Transcript submitted by a reader

Shivan Chanana, WION: 0:00
Can France, which has a total of 290 nuclear warheads, defend entire Europe against Russia?

Doctorow:
Most of what he’s been saying for the last couple of weeks is only spun out of his imagination.
The idea that Trump will remove the United States from NATO is a certainty.
Russia has no interest in possessing the whole of Ukraine.

WION: 0:33
As the divide between US and Europe widens, French President Emmanuel Macron came out swinging projecting his country, France, as the possible new saviour for Europe.

In a televised address, Macron made three key points. Russian aggression knows no borders, suggesting that Russia won’t stop at Ukraine and poses a threat to entire Europe. He said Europe must be prepared to defend itself without the US if that comes to becoming a reality. And France is willing to extend its nuclear umbrella to European partners, which essentially means deploying French nuclear assets across Europe. And the trigger still remains in Macron’s hands.

1:10
Now, in response to this, Dmitry Medvedev, former Russian president, announced Macron’s termination, even announcing the date when Macron will be terminated. Can France, which has a total of 290 nuclear warheads, defend entire Europe against Russia, which has at least 1,600 deployed warheads and nearly 2,800 stockpiled warheads? Can France replace the US nuclear deterrence? Can France become Europe’s security provider in place of US? Does France want to be Europe’s key security provider and arms manufacturer? What is France’s game plan?

To discuss matters further, I’m being joined by Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, who is an author, historian and international affairs analyst, joining me from Brussels. Sir, always a pleasure speaking with you. Dr. Doctorow, France, is it the new backer of Ukraine and Europe?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 2:01
This is the latest policy initiative by President Macron. He has a new major initiative every two days. Now, I want to be fair about this. This particular statement that he’s made last night has an interesting basis in fact, whereas most of what he’s been saying for the last couple of weeks has only spun out of his imagination.

His idea of France taking a leading role in the peace initiative for Ukraine by making available its boots on the ground in Ukraine to provide a security guarantee to whatever peace is arrived at — that is spun out of thin air and was completely ignoring the reality of the world we live in, which is that the Russians will not accept any, any foreign troops in Ukraine, as has been explicitly stated by President Putin and by his minister of foreign affairs, Lavrov.

3:04
And this is quite incredible that he would ignore that reality. What we have today now is the latest initiative, and with the same intention for France to move to the head of the pool of European leaders and to be the spokesperson and commander-in-chief of European defenses. Mr. Macron is so active, hyperactive, because he has a minimal support rating in his country.

If he has more than 10% approval rating, it’s a lot. In domestic politics, he is very weak, has a very weak hand. He does not have a workable government, a workable control of parliament that would enable him to continue his planned program of reforms, government reforms. So in domestic politics, he is close to being out on the street. So how do you make up for this lack of support domestically?

4:12
Well, you go, you devote everything to international affairs where you have absolute control since foreign affairs, military policy are the prerogative of the top executives. That’s what he’s doing. Yes.

WION:
No, no, I wanted to just come into this now. He mentioned expanding French nuclear umbrella to the entirety of Europe. So when the French president says something like this, and when the entire arsenal consists of 290 nuclear warheads, and you’re comparing this to arguably the biggest nuclear force in the world, that is Russia. How far or what would this imply for Europe? How– 290 warheads, how do they get divided across Europe to stand in front of Russia?

Doctorow:
Well, I am not a military expert, but I follow military experts very closely, particularly those that the majority of your audience would not be following. By that I mean Russian military experts and Russian political commentators. And I can tell you, the Russians have been sniggering. The latest remarks are that Russia is not threatened in any way by this French …

WION:
As far as the French nuclear arms are concerned, you mentioned the Russians are perhaps snickering at this. So is it enough or what does France even envision or imagine, I would say, since you said it’s perhaps springing something out of imagination, what are they even thinking? Can they do without the US in even having any kind of discussions with Russia?

Doctorow; 6:03
Well, let’s put this in a context. I was among a number of commentators in the United States and elsewhere who expected on Tuesday night, the 4th, during his address to the joint session of Congress, Donald Trump would announce the United States withdrawal from NATO. Well, he didn’t do that. Actually, the type of speech that he delivered and context for it was not appropriate to the solemnity of such a decision. He was giving another of his famous electoral campaign speeches. But the idea that Trump will remove the United States from NATO is a certainty.

6:45
This is not something that may happen; it’s something that will happen. And the Europeans are bringing this down on themselves by their repeating collectively the disastrous mistake that Volodymyr Zelensky made in the Oval Office last Friday. That mistake is lèse-majesté. You do not insult, you do not challenge directly the opinions of the president of the United States before cameras, and expect to survive politically. Now, Europe has done that.

But no sooner did Zelensky leave the United States, [where he’s pushed or] thrown out of the Whitehouse, than he arrived in London, where he’s embraced warmly by Starmer, by others, 19 assembled leaders of Europe, who gave him their full support, whatever that means, and who stand ready to participate actively in the security arrangements surrounding any peace settlement with Russia, on the assumption that Russia is the aggressor and is a recidivist who will once again be the aggressor that has to be stopped by force.

WION: 8:10
Now Dr. Doctorow, as far as Starmer mentioning that you know they offer Ukraine their full support or Europe coming out and saying we stand with Zelensky; and Zelensky– it took all of one day or within 24 hours of US halting and pausing aid to Ukraine, and out came that statement from Zelensky saying we are ready to sign that minerals deal. Within hours of that, you also had a statement from the German Defense Ministry saying that they have run out of ammunition to send to Ukraine. And in the midst of all of this, you have the French president saying they are willing to become the key security providers and they all need to boost their military spending, most of the European countries, and the nuclear umbrella needs to be spread across Europe.

8:58
When you take all these statements together, with Russia clearly outlining that it is a red line for them to have any NATO troops in Ukraine, because of which this entire war had even started. That’s as per the Russian, you know, narrative. Do you feel any of this will come to fruition? Do they stand a chance in front of Russia or is this all a rhetoric at this point?

Doctorow:
I think that the people who are making these statements will be swept from power in the coming months. The net result of their present efforts to stand up directly to defy present-day United States will be the withdrawal of US participation in NATO, after which NATO is an absolutely hollow and useless instrument.

Therefore, by their actions today, which are– nominally the argument is that defending Ukraine means defending European security, the net result of what they are doing is a much more serious threat to European security, because it removes the Americans from the equation.

10:04
And that is something that their people, that their voters will find utterly unacceptable and will find a way to force the resignation of the people who collected in Mr. Starmer’s offices in London.

As to standing up to Russia, once it is clear that Europe has no proper defense– which it hasn’t, for the reasons that you explained, they simply don’t have the armaments, and without the United States, they have no overall capability to stand up to Russia– when that sinks in, then they or their successors in office will approach the Russians to do a general settlement and new security arrangements.

10:55
That is to say, I do believe that at the end of the day, common sense will prevail, because what we’re seeing now is nonsense, not common sense. And Mr. Macron is among the leaders in the nonsense alliance. Everything that he says, yes, France arguably is the best positioned of European countries to provide a nuclear umbrella. The UK also has nuclear arms, but they are almost exclusively, if not exclusively, on their Trident submarines, which may or may not actually be able to fire them. That’s a separate issue. But they would not be suitable for extension of missile coverage across Europe, which is what, if I understand you properly, Macron’s argument seems to include.

