dass es in den großen Medien fast keine Verurteilung Russlands dafür gab, dass es dem Frieden den Rücken gekehrt hat. Sicherlich hat das Weiße Haus der Presse signalisiert, dass eine solche negative Haltung nicht hilfreich wäre, wenn über die zukünftige Zuweisung von Zeit des Präsidenten für Journalisten entschieden wird. Was Volodymyr Zelensky betrifft, können wir davon ausgehen, dass er von Washington gewarnt wurde, einfach den Mund zu halten. Alles, was er der Presse sagen konnte, war, dass Wladimir Putin „manipulativ“ sei. Meine Güte, ist das nicht genau das, worum es bei Manövern vor Verhandlungen geht? Will irgendjemand behaupten, dass Donald Trump nicht „manipulativ“ ist?

Die Financial Times berichtete heute Morgen größtenteils sachlich und ohne viel „Spin“ über Putins Antwort. Putins Argumente gegen die Annahme des Waffenstillstands ohne eine Überarbeitung der Bedingungen wurden ziemlich getreu wiedergegeben.

CNN war natürlich weniger objektiv. In seinem Bericht wurde bereits in den ersten Sätzen daran erinnert, dass die Invasion Russlands in der Ukraine ein Akt „unprovozierter“ Aggression gewesen sei. Es wurde versucht, die Bedingungen von Präsident Putin für das weitere Vorgehen als etwas Neues und Unnützes darzustellen, obwohl Putin, wie wir alle wissen, in den letzten Tagen keine neuen Bedingungen für die Beendigung des Krieges hinzugefügt hat, die über das hinausgehen, was er bereits im Juni 2024 sehr deutlich gemacht hatte, als er vor den russischen Botschaftern bei einer jährlichen Versammlung im Hauptquartier des Außenministeriums sprach. Und dennoch war der Tonfall respektvoll und nicht gehässig.

Bei meiner Teilnahme an der Podiumsdiskussion von News X, deren Link ich hoffentlich später heute oder morgen hier präsentieren kann, je nachdem, wie effizient das Produktionsteam in Indien arbeitet, habe ich mich besonders gefreut, meine Ansicht darzulegen, dass die leicht positive Haltung Putins zum Waffenstillstand durch die anderen Gespräche erklärt werden kann, die unter großer Geheimhaltung mit der Trump-Administration geführt werden, insbesondere während der Zeit, die der Trump-Gesandte Steve Witkoff gestern in Moskau verbracht hat. Wir wissen nichts darüber und haben zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt auch kein Recht, etwas darüber zu erfahren, da die Parteien erst am Anfang einer schwierigen Diskussion stehen. Es gibt jedoch Grund zu der Annahme, dass Witkoffs Mission nicht darin bestand, sich auf Linien auf der Landkarte zu einigen, die die zukünftigen Grenzen der Ukraine und Russlands nach der Unterzeichnung eines Friedensvertrags darstellen. Meine Kollegen haben zu Recht gesagt, dass solche militärischen Angelegenheiten völlig außerhalb der Kompetenz des Immobilienentwicklers Witkoff liegen. Aber er hat sicherlich die Fähigkeit, Donald Trumps Pläne für eine grundlegende Neugestaltung der russisch-amerikanischen Beziehungen in einem neuen Verwaltungsrat der Welt voranzutreiben, in dem Russland, die USA, China und Indien Sitze haben werden. Anmerkung: Zum ersten Mal seit 1945 wird Europa keinen Sitz am Tisch haben. Die EU-Länder haben sich als Friedensmacht in der Welt völlig diskreditiert.

Ich empfehle der Community, was der eine oder andere indische Diskussionsteilnehmer darüber gesagt hat, dass Indien ein potenzieller Anbieter von „Friedenstruppen“ oder „Beobachtern“ sein könnte, die nach Abschluss eines Waffenstillstands-/Friedensvertrags in die Ukraine entsandt werden. Die Unterscheidung, wie diese Außenstehenden genannt werden, ist von großer Bedeutung. Um es ganz deutlich zu sagen: Die Idee, „Friedenstruppen“ in die Ukraine zu entsenden, basiert auf der Annahme einer russischen Aggression, die durch eine entsprechend fähige externe Streitmacht vor Ort abgewehrt werden muss. Warum genau Russland die Waffenstillstandsbedingungen verletzen sollte und die Ukraine sich friedlich an diese halten würde, ist etwas, das niemand zur Diskussion stellen möchte.