11:47
Nonetheless, the imbalance in forces, nuclear forces, is such that Europe, under a French umbrella, is going to get rained on. Moreover, it ignores entirely Russia’s strategic developments in nuclear and non-nuclear weapons of destruction. It has with its hypersonic missiles the ability to decapitate all of the participating countries in any alliance directed against itself. This makes utter foolishness of the pretentious statements by Mr. Macron.

WION: 12:31
Dr. Doctorow, one last question I want to take with you. As per what the French president said, that Russian aggression knows no borders, do you feel Russia has its eyes anywhere beyond Ukraine as well?

Doctorow:
It doesn’t even have its eyes on all of Ukraine. This is all utter Russophobic slander. And why does it exist? Because Europe needs some unifying theme. Europe is falling apart, for good reason. The European Union does not deserve to continue its [existence] in its present form, which is a dictatorship.

Ursula von der Leyen, seeing around her the completely cowardly leaders, so-called leaders, and parliamentarians coming from European countries has grabbed power and is using it in a way that is not foreseen in the European constitution. Therefore, Europe is falling apart. And the only way that Ursula and others like Macron and Starmer from outside the EU hope to keep Europe together is a unifying cry, “We have to save ourselves from Russia.” As I was saying, Russia has no interest in possessing the whole of Ukraine, not to mention moving west to Lisbon. It does not have the means and is not intending to expend its valuable resources, its funds and its arms to hold on to territory that is hostile to it.

14:08
The rest of Ukraine is hostile to Russia, and always will be. So Russia doesn’t want to move west to the Dnieper, let alone to move into the hostile Baltic states, which have no economic or demographic value to anybody, or to Poland, which is a wonderland of political, what can I call them, they live in a Disneyland. They are, the Poles are wonderful people, and have a magnificent culture, but their political elites are as they were since the 18th century, out of touch with reality. So these countries that are screaming about a Russian danger now picked up by Macron in his usual opportunistic manner, they are saying nonsense.

WION: 14:58
I hear your point. Dr. Doctorow, thank you so much for joining me here on “Game Plan”. It’s always a pleasure speaking with you. A lot of big statements coming out, but as far as the summit in Europe is concerned, we will get to know what next. They do plan to spend more on their defense establishment. We need to know what they have in mind if the US is out of the equation.

And Trump is mincing no words when he says that NATO is not really on his radar any more and apart from other organizations. And there is a very, very evident rift that you see between US and the European Union at this point. What this means for the entire equation, geopolitics, we need to discuss that further, perhaps in our next “Game Plan” episode we’ll speak again. Thank you so much.

15:38
That was Dr. Gilbert Doctorow joining us.

Donald Trump’s Speech to the Joint Session of Congress, 4 March

Sometimes it pays to let a few days pass before offering an analysis of a major speech like Donald Trump’s to a Joint Session of Congress on 4 March. Time to ‘let the dust settle’ is all the more important when you consider that Trump’s public statements about key issues relating to the Ukraine war rock back and forth from pro-Russian to pro-Ukrainian, day by day, all for the sake of keeping his opponents off balance and out of his way.

In my own interviews on 4 March taken eight or more hours before the President’s speech at 9pm, Washington time (3am, 5 March, Brussels time), I shared with the community rumors that were circulating among well informed analysts: that Trump would use the speech to announce the withdrawal of the United States from NATO. The logic to that rumor was that this would be Trump’s direct response to the open defiance that European leaders showed on Sunday when meeting in London. They had embraced Zelensky especially warmly, as if to compensate for the brutal treatment he had received at Trump’s hands in the Oval Office and they offered to provide enough military and financial support to enable the Ukrainians to continue their war on Russia indefinitely without U.S. participation, this at the very moment when Trump was calling for a closure to this war in the immediate future.

However, after watching the special pageant of the Joint Session from start to finish, I better understood that it had the character of yet another Trump electoral campaign rally.  There was no room for solemnity appropriate to decisions bearing on war and peace. There was no room for dealing with foreign relations, since everyone was there to hear exclusively about Trump’s progress in implementing his domestic policy initiatives. I estimate that only 4 minutes out of the 140-minute speech could be said to deal with foreign and military policy.

The rituals shaping the speech were pure Americana, an expression of the country’s own version of democracy at which never ending campaigning is the core feature. No sooner do you win one election and get sworn in to a new term, than you are campaigning for the next election 22 months later. As he made his way into the hall and walked to the dais surrounded by the assigned suite of Congressmen/women and Senators, Trump was shaking the hands of those who had managed to get seats on the aisle for this purpose, given that the photo opportunity will serve them with their constituents in their own next pre-election gatherings.

As is the practice of presidents from both parties nowadays, the speech included vignette moments when individuals in the gallery were called out to serve as the human face of specific policies. This is the present-day equivalent of kissing babies, an act that was traditionally associated with politicking in the States. The featured policies for this purpose on Tuesday evening were the overriding themes of the speech, in particular curbing illegal immigration. Attention was given to the mother and sister of a 12-year-old girl who had been brutally murdered by Venezuelan gang members. They had entered the country illegally. Now their gang has been listed as terrorist and will come under special U.S. law enforcement procedures. A nature preserve is being renamed in the girl’s honor.

Another family in mourning seated in the gallery was called out for the needless death of their close relatives during the disastrous American evacuation from Afghanistan. Trump closed this vignette with the seemingly offhand remark that ‘the incompetent and ineffective withdrawal’ by the Biden administration gave a signal to Putin.

Of course, the remark was not offhand and signaled a change for the evening in Washington’s reading of who is to blame and who is the victim in the Russia-Ukraine War. Indeed, that was what we heard a few minutes later in the speech when Trump finally spoke about his peace initiative. This section consisted entirely of his reading a just arrived letter from Volodymyr Zelensky in which the Ukrainian president groveled and sought to renew the dialogue with Washington now that he is ready to negotiate a peace (not just a 30-day truce) with the Russians “under the strong leadership of President Trump.”

So, is Trump moving back to the role of even-handed broker, after having been condemned by the Democrats for making common cause with Putin?

The answer came on Wednesday, when it became clear that the halt to all further shipments of American war materiel to Ukraine would remain in effect ‘on a temporary basis.’

Let us be clear about it: the halt is symbolic, since the Biden administration already delivered to Ukraine enough supplies for them to continue fighting till summer. It is a negotiating tactic, to put Kiev under pressure to enter into peace talks now as Washington dictates.

But then the second shoe dropped: Washington announced that it was discontinuing all further intelligence sharing with Ukraine. This is not just symbolic. It stymies the Ukrainian ability to wage war, since the high precision missiles like U.S.-built Himars and long-range attack drones that Ukraine has used to destroy infrastructure deep inside the Russian Federation depend on the U.S.-supplied intel for programming their flight routes. Moreover, the intel is critically important to warn Kiev of impending Russian attacks on their territory.

As Russian experts explained yesterday, the Ukrainians have in reserve enough attack programming instructions to support their missile and drone operations for two weeks.  But already they have drastically cut back on their strikes into Russia last night.

If we consider Trump’s actions during this past week and ignore his words, it is clear that he is applying massive pressure on Ukraine to bring about their agreement to a peace settlement, and we may well assume that the terms of the settlement will largely favor the winners of this war, the Russians.

The Europeans may bray about their undying support for Ukraine and hope to induce Zelensky to continue the fight and so serve the defense interests of all of Europe, but the pressure which Trump has brought to bear is surely far more persuasive than anything the ship of fools in Brussels can offer.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Donald Trumps Rede vor dem gemeinsamen Kongress, 4. März

Manchmal lohnt es sich, ein paar Tage verstreichen zu lassen, bevor man eine Analyse einer wichtigen Rede wie der von Donald Trump vor einer gemeinsamen Kongresssitzung am 4. März vorlegt. Die Zeit, „den Staub sich legen zu lassen“, ist umso wichtiger, wenn man bedenkt, dass Trumps öffentliche Äußerungen zu wichtigen Fragen im Zusammenhang mit dem Ukraine-Krieg von Tag zu Tag zwischen pro-russisch und pro-ukrainisch schwanken, nur um seine Gegner aus dem Gleichgewicht zu bringen und ihnen aus dem Weg zu gehen.

In meinen eigenen Interviews am 4. März, die acht oder mehr Stunden vor der Rede des Präsidenten um 21 Uhr Washingtoner Zeit (3 Uhr morgens, 5. März, Brüsseler Zeit) stattfanden, teilte ich der Gemeinschaft Gerüchte mit, die unter gut informierten Analysten kursierten: Trump würde die Rede nutzen, um den Rückzug der Vereinigten Staaten aus der NATO anzukündigen. Die Logik hinter diesem Gerücht war, dass dies Trumps direkte Antwort auf die offene Missachtung sein würde, die die europäischen Staats- und Regierungschefs am Sonntag bei ihrem Treffen in London zeigten. Sie hatten Selenskyj besonders herzlich empfangen, als wollten sie ihn für die brutale Behandlung durch Trump im Oval Office entschädigen, und sie boten an, die Ukrainer mit ausreichend militärischer und finanzieller Unterstützung auszustatten, damit sie ihren Krieg gegen Russland auf unbestimmte Zeit ohne Beteiligung der USA fortsetzen können, und das zu einem Zeitpunkt, an dem Trump dazu aufrief, diesen Krieg in naher Zukunft zu beenden.

Nachdem ich mir jedoch die Sondersitzung der gemeinsamen Sitzung von Anfang bis Ende angesehen hatte, wurde mir klar, dass es sich um eine weitere Wahlkampfveranstaltung von Trump handelte. Es gab keinen Raum für die Ernsthaftigkeit, die Entscheidungen über Krieg und Frieden angemessen gewesen wäre. Es gab keinen Raum für die Behandlung von Außenbeziehungen, da alle ausschließlich Trumps Fortschritte bei der Umsetzung seiner innenpolitischen Initiativen hören wollten. Ich schätze, dass nur 4 Minuten der 140-minütigen Rede der Außen- und Militärpolitik gewidmet waren.

Die Rituale, die die Rede prägten, waren rein amerikanisch, ein Ausdruck der eigenen Version der Demokratie des Landes, bei der der endlose Wahlkampf im Mittelpunkt steht. Kaum hat man eine Wahl gewonnen und wird für eine neue Amtszeit vereidigt, beginnt man schon mit dem Wahlkampf für die nächste Wahl, die 22 Monate später stattfindet. Als er den Saal betrat und zum Podium ging, umgeben von den ihm zugewiesenen Kongressabgeordneten und Senatoren, schüttelte Trump die Hände derer, die es geschafft hatten, sich zu diesem Zweck Plätze am Gang zu sichern, da ihnen dieses Fotomotiv bei ihren eigenen nächsten Versammlungen vor der Wahl bei ihren Wählern zugutekommen wird.

Wie es heutzutage bei Präsidenten beider Parteien üblich ist, enthielt die Rede kurze Momente, in denen Personen auf der Tribüne aufgerufen wurden, um als menschliches Gesicht für bestimmte politische Maßnahmen zu dienen. Dies ist das heutige Äquivalent zum Küssen von Babys, eine Handlung, die in den USA traditionell mit Politik in Verbindung gebracht wurde. Die vorgestellten politischen Maßnahmen zu diesem Zweck am Dienstagabend waren die übergeordneten Themen der Rede, insbesondere die Eindämmung der illegalen Einwanderung. Besondere Aufmerksamkeit galt der Mutter und der Schwester eines 12-jährigen Mädchens, das von Mitgliedern einer venezolanischen Bande brutal ermordet worden war. Sie waren illegal in das Land eingereist. Nun wurde ihre Bande als terroristisch eingestuft und wird besonderen Strafverfolgungsverfahren der USA unterworfen. Ein Naturschutzgebiet wird zu Ehren des Mädchens umbenannt.

Eine weitere trauernde Familie, die auf der Tribüne saß, wurde wegen des sinnlosen Todes ihrer nahen Verwandten während der katastrophalen amerikanischen Evakuierung aus Afghanistan aufgerufen. Trump schloss diese Anekdote mit der scheinbar beiläufigen Bemerkung, dass der „inkompetente und ineffektive Rückzug“ der Biden-Regierung ein Signal an Putin gesendet habe.

Natürlich war diese Bemerkung nicht unüberlegt und signalisierte eine Veränderung in der Lesart Washingtons, wer im Russland-Ukraine-Krieg die Schuld trägt und wer das Opfer ist. Genau das hörten wir einige Minuten später in der Rede, als Trump endlich über seine Friedensinitiative sprach. Dieser Abschnitt bestand ausschließlich aus der Verlesung eines gerade eingetroffenen Briefes von Volodymyr Zelensky, in dem der ukrainische Präsident sich einschleimte und versuchte, den Dialog mit Washington wieder aufzunehmen, da er nun bereit sei, „unter der starken Führung von Präsident Trump“ mit den Russen über einen Frieden (nicht nur über einen 30-tägigen Waffenstillstand) zu verhandeln.

Kehrt Trump also in die Rolle des unparteiischen Vermittlers zurück, nachdem er von den Demokraten dafür verurteilt wurde, gemeinsame Sache mit Putin zu machen?

Die Antwort kam am Mittwoch, als klar wurde, dass der Stopp aller weiteren Lieferungen von amerikanischem Kriegsmaterial in die Ukraine „vorübergehend“ in Kraft bleiben würde.

Um es klar zu sagen: Der Stopp ist symbolisch, da die Biden-Regierung der Ukraine bereits genug Vorräte geliefert hat, damit sie bis zum Sommer weiterkämpfen kann. Es ist eine Verhandlungstaktik, um Kiew unter Druck zu setzen, jetzt in Friedensgespräche einzutreten, wie Washington es vorschreibt.

Doch dann kam der zweite Hammer: Washington kündigte an, dass es den weiteren Austausch von Geheimdienstinformationen mit der Ukraine einstellen werde. Dies ist nicht nur symbolisch. Es behindert die Fähigkeit der Ukraine, Krieg zu führen, da die hochpräzisen Raketen wie die in den USA gebauten Himars und Langstrecken-Angriffsdrohnen, mit denen die Ukraine die Infrastruktur tief im Inneren der Russischen Föderation zerstört hat, auf die von den USA gelieferten Informationen zur Programmierung ihrer Flugrouten angewiesen sind. Darüber hinaus sind die Informationen von entscheidender Bedeutung, um Kiew vor bevorstehenden russischen Angriffen auf ihr Territorium zu warnen.

Wie russische Experten gestern erklärten, verfügen die Ukrainer über genügend Angriffs-Programmieranleitungen, um ihre Raketen- und Drohneneinsätze zwei Wochen lang zu unterstützen. Aber bereits gestern Abend haben sie ihre Angriffe auf Russland drastisch eingeschränkt.