Andererseits würde eine Beobachtergruppe einen wesentlichen Beitrag zum Frieden leisten, und die Idee wurde bereits von Wladimir Putin in seinen Ausführungen auf seiner gestrigen Pressekonferenz angedeutet. Diese neue Gruppe von Beobachtern würde das tun, was die OSZE bei der Überwachung der Minsk-2-Abkommen tun sollte, aber nie richtig getan hat, weil die beteiligten Länder verlogene Europäer waren und ihre Berichterstatter sich nicht trauten, über das zu berichten, was sie gesehen haben, da dies als nachteilig für die Ukraine angesehen worden wäre. Die BRICS-Staaten werden sicherlich keinen Grund haben, zu vertuschen, wer tatsächlich Verstöße gegen die Abkommen begeht. Und da davon ausgegangen wird, dass beide Seiten zu Verstößen fähig sind, werden sie streng überwachen und nicht als abschreckende Streitmacht auftreten.

Transcript submitted by a reader

Napolitano: 0:31
Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for “Judging Freedom”. Today is Thursday, March 13th, 2025. Professor Gilbert Doctorow will be here with us in just a moment. [commercial message]

1:54
Professor Doctorow, good day to you, my friend, and welcome here. I want to speak to you at some length on your views about the so-called ceasefire, the secret and unseen agreement Marco Rubio, the American Secretary of State seems to have extracted from the Ukrainians.

But before we get there, you have some very interesting observations on the attitude of the Belgian public, you living in Belgium now, both the sort of blue collar, hard working folks and the elites, about the war in Ukraine. What are those attitudes that those folks have manifested?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
Well, for some time I was confident that I had an understanding of where the elites are because I’m a member of an elite, the elite royal club of French speakers in Brussels. And they have monarchists, they have people who serve the monarchy.

They have simply successful businessmen and now women because they’re admitting 50-50 women presently. I attend their meetings, that’s my main contact with society, because when you come into a country as I did, of middle age, and It’s not the time when you make new friends. It’s even difficult to acquire acquaintances. So I judged Belgium by the people I see around me at the gatherings at table talk, because the biggest thing that Belgian men do at a social club is eat. So we have table talk.

3:33
And I heard a big change in thinking, going back to when I joined this club five years ago, when it was really a center of moderation, tolerance for all views, and with a backward nostalgia to the days when Peter the Great visited Spa when he traveled around the low countries. That disappeared. And what I saw in the recent past was very sharp hostility towards Russia among most of my peers, with a few exceptions.

But the mood had changed dramatically. I remarked that. But I had no feel or I didn’t have any confidence in saying what ordinary people on the street are thinking, because you don’t just guess at that. However, I have an additional side to my life here. We have family here. My daughter’s here, my grandchildren are here, and my daughter is a school teacher in secondary school. So she has a lot of social contacts, both as a professional with her peers and with the parents of students because they meet the parents of students as is the custom, but also with her children.

She has two teenage kids, 14 and 16. And at that age, they have friends and their friends have parents and they get together. So her social circle in middle-class or lower middle-class Belgium is quite broad. And she has been very disturbed, very troubled in the last few months by the clear feeling of patriotism, cheap patriotism, wanting to go to war, wanting to send your kids to military training.

5:26
I mean, Belgium doesn’t have much of a military history. I think they lasted about a week or 10 days in World War II. They didn’t do too much better in World War I. So in a country like this, with no martial history, with no parade culture, to have parents say that they want to see training, paramilitary training for their kids at the end of secondary school. And if they do not object to introduction of a draft or to send their kids to fight against Russia, this is striking.

Napolitano: 5:58
How do you account for this? A peace-loving, non-militaristic country suddenly manifesting such a degree of animosity towards the Russians that people would talk about a draft? I mean, do they go to bed at night expecting an invasion the next morning?

Doctorow:
Almost so. Look, there has been non-stop propaganda of the Atlanticist variety on all of the media. Not to mention the fact that when you tune in Europe’s widest viewed television news, Euronews, you’re getting a voice of Ursula von der Leyen 24 on 24.

[It] has been a very heavy indoctrination. And it has had a result. The result is what I just described. There are no parades here, military parades in Belgium, but the attitude has changed, and parents, even speaking about sending their sons off to fight against Russia.

Napolitano: 7:05
How do the young men feel about this? The human beings that could actually be drafted, sent to the front lines, and as you have written, Professor, in a week be blown to bits by the Russian military.