Wenn wir Trumps Handlungen in der vergangenen Woche betrachten und seine Worte ignorieren, ist es klar, dass er massiven Druck auf die Ukraine ausübt, um sie zu einer Einigung auf eine Friedensregelung zu bewegen, und wir können durchaus davon ausgehen, dass die Bedingungen der Regelung weitgehend die Gewinner dieses Krieges, die Russen, begünstigen werden.

Die Europäer mögen zwar lautstark ihre unerschütterliche Unterstützung für die Ukraine beteuern und hoffen, Selensky dazu zu bewegen, den Kampf fortzusetzen und so den Verteidigungsinteressen ganz Europas zu dienen, aber der Druck, den Trump ausgeübt hat, ist sicherlich weitaus überzeugender als alles, was das Narrenschiff in Brüssel zu bieten hat.

Spotlight: 0:17
Hello and welcome to our Spotlight program. In this episode, we delve into three pressing issues that have sparked intense debate and controversy in the realm of US foreign policy under the Trump administration. We’ll explore the recent halt of aid to Ukraine, a move that has raised questions about America’s commitment to its global alliances. Also, we’ll discuss the ongoing displacement of Palestinians and Trump pushing his plan for them.

And of course, we can’t leave out the tariffs Washington’s imposed on Canada, China and Mexico and their implications for trade relations and global economy. We’ll unpack these critical topics and their impact on both domestic and international fronts right after this report.

Reporter: 1:00
US President Donald Trump since taking office has done what he could to turn the tide against what some call is Washington’s downfall in the world economy and politics. Trump has ordered additional 10 percent tariffs on Chinese goods, taking the accumulated tariffs on China to 20 percent.

Beijing swiftly responded with tit-for-tat levies on a wide range of US products. The Trump administration has also imposed 25 percent tariffs on all imported goods from Canada and Mexico. Both countries have promised to respond in kind.

Trudeau:
Like the American tariffs, our response will also be far-reaching and include everyday items.

Reporter:
Trump has tried to reverse what his predecessor did regarding the war in Ukraine. The current US administration suspended all military assistance to Kiev, including weapons that are in transit or stored in Poland. Trump accuses Kiev of not being genuinely committed to peace. The decision follows a contentious meeting in the Oval Office between Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky, during which they were unable to finalize a deal on Ukraine’s minerals.

Trump:
Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. We’re trying to solve a problem. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel.

Zelensky:
I’m not telling you–

Trump:
Because you’re in no position to dictate that. Remember that. You’re in no position to dictate what we’re going to feel. … And what you’re doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country, that’s backed you far more than a lot of people said it should have.

Vance:
Have you said thank you once?

Zelensky:
A lot of times.

Reporter: 2:37
In West Asia, Trump has called for Palestinians to be displaced from the Gaza Strip and the territory to be transformed into a beach destination, even as the continuation of the Israel-Hamas ceasefire is uncertain.

Israel has meanwhile embraced what it says is an alternative to [the] US proposal for the ceasefire and the release of the regime’s captives held in Gaza. It has blocked the entry of food, fuel, medicine or other supplies to Gaza to try to get Hamas to accept the new proposal and has even warned of additional consequences, raising fears of a return to war. With all this uncertainty regarding the world politics, Washington has done nothing to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians or others globally.

Spotlight: 3:24
Well, I’d like now to welcome our two guests that will be joining us in this episode. Mr. John Steppling, author and commentator from Norway. And Mr. Gilbert Doctorow, independent international affairs analyst from Brussels, Belgium. Well both of you, thank you very much for joining us. It’s a pleasure to have you with us in this episode of The Spotlight.

Gentlemen, I’d like to start off with Mr. Doctorow, actually. Mr. Doctorow, let’s start off with the reality that basically everything that we’ve heard from Donald Trump has been going since he’s been inaugurated is completely the opposite of what he’s promised during his presidential campaign. To what extent of that do you agree?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
No, I don’t agree. He said that he would be looking for a peaceful solution to the Ukraine problem as one of his highest priorities. And many of the actions that we have seen, particularly over the last two weeks, have been precisely in that realm. They’ve been dramatic, they’ve been historic, and they’re pointing the United States in the direction of what really may be a way out of the Ukraine war.

Spotlight: 4:41
Yes, well actually I’m going to go over, we’re going to cross over a bit to Mr. John Steppling. Mr. Steppling, in your opinion, what message does the cessation actually of this aid to Ukraine send to other nations that actually rely on the US support?

Steppling:
Well, I think Ukraine, the support for Ukraine was a unique situation. You have to remember the US essentially fomented this conflict. They interfered in the Ukrainian elections. They were interfering in everything, all the way back to the Russian elections in 1996. So their fingerprints are all over everything, and they had troops in the region, they were building, they had bio-weapon labs in Ukraine and so forth.

5:35
So it was a very complex situation, and the US wanted this conflict. It made a great deal of money for the defense industry, in the US in particular. They poured a bunch of weapons and ammunition into Ukraine, a lot of it outdated, a lot of it was stuff Ukraine couldn’t even use.

But again, the economy, the economic aspect of it prevails. So now suddenly Trump is going to withdraw all support, which is great. I mean, terrific. There should never have been any support in the first place. What’s really going on here though is what’s happening in Europe, with the European Commission in the EU and leadership in the EU countries, because they are pledging and to continue supplying Ukraine and continue the fight against Russia, and that Russia is an existential threat and all this absurdity.

6:40
Even here in Norway, the government is pondering using the surplus oil fund, I forget what they actually officially call it, but it’s trillions of dollars, and it’s something they are loathe to touch at all. They are suddenly considering using it to help support Ukraine and the fight against Russia. The manufacturing of this Russiaphobia has been one of the most remarkable things I’ve ever seen. And you know, Russia and Putin and Lavrov and different representatives keep saying, “Look, Russia is not going to invade anybody; it’s not in our interest to invade anybody; we’re not a threat. We wanted to stop the expansion of NATO; we didn’t want missiles on our border.”

7:31
All of which was perfectly reasonable and was promised to them anyway decades before. So I’m perfectly happy that Trump is stopping support, but I think we’re going to have to see if the EU follows through on this. I honestly can’t imagine that they are capable of following through, and the war is lost anyway. So this may just be their performing political, you know, dance numbers for their domestic audiences and it’s nothing more than that, I think.

Spotlight: 8:11
Well, Mr. Doctorow, Mr. Steppling brought up some very interesting points, the backing by a European and especially by the EU to Ukraine itself. But I do have to ask you, there’s been many critics that have labeled Trump’s decision to halt the aid as reckless. But you have many people asking, I mean, was this, what motivated this decision? Was it actually more personal interest, more than national interest, as some analysts are saying, in your opinion?

Doctorow: 8:35
That type of criticism and kind of ad hominem argument is not acceptable. It is a polite form of slander. Donald Trump is often seen by many, many people in the States, and abroad, as a buffoon, a superficial person, someone who really isn’t capable of serious politics. He’s a businessman. He’s looking for his personal interest in this or that deal.

This is nonsense. In the last three weeks, we have seen Trump perform as one of the most skilled geopolitical actors on the face of the earth. He has been choreographing, or his people have choreographed for him the appearances of his most important and most capable assistants, like Rubio, like Witkoff, Hegseth.

9:31
They have come in a succession and have built upon these preceding speeches or actions like JD Vance in Munich at the Security Conference. They have built up a very clearly defined policy. The policy is to call out the European Union as being undemocratic, as a region which has no faith in its own voters and is trying to insulate itself from political will of the people. And in that case, the United States cannot support Europe. I think later today, or tomorrow our time, at 9 PM Eastern time in the States, Trump is going to appear before a joint session of Congress.

10:25
And it is widely rumored and expected that he will announce the United States withdrawing from NATO. This is unbelievable change. Does that mean the United States is withdrawing from the world [as] some of its critics in the States say? Nothing of the sort, just as a different concept of the world and something that many countries, including Iran, should pay attention to. The new concept that Donald Trump has is not NATO, this alliance, that alliance, it is the big powers.

The big powers are easily identifiable. They are Russia, China, United States and most likely in addition, India. So there will be the big three or four who will be the new governing board of the world and who will provide for each other buffer zones, areas of interest, so they do not collide and they will be responsible collectively for global security and for peace. That is very different from what has gone on for the last 70 years with the United States has been, as my fellow panelist said, has had its fingerprints all over everything, everywhere, with the 700 or 800 military bases around the world getting involved in the minutiae in the micromanagement of the whole world, gone. That’s going. All alliances are scrapped because they only serve to weigh down the United States and getting involved in disputes of which it has no national interest.

Spotlight: 12:10
Yes, exactly. Mr. Doctorow, I’m going to stop you here for a moment. You did point out some very interesting points. I do want to use those and cross over to Mr. Steppling in Norway just a bit.

Mr. Steppling, Mr. Doctorow mentioned that before being President, Trump was known and is still known as a businessman first of all. And he did talk about how this has been weighing on the US. If we move over to the point of, of course, Trump’s move, his tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, How do you assess the impact of these tariffs on US farmers, excuse me, manufacturers, particularly in light of the trade war with China? I mean, his being known as a businessman. Were these decisions based on sound economic principles, Yes or no?

Steppling: 12:47
Well, I don’t think there is a yes or no answer exactly. We’ll see what happens. You know, the United States is frightened of Chinese manufacturing power, economic power. They produce– everything they produce is superior to what’s produced in the United States, certainly in high-tech areas.

The tariffs may be sustained or may not. That’s my question. Mr. Doctorow is quite right, though, to point out if Trump withdraws from NATO, this is an extraordinary thing. This will have far more long lasting effects and repercussions than the the terror of trade war. Withdrawing from NATO changes the foreign policy playbook. I honestly– I’m waiting to see if it actually happens tomorrow, because it will be extraordinary if that’s what he does.

And it will cause Europe to reassess its foreign policy. I can’t believe they will support Ukraine, for example. But Trump is also right when he calls the EU undemocratic. It is. What is Macron still doing in power?

14:07
Why are these elections ignored, overturned? Look at what happened in Romania. On and on and on. So we’re already seeing a number of dissident voices, Italy, Orban in Hungary, people that want nothing to do with participating in this Ukraine war. As for the tariffs and the trade, it’s probably not ultimately sustainable.

Certainly, American farmers and agricultural growers and so forth are going to be in a very difficult situation with this, but it remains to be seen, as I say, how sustainable these decisions are. Right now, I think the overriding, the first issue of importance is Ukraine and NATO, and this is going to color everything. Now, it should be noted that Trump has also suggested buying Greenland and annexing Canada, and he wants to turn Gaza into Dubai in Palestine. These are … slightly insane ideas, and you know, one wishes the handling of the Gaza and the West Bank, the whole Palestinian question, Israel, one wishes desperately that his vision of that were different. But in that sense, he’s identical to every other US president, and Israel is essentially part of the United States at this point, and perhaps always was. So that’s not surprising.

16:00
I think that the outcry is more about Trump’s style and presentation, the fact that he brought in Elon Musk for this efficiency experiment, which has, you know, there’s been a kind of mass firing of federal workers and so forth. That may or may not be sustainable as well. I mean some of this stuff may get rolled back, because we’ve never seen it happen like this, and I don’t think anybody knows what the even medium-term repercussions of this are.

Spotlight:
Exactly, exactly Mr. Steppling. As you are mentioning this point, before we do move over to the topic of Gaza and the displacement of the Gazans and since you did mention that. I do want to cross over a bit to Mr. Doctorow.

Mr. Doctorow, I mean our guest does have a very important point about how things have been going, how this is the first time many people have seen such the interaction between the Ukrainian president and Donald Trump the other day from the Oval Office. Why is it that Donald Trump is acting as– in his executive orders, his actions, his speeches, everything he does, he acts– as if he owns the world and that he can do as he like. What gives this man this right?

Doctorow: 17:17
All of his predecessors. He’s not the first president to act as if he owns the world. The acronym that’s used for the presidency, it’s POTUS. This is the emperor, so he’s not doing anything out of line with his predecessors when he behaves that way. The point though is that his negotiating style is entirely different from what academics would recognize or expect. He is a lot of bluster.

He is a master at confusion. He’s not confused, but he’s working very hard to confuse his opponents, to neutralize them while he is quietly doing what he wants to do. And when he does make statements that seem insane, like the plans for a Trump resort in Gaza, I don’t believe that for a minute. He’s trying– so he lets himself look a little bit like a buffoon.

Spotlight: 18:25
Well, I do want to cut you off just a moment, Mr. Doctorow, if I may. With around five more minutes, I do want to, of course, ask you to bring the topic of Gaza, which is a very important part, specifically in today’s topic of Trump’s controversial moves. Mr. Steppling, I mean, let’s discuss his displacement plan of Gaza. First of all, I mean, why should the Palestinians be forced out of their motherland? Is this how Trump wants to actually bring peace and calm the world as he has previously vowed?

Steppling: 18:52
The US and Israel exist, they’re joined at their core, they are one entity. Nasrullah used to say that all the time. The idea that Irael tells the United States what to do is nonsense; they are the same entity. This expansion– the Greater Israel idea, the land grab in Syria, Lebanon and Gaza itself and the West Bank, this expansion which has been on the books for 30 years– it’s nothing new. It was the United States [that] decided, I think, time to implement that. They wanted Israel to expand as much as Israel wanted to expand. Does Trump really intend to round up the Palestinians and ship them to Siberia or somewhere? No, I don’t think so. It’s not possible.

19:49
And he may be unclear about the magnitude of a project like that. But he’s not out of line with US foreign policy regarding Israel. And half the elected officials in the Senate and … all national offices and appointments are … Zionists. Many have dual citizenship. It means they– you can’t– Israel’s not a real country. It’s a branch of the US. It’s like one of those 900 military bases. It’s just a really big base.

Spotlight: 20:31
Well, with that, I do want to cross over one more time to Mr. Doctorow with his opinion on the situation. I mean, Mr. Doctorow, as a party to the Gaza truce, why shouldn’t Washington simply tell Tel Aviv to abide by the agreement as it is signed with Hamas? I mean, Trump has instead opted for another deal. He’s opted to– this other deal is not needed, whereas the second phase for the first one has not even been implemented yet. What is your opinion on this?

Doctorow: 20:59
I think Trump very wisely doesn’t want to get personally engaged or committed in the nitty-gritty, in the fine points of negotiation. He has Mr. Witkoff to do that. But I think it’s, again it’s a mistake to draw hasty conclusions looking at how he has approached the Ukraine problem. I see that his major effort is to confuse and neutralize his opponents. Whether he does this by making sane or insane comments is irrelevant. The ideas of moving the Palestinian people to some third area where they’ll have beautiful homes. I don’t believe that for a minute. And I don’t think he does either.