Doctorow:
Oh definitely. Like I said, these two teenage sons, one of them is 16, well in a year he’ll be out of secondary school and he would be facing his draft. I can assure you that he’s not enthusiastic about it. But that is a personal matter which I would be unwise to discuss.

I only say that what the parents are saying may be rather different from the sons are saying. If I recall back in the 1960s, there was such a division between what my parents’ generation was saying about the Vietnam War and what my peers were saying.

Napollitano: 8:01
Wow. By the way, it’s Belgium. It’s not exactly Alabama. Would they draft women?

Doctorow:
Not to my knowledge. No. This is, so far it’s, the gender issue hasn’t gone that extreme in Belgium. And as to the question of what kind of society this is, let me be perfectly clear about it.

When I walk the streets of downtown Brussels, I see 99% heterosexual couples. I see a lot of little kids. And I see 1% of the circle of marginals who have been raised to the level of iconic level in the States. So the country, it may have fallen out of love for the church definitely, the feeling here is anti-clerical, but it hasn’t gone to the extremes and Satanism, which is taking hold of Paris, has not made it in more provincial, shall we say, Belgium.

Napolitano 9:11
Okay. Switching gears, Professor Doctorow, to Secretary of State Rubio and his announcements. Actually, before I ask you about it, Chris, I want the clip. I don’t remember what the number is of it where Secretary Rubio, the one we were viewing a few minutes ago, Chris, where Secretary Rubio and Mike Waltz are together. Can you run that, please?

Rubio:
Today we made an offer that the Ukrainians have accepted, which is to enter into a ceasefire and into immediate negotiations to end this conflict in a way that’s enduring and sustainable.

We’ll take this off for now to the Russians and we hope that they’ll say yes, that they’ll say yes to peace. The ball is now in their court.

Waltz:
We also got into substantive details on how this war is going to permanently end. We have a named delegation in terms of next steps from the Russian side. We have a named delegation in terms of next steps from the Ukrainian side.

I will talk to my Russian counterpart in the coming days. Secretary Rubio will be with G7 foreign ministers in the next couple of days. We have the NATO Secretary General in the White House on Thursday, and we’ll take the process forward from there.

Napolitano: 10:37
What do we not know about this so-called ceasefire agreement? I mean, have you had an opportunity to read it? Has anybody except those two folks had an opportunity to read it?

Doctorow:
Well, I don’t blame them for keeping the secret. It would go nowhere. Who knows to what extent the delegation put together by Zelensky is of the same opinion as Zelensky himself, that the country will cede no territory to Russia. He said that in the last couple of days.

If that were the view, then this peace negotiation is going absolutely nowhere. So we don’t know. Rubio has been very diplomatic. I was admiring his language in the several different times that he came before cameras. Last one, I think, was on his visit to Ireland yesterday.

And he was very careful saying, oh, but are you going to punish Russia if they say no? And he was very wise in saying, look, you don’t issue threats before the decision–

Napoltano:
You know what? Let me play that clip, because my own view is the opposite of yours. I thought he seemed tentative and insecure, but let’s watch him and let you comment and let our viewers comment. Chris, cut number one.

Questioner: 12:21
Are you truly prepared to apply pressure on Russia should it be recalcitrant and not agree to the terms of the ceasefire? There’s been no concrete action that this administration has taken to punish Russia since it’s come to office.

Rubio:
Well, just a couple points. To be clear, as far as I am aware, the United States has not provided armaments to Russia. The United States is not providing assistance to Russia.

Every single sanction that has been imposed on Russia remains in place. Every single sanction the President inherited has remained in place.

Questioner:
They’ve inherited previous sanctions.

Rubio:
Right. But, well, I mean, they’re pretty sanctioned up. I mean, there’s a lot of sanctions on already. So my point being is that there’s been no steps taken to relieve any of these things. These things continue to be in place, but we don’t think it’s constructive for me to stand here today and begin to issue threats about what we’re going to do if Russia says no. Let’s hope they say yes.

Napolitano: 12:54
What cards does he have to play, with my new friend, Sergey Lavrov?

Doctorow:
None. None. But I admit, I admire his refusal to say what Trump said a week ago, Oh, I’m gonna double down on the sanctions. We’re going to– No. He was saying what you and I and others have been discussing on this program: thut there’s nothing more to sanction them with.

So he was being honest and upfront and not being propagandistic. That is a hopeful sign. He knows what’s end is up. He’s being cautious in not releasing any content of the agreements with the Ukrainians, only the procedures: that they’ve named a working group, and blah blah blah. Let’s say, what I anticipate is that Putin will say, Yes, but… And the “but” is important.