But he just wants to stir the pot, keep people talking while he’s looking for real solutions. So I wouldn’t get too alarmed. I think there will be some real solutions and not a restart of the Gaza war. I don’t believe it’s going to happen.

Spotlight: 21:54
My last question with the last few minutes I would like you to please kindly, if you can briefly in around 30 seconds, answer the question both of you. First of all, Mr. Steppling: looking back, do you believe that Trump’s foreign policy decisions will have any lasting repercussions on America’s a global standing, and if so in what ways?

Steppling:
Well, Trump’s decisions are certainly going to have global consequences. There’s no question about that. The only only thing up for debate is whether they will be positive or negative. Disbanding NATO, getting out of NATO, is an absolute plus and is a brilliant idea. And I hope he actually does it. What he does with Israel is a lot more problematic, and he has to be very careful. There’s certain toes he can’t step on, and I agree to the extent that I think he trolls people all the time. And you know he was mentored by Roy Cohn. He’s not an idiot; he knows what he’s doing in terms of how he presents to the public. But US foreign policy is what it is; the defense industry is what it is; the Joint Chiefs and Pentagon are what they are. US foreign policy is imperialist, and it has never changed. So he had to tread carefully.

Spotlight: 23:16
And Mr. Doctorow, please, if you could, in around 20 seconds, please, your answer to that question.

Doctorow:
In Europe, among the leadership, the present leadership, Trump will be reviled. But my point is the present leadership is not going to stay in power for more than a few months. And going against Trump as they’ve done, they’re inviting what’s going to happen tonight: withdrawal from NATO. They are bringing about the destruction of European security, and they will be driven out of office for this violation of European interests. In the rest of the world, in the global South, [they] will love this policy [of] Trump, and he will be admired. And maybe he gets his Nobel Peace Prize.

Spotlight: 23:59
I’d like to thank both of you gentlemen, for joining us in this episode of Spotlight. Mr. John Steppling, author and commentator from Inderoy, Norway; and Mr. Gilbert Doctorow, independent international affairs analyst from Brussels, Belgium. A pleasure to have you both.

24:12
Viewers, thank you very much for watching this episode of Spotlight. Goodbye.

Yesterday’s ‘Game Plan’ interview program focused on a single very topical issue, President Emmanuel Macron’s announcement that his country stood ready to put its nuclear deterrent force at the service of all Europe. The French ‘nuclear umbrella’ would replace the decades long American nuclear umbrella which Europeans no longer trust given Donald Trump’s wavering support for NATO. It would place France at the head of all European defense planning.

The program host poses directly the question whether France’s 290 nuclear warheads can be considered truly dissuasive when facing Russia’s 1600 deployed warheads (on intercontinental missiles) plus 2800 stockpiled warheads, if one speaks exclusively of strategic weapons.

Of course, at present, given the Russian deployment of medium range (5,000 km) hypersonic nuclear-capable missiles like Oreshnik reaching all of Europe and carrying great destructive force even with nonnuclear warheads, the preponderance of Russian strength is still more dramatic.

The net result is that Russia would have a first strike capability that nullifies the French force de frappe in a single blow. In that sense, the French proposal cannot match what Europe loses with US withdrawal of support. The US nuclear triad is not just close in numbers to the Russian strategic force but by its diversity is less easily targetable for assured destruction.

I invite readers to peruse the Comments from the largely Indian audience. Quite exceptionally, they seem uniformly anti-European and anti-Macron.

I am pleased to share with the community the link to a panel discussion on Press TV’s 4 March ‘Spotlight’ program. I was joined by John Steppling, an American ‘public intellectual’ based in Norway who is best known as the author of plays and screenplays.

The presenter pursued several different issues with us coming out of Donald Trump’s latest foreign policy moves. Note that this interview took place before Trump’s speech to the joint session of Congress later in the day (at 9pm Eastern time). I was among a fair number of analysts who expected Trump to use the speech to declare the U.S. withdrawal from NATO. That did not happen, but surely will happen in the near future as I will explain in a separate essay later today.

https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2025/03/04/743918/Trump-controversial-moves

Transcript submitted by a reader

Napolitano: 0:32
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, March 4th, 2025. Professor Gilbert Doctorow will be here with us in just a moment on Donald Trump Outfoxes Europe. But first this.

advertisement: 0:48

Napolitano: 1:57
Professor Doctorow, welcome here, my dear friend. Thank you for joining us. What has been the reaction in Moscow to the dust-up or whatever you want to call it that occurred in the Oval Office in the White House between President Trump and President Zelensky on Friday?

2:19
I think there’s general pleasure that Donald Trump has been true to his word, and these remarks have been made, and has shown that what he was saying about improving relations with Russia were not just empty words, but he’s prepared to move on them. And if that means parting ways with the Ukrainians, then so be it. So this was very optimistic news for them.

Napolitano: 2:50
What was the reaction in Europe? I think we know from the comments of President Macron and Prime Minister Starmer, but from your visage in Brussels.

Doctorow: 3:03
I have in the past few weeks been commenting on the unimaginable stupidity of the collection of people called the leaders of the EU and in particular of Macron, who steps out front and of Keir Starmer, though not a member of the EU, has stepped up to be the leader of Europe in defense. But we have moved on from observations of people like myself from the sidelines saying that the leadership in Europe is not living in the real world, but they’re living in a bubble. What we have now is the endgame,and they have created it for themselves. Just note that Zelensky did himself in by directly challenging the President of the United States, lèse majesté. This is something that no one can get away with.

4:08
That he came wearing his usual outfit didn’t help. But the Russians in particular paid a lot of attention to these nuances, whether or not Zelensky was satisfying propriety rules of the Americans, of the age and the traditions of a Donald Trump. But let’s move to the substantive issues. What they have just done in Europe on Sunday, meeting with Starmer, was to repeat the disastrous mistake of Zelensky and to directly challenge the president of the United States as if they didn’t hear him say that he is not prepared to give a backup security guarantee to Ukraine. He said that in plain language, and Keir Starmer … he didn’t.

Napolitano: 5:05
You think that President Zelensky’s behavior, so widely criticized and so nicely encapsulated by you just now was intended for domestic Ukrainian audiences? He couldn’t possibly have thought that by picking a fight with Donald Trump, he was going to have a happy ending.

Doctorow:
Well, surely there were some in his retinue who were pleased to see that their man had spunk and were standing up to the Americans. Then there are other people with more brains like the Ukrainian ambassador to Washington who covered her face in shame and embarrassment that her boss is behaving so stupidly and against the interests of his own country.

5:49
Now what’s happening in Europe is they’ve just done the same thing. And in case we had doubts about it, today’s news in the “Financial Times” and elsewhere informs us that Macron has taken the initiative to seize the 200 – threatening to seize the 200 billion dollars in Russian assets that are frozen in Europe, in case the ceasefire is violated by the Russians. There are a couple of problems with this. First, there is no ceasefire and there will be no ceasefire because, again, Macron, Starmer, are not listening. They’re talking, but not listening.

6:32
The plain news of coming from Moscow, no, there will be no ceasefire. We want to go straight to a peace settlement. We don’t want 30 days. So, [that he] wants to protect Ukrainian interests by threatening to seize Russian assets is utterly foolish. But I don’t want to stand on foolishness, not foolishness. What we’re talking about is the likely end of American security guarantees to Europe.

These fools have by insisting that they stand by Ukraine because it reinforces European security, they are themselves with their own hands, destroying the security by insulting, defying the president of the United States.