13:51
He will certainly avoid giving the satisfaction to Zelensky and to the Russia bashers in the States and Europe that he said no. But he will not say yes. He will say, first of all, they’re not moving one inch on any ceasefire until the last Ukrainian has been killed or driven out of Kursk. That is 100 percent. And the fact that Putin was there yesterday, precisely yesterday, wearing military fatigues and telling the command, telling Gassimov, finish it up right now.

14:28
And they’re close to finishing it up right now, because of the most extraordinary exploit of the Russian stormtroopers in passing 16 kilometers through an underground gas pipeline to emerge in the middle of Suja, a main settlement or urban conglomeration in the part of Kursk that was occupied initially by the Ukrainians.

And they caught everyone unaware. It was like a modern version of the Trojan horse, only multiplied several times over, because these were 800 troops. This was an exploit of historic nature, whether it should have been done is another story. Being somewhat claustrophobic, the idea of spending 48 hours in this pipeline, which could be reflooded with gas at any time, that was not my idea–

Napolitano: 15:27
Right, right, right. Your comments about saying “yes”, or saying “yes, but”, or saying “no”, or “no, but” reminds me of that one-liner from Churchill. I’m not a fan of Churchill’s but he did have brilliant one-liners. The art of diplomacy is not saying yes or no, it’s saying “yes–” and “no, but”. Is the US a neutral, morally capable of being the intermediary here, when in reality it’s a co-belligerent, financing the war on one of the two sides?

Doctorow:
No, I agree completely with what you just said. It is not neutral. It is not an honest broker in any sense of the word. So it’s a rather peculiar situation. Yes, financing it and providing what it just demonstrated is of critical importance by withholding for a couple of days the satellite intelligence, the real-time intelligence that guides the Ukrainians on the battlefield and their air defense.

16:31
This participation in the war by the United States makes it impossible to view Trump’s position as that of an outside honest broker. He is a participant in the war.

Napolitano:
I want to play a little clip for you from John Bolton, who was, of course, US ambassador to the United Nations, but more recently and infamously Donald Trump’s national security advisor. And of course, they had a major, major falling out, and they still take pot shots at each other.

Here’s John. I call him John. I worked with him for a couple of years. I know him very well. Here’s John’s latest shot at Trump. But it’s very interesting the observation he makes. It’s only about half a minute long. Chris, cut number three.

Bolton:
Unlike Trump, who thinks that he and Putin are friends, Putin sees Trump as an easy mark. And using his KGB learning and experience, he has become very successful at manipulating Trump to the point that Trump doesn’t even know it’s happening.

I think that was evident after the election. And it’s paid off in terms of the Ukraine conflict, because Trump has given, even before negotiations began, given the Kremlin virtually every one of their major points that they want to see in a final agreement.

Napolitano: 17:52
Share that view, Professor Doctorow?

Doctorow:
Not anything that Bolton says has a personal animus towards Trump, and he’s using anything he can possibly get his hands on to clobber Trump. I don’t believe what he’s saying for a minute. Trump was not bending to Putin’s will. Trump was simply being a realist. Without accepting these basic conditions of the victor in the war, they will never sit at the table. So that was not something that Trump was personally persuaded because of the charm of Putin. That’s rubbish.

18:32
It was “Either you do want to do this, or you don’t want to do this. If you want to do it and you accept these basic conditions of Russians or you’re wasting everybody’s time.

Napolitano:
If Foreign Minister Lavrov is looking at clips as recently as six or eight months old of then-Senator Rubio speaking about Vladimir Putin, Russia, and Ukraine, might he conclude that Rubio himself inwardly, personally, and privately wants Ukraine to prevail in the war?

Doctorow:
I can’t judge him, what goes through Lavrov’s mind. From my observation of Rubio, he has been sincere to the mission he’s been given. What his personal views might be about this, I don’t know, they’re probably as you say, that he was sympathetic to Ukraine, why not? He was saying things of that nature for years. But he was not hired to pursue his personal vision; he was hired to pursue the vision of his boss. So I don’t– the question of “Is the Trump team trustworthy?”, that is essential and concerns all elements of it.