Napolitano: 7:25
I mean, just last week, President Macron was talking about seizing the interest in bank accounts generated by these Russian deposits, an act of theft, of course. Now, you say he’s talking about seizing the principal in the bank accounts, a greater act of theft, and is doing so shamelessly and unlawfully. Of course it’s unlawful, it’s theft.

Doctorow:
Well, this again, it’s not my opinion. I’m just repeating to you what was on the front page of today’s “Financial Times”.

Napolitano:
Right, Right, right, right.

Doctorow:
The logic of this is beyond imagination. He is ready to upset the value of the dollar. It is a threat to the dollar if they seize those assets. How can he expect the Americans to go along with this? He’s living in a different world and he’ll soon be out on the street. I don’t see, Judge, how any of these people can survive the destruction of European security that they are now bringing on the heads.

Napolitano: 8:35
After President Zelensky left the White House, he flew to London where he met with Sir Keir Starmer with the King, and then he stayed, and some European leaders, including President Macron of France and Chancellor Scholz of Germany were there. And then at the end of that meeting, Sir Keir made a statement. Chris, cut number one.

Starmer:
Our starting point must be to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position now so that they can negotiate from a position of strength. And we are doubling down in our support. Yesterday evening, the UK signed a 2.2 billion pound loan to provide more military aid to Ukraine, backed not by the British taxpayer, but by the profits from frozen Russian assets.

9:34
And today I’m announcing a new deal, which allows Ukraine to use 1.6 billion pounds of UK export finance to buy more than 5,000 air defence missiles, which will be made in Belfast, creating jobs in our brilliant defense sector. This will be vital for protecting critical infrastructure now, and strengthen Ukraine in securing the peace when it comes.

Napolitano: 10:03
This is really hogwash, is it not? I mean, if they were to make these missiles, they wouldn’t be ready until 2030. It’s inconceivable the war will still be being fought then. It was he who claimed, as well as President Macron, that they would seize the interest on the frozen Russian assets. Take it from there, please, Professor. How was that statement that Sir Keir made viewed by the Kremlin?

Doctorow: 10:32
Well, again, I think with great amusement, because they’re aware, as I just said, that these people are self-destructing. If we heard, when we listen to what Keir Starmer is saying, he would be perfectly cast for a film about World War I.

It was people like this, so utterly blind, who brought the whole world, brought Europe into its civil war that destroyed a whole generation of young people. This is the type of fool. But again, my opinion is not what is valuable. I’m talking politics, not opinions. In political terms, what he’s saying is self-destruction because he’s going directly against the president of the United States.

11:16
And what that means in America was demonstrated last Friday, I think it was, maybe it was Saturday morning, when Lindsey Graham, of all people, flip-flopped on support for Zelensky and for Ukraine in general because of lèse majesté, because this man, this little nobody from Ukraine, had dared to engage in a hot dispute with the president of the United States. So I think that if, as is possible, President Trump this evening speaks of a disengagement from NATO, This is the right moment to do it, to strike when the iron is hot, because Americans that have political savvy will have certainly understood, as I did, that Starmer and Macron and Ursula von der Leyen, they’re going up against the United States. They’re going up against the clear statements of the president of the United States. You can’t do that. You cannot do that and survive.

Napolitano: 12:29
Well, you are right that the rumors are rampant that he will make headlines by announcing tonight our withdrawal when he addresses the joint session of Congress President Trump, of course, of whom I speak, announcing withdrawal from NATO. We’ll see. But I can’t help but playing this clip from Senator Graham, which we entitle “Then and Now”. Chris, cut number eight. 1

Graham:
I want to tell you and your people, you’re the ally I’ve been hoping for all my life. Not one American has died defending Ukraine. You’ve taken our weapons and you’ve kicked their ass, and I’m very proud to have you as our ally.

So, what do I think? Complete, utter disaster. What I saw in the Oval Office was disrespectful And I don’t know if we can ever do business with Zelensky again. He either needs to resign and send somebody over that we can do business with or he needs to change.

Napolitano: 13:27
Does anybody take him seriously in Europe?

Doctorow:
No, of course not. He’s a laughing stock. But what he’s saying here is indicative of the kind of wave of patriotism and pride that Trump can ride if he indeed makes the announcements about withdrawal from NATO.

I’d just like to add one point here, because many people speak about withdrawal from NATO as a case for isolationism. I don’t agree. Trump has a different vision, and unfortunately too many people who are married to their own past and to various verities from that past identify a commitment to the world as being through the establishments that have grown up over the last 70, 80 years.

14:20
Well, it doesn’t have to be that way. I think that we are about to witness a new Yalta, whether it’ll be a meeting of the big three, Russia, China, and the United States, or four with India in it. I think that’s more likely. And there will be a new global agreement on spheres of influence and how these powers get together to enforce the peace around the world. I think that that is not isolationism. So people are missing–

Napolitano: 14:48
I agree with everything you’re saying, Professor. I would add to it, it’s a manifestation of realism, the honest recognition of the sovereignty of other countries and their legitimate security needs — rather than the neocon, George Bush, Victoria Nuland going back to Woodrow Wilson, “we’re going to make the world safe for democracy”. [glitch] [We’ll direct how to live].

Doctorow:
Okay.

Napolitano: 15:22
So I think that would be Donald Trump’s dream, to have another Yalta. And I agree with you on the desirability of the presence of Prime Minister Modi.

Back to President Zelensky, if I might. Do you think he fears for his life if he were to come out in favor of a ceasefire? He does have that hard-right militia group embedded in his government which foolishly believes that they can defeat the Russians militarily, does he not?

Doctorow:
That’s been a long-standing situation. There are people going back a couple of years who said that there’s people in his entourage, people who are the forces behind the throne, who are … neo-Nazis or ultra-right nationalists, who were saying that if he should conclude a peace with Russia on less than honorable terms, that he would be strung up.

But I think the situation has gotten worse for him. Before he could say– okay, so he gets on a plane, he goes somewhere. Where’s he going now? He’s not going to be welcome. I don’t think that Starmer is going to be so keen on giving him a home.

16:40
He is now shown to be useless. And his people will have a second reason for finishing him up, that he no longer adds any value to that situation. He can’t provide arms. The United States, because of his behavior in the White House, has just cut the immediate delivery arms. So it’s time for him to go, either walking out or being carried out in a coffin.

Napolitano: 17:13
We have often speculated that the State Department would manipulate his departure and maneuver in a more rational, more universally understood and acceptable replacement. I think General Zaluzhny’s name is often mentioned. It brings to mind the fact that there’s no inspector general on the ground in Ukraine, and that once the billions in cash and hundreds of billions in military equipment get there, there’s no control as to what happens to it. I mean, is there universal belief in Europe that Zelensky is a wealthy man from stolen assets and has numerous homes to which he could retire, including in Paris and Miami.

Doctorrow: 18:06
Yes, once he loses the MI6 security detail, I don’t think his life is worth two cents. There are so many Ukrainians who have their own private reason for murdering him. He has killed a million people or maimed a million of his compatriots. Among that million, there are relatives who would like to see him in a coffin. So I think he’s got a serious security problem.

Napolitano:
You are not the first person on this program to refer to his security detail as MI6. We all know what that is, British intelligence. It is not Ukraine security?

Doctorow: 18:47
Well, he would have been dead a long time ago if it had been Ukrainian security. That could have been infiltrated. But the British are much more disciplined, and they provided them with excellent security.