19:47
In the ways that are easy to do, Trump has been sending clear signals to Moscow that he wants a big change in relationship. This extends in all sorts of things that are not reported in the mainstream media. For example, the American veto on language in a, now being prepared collective statement of the G7 at its next gathering. The veto was on the notion that Russian shadow fleet should be monitored and should be stymied, frustrated. The United States vetoed that. The United States has done many of these little things, which are sending quiet signals to Moscow, “Hey, we want to get along.” Oh yes, in Syria, cooperates in Syria.

Napolitano: 20:33
Okay. I agree that Trump in his heart wants a Great Reset. You know, I just spent a week, nearly a week in Moscow, and rubbed shoulders and engaged in small talk as well as video recorded serious talk with Foreign Minister Lavrov himself. There’s no question in my mind that they want a Great Reset.

They want an amicable, cultural, social, and commercial relationship with Russia to resume. The reason I ask you about what they really think about Rubio is do they trust the Americans? Do they trust him? And of course, that remains to be seen.

Let’s look at the other side of this coin. In your view, is Volodymyr Zelensky free to engage in negotiations and sign a ceasefire, or does he know he’s a dead man, literally a dead man if he does so?

Doctorow: 21:37
Well, I think he has been very wise to put, to stand aside from the actual negotiations. He’s put up his, Yermak, the man who everyone says has been running the show from behind the throne, he’s put up these people. And they’re the ones who will have to accept or reject the real-world terms of the peace treaty.

Therefore, he may be saving his neck by passing it along to others. That’s not something to reproach him with. It’s simply a statement of fact. They have a delegation. The delegation will either proceed to a peace with the Russians or not, but if they proceed, they’ll have to accept terms, which will be quite painful for Ukraine. And if anyone gets lynched, they’ll be the ones who are lynched, not Mr. Zelensky. He’s not that stupid.

Napolitano:
What incentive do the Russians have to negotiate? I mean, five hours after I left a residential neighborhood in Moscow, it was attacked by drones. Why would the Ukrainian military be doing that at the same time the American Secretary of State is metaphorically on his knee begging the Russians to come to the table?

Doctorow:
Well, a lot of things are going on simultaneously. It was also the day of the gathering of Ramstein under the chairmanship of the Brits, but with Hegseth present. So in a typical way that Ukraine has used its arms for public relations purposes rather than for actual military purposes, that’s what they did with raining down 300 drones on Russia, 100 of them being in the Moscow city and Moscow oblast area, and creating the kind of havoc that was reported when you were there.

23:33
Now, the Russians were being, as Putin was being under, put under pressure by hardliners, by real superpatriots, to respond immediately by sending Russian missiles down on Kiev. And I don’t mean little drones or something, no, no, to use the Oreshnik and to smash up and probably kill everybody around in the Ukrainian parliament and government offices. He didn’t do that, though I don’t think it can be taken off the table. If the Russians do not proceed, decide not to proceed with peace talks, then they’ll be under no obligation to be nice and they may just do what the Patriots want as a proper revenge for what happened while you were there in that drone attack on Moscow. There’s a lot that can go on. As I said, the bottom line is that until the mopping up operation in Kursk is completed, the Russians will stall for time.

Napolitano: 24:45
Professor Doctorow, it’s a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you for all of your insight, particularly that from your daughter and her colleagues. Very, very telling to understand the pervasive level of propaganda on the streets in a place like Brussels, but very courageous of you to reveal it and generous of you to share it with us. We hope you’ll come back and join us again next week.

Doctorow:
Okay, I’ll just tell you that Denmark is even worse. We have friends in Denmark, and the level of propaganda in the general population is even higher than here.

Napolitano:
Well, or then before we go, whose propaganda and for what? That they should vote to join the United States or that they should fear a Russian invasion and institute a military draft?

Doctorow: 25:36
Well, in a sense of their prime minister, who said that for Ukraine now, the peace would be worse than during the war. It is viciously anti-Russia. And she was shaken totally by Trump and his bid to take over Greenland, like it or not. She lost her moorings, and now she’s railing out at Russia. So the general feeling in Denmark, which is a very calm country, much like Belgium, very happily taking care of by social benefits, but the feeling now is very hostile, very warlike.

Napolitano: 26:16
Very interesting. Professor Doctorow, thank you, my dear friend. Have a good day. We’ll see you next week.

Doctorow:
Well, bye-bye.

Napolitano:
Sure: Coming up at 11 o’clock this morning on all of this, Colonel Douglas McGregor. At 3 o’clock this afternoon on all of this, Professor John Mearsheimer, and at four o’clock this afternoon on all of this, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson.

26:39
Judge Napolitano for “Judging Freedom”.