Napolitano:
So when he was at the White House on Friday, MI6 was there with him.

Doctorow:
Yeah, so he’s been very well cared for, but I think the game is up. And as Donald Trump has demonstrated, people who are no longer the flavor of the day, they lose their security details.

Napolitano:
Yeah, we know that. What will happen to NATO if Trump pulls out? Whether he announces it tonight, does it slowly, announces it in June, whatever. What will remain of NATO?

19:26
Nothing. Nothing. The question is, what will remain of those 19 leaders who met in London? I don’t see how they can stay in power, because by their very action they have precipitated the destruction of NATO. It didn’t have to happen or certainly not in this timeframe. But by stupidly ignoring the words of the President of the United States and his commitment not to be dragged into the next world war by Europeans who are keen to continue the Ukraine war, this doesn’t fly.

So these people, as I said, by their actions, they are jeopardizing European security. And there are certainly people who will not tolerate this. But going back to Ukraine, and who will succeed Zelensky, I don’t believe there’ll be a civilian government. From the very beginning, the Russians anticipated that when they first marched, approached Kiev, they expected that the military in Ukraine would revolt against these extreme Italians who had the country by the neck and that the civilian government would be ousted. I think we’re coming back to that scenario.

20:43
You mentioned Zaluzhny. Zaluzhny has just been dismissed by Zelensky as the ambassador in the UK for obvious reasons, because he certainly must be colluding with the Brits on replacing Zelensky with himself. So he’s just been demoted to some absolutely unimportant little ambassadorship in a UN sub-organization.

But that’s not the point. Zaluzhny is no better than Zelensky. He is one more person ready to continue the war to the last Ukrainian and then maybe to the last European. He is not the answer. So the answer will be a capitulation and a military junta that takes over and holds on to power, because the Ukrainians are not ready for democratic election. They’ve been so brainwashed in the last eight years, 10 years, that they cannot yet see reality.

Napolitano: 21:43
A profound statement and a gifted analysis with much gratitude. Thank you for your time, Professor Doctorow. I will look forward to seeing you next week, my friend.

Doctorow:
Good, till then.

Napolitano:
Thank you, until then. Coming up at 10 o’clock this morning, Professor Jeffrey Sachs; at 11 o’clock, Colonel Larry Wilkerson; at noon. I don’t know where he is, but he’s coming to us, Pepe Escobar; at one o’clock, Professor Glenn Diesen; at three o’clock, Aaron Mate; at four o’clock, Professor John Mearshamer.

22:15
Judge Napolitano for “Judging Freedom”.

‘Judging Freedom,’ 4 March 2025:   Trump Outfoxes Europe

Today’s session took place during the countdown to Donald Trump’s address to Congress tonight. Rumor has it that he will announce the U.S. withdrawal from NATO.

If he does so, then his sense of theater timing will be proven to be extraordinary.  I say this because withdrawal from NATO, which we may assume was always in his plans, normally would raise rancorous debate on Capitol Hill. However, by a stroke of luck, the Europeans this past weekend, set the stage for such withdrawal by repeating the disastrous mistake of Volodymyr Zelensky during his meeting with Trump on Friday. I have in mind the capital crime of lèse majesté.   You cannot publicly go up against the explicitly stated will of the President of the United States and expect to survive politically.

This is precisely what the 19 European leaders who convened in London at the invitation of Keir Starmer did: they embraced Zelensky warmly, after he had been thrown out of White House; they called for a cease fire that entails European boots on the ground and American back-up support, which Trump very clearly said on Friday will not be forthcoming. They positioned themselves very clearly as the ‘war party’ when Trump has positioned himself as the campaigner for a durable peace here and now.

If Trump does call for withdrawal from NATO, I expect he will get enormous support from those who are incensed at the temerity of the Europeans going up against their President.

Another highlight of this interview is our discussion of Trump the Realist, Trump the Internationalist, even if and when he pulls out of NATO.

Transcript submitted by a reader

NewsX: 0:00
Former East German Stasi officer Matthias Warnig is pushing to restart the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, reaching out to US investors in a move once thought impossible. This signals a potential shift in US foreign policy towards Russia amid ongoing back-channel efforts. US-led investor Consortium is reportedly working on a post-sanctions plan with Gazprom, but the deal faces major obstacles including lifting sanctions, resuming gas sales and securing Germany’s approval. The Trump administration is said to be considering the pipeline as a strategic asset in Pete’s talks with Russia but Europe’s response and US policy shifts remain crucial challenges. The Nord Stream 2 deal continues to shape global power dynamics driven by geopolitics and energy interests.

0:54
For more on this we are joined by Gilbert Doctorow, Russian affairs expert located in Brussels. We’re also joined by Keith Vaz, chairman of the Integration Foundation located in London. And we’re also joined by Bernd Posselt, member of the party presidency of the CSU located in Bavaria. Thank you all for joining us. Keith Vaz, I wanted to come to you first on this discussion.

Why is this such an important issue, and how might restarting the Nord Stream impact the geopolitical balance in Europe, particularly regarding Russia’s leverage over the EU energy security?

Vaz: 1:44
Good afternoon, Thomas. It’s a very interesting story that is now circulating, that after all that’s happened as far as Ukraine is concerned, that there is the possibility of American investment in Nord Stream 2, with the possibility that it will open up again and therefore provide support for the energy needs of European countries. Three steps have to be achieved in order to make sure that this happens.

First of all, of course, you have to have the support of the Trump administration because there are still sanctions in place against Russia.

2:24
Secondly, you need the support of the European countries as a whole. And as we saw yesterday in London, there was a desire for the EU plus Britain and Canada to go together on the political settlement in Ukraine. They will probably need to have a say in what’s going on here.

And finally, we’ve got a new government in Germany, and therefore the new Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, would have to give his approval and the government of Germany would have to give its approval. So there are three big steps before anything happens, but the fact that people are talking about it I think is highly relevant. And the basis is: if there is investment from the United States of America then it’s more likely that the deal will go through, it will open up and everything will start flowing again.

NewsX: 3:19
Bernd Posselt, I wanted to come to you on this next one. What are the implications of Germany or other European nations engaging in discussions about Nord Stream, given the current sanctions on Russia and the ongoing war in Ukraine?

Posselt:
Yeah First of all, I would like to tell you that I was a member of the European Parliament for 20 years and now I’m a member of the presidency of my party in Munich, as responsible for Central and Eastern Europe, so for Ukraine. And concerning Nord Stream, I would like to tell you that I voted in the European Parliament against Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, because I’m thinking that it is very dangerous for Europe, for the European Union. We shouldn’t speak only about European states.

4:20
We are the European Union and we must [have] integration stronger. And as European Union, we must be more independent [of] energy from outside. And so we need diversification and not more dependence, and I’m absolutely against this restoration of Nord Stream 2. And I think Merz who is from our sister party. I know him very well since decades; I think he will be also against this idea.

NewsX: 4:55
Gilbert Doctorow, can I get your point of view on this matter? And how could this development affect NATO’s stance and the broader Western coalition strategy against Russia?

Posselt:
We have on Thursday the summit of the European–

NewsX:
My apologies, that question was for Gilbert Doctorow. Apologies.

Posselt:
Sorry.

NewsX:
Gilbert, if you could also unmute yourself, I believe that’s the case.

Doctorow: 5:27
Right. This discussion is entirely premature. The looking at what happened over the weekend, the meeting of 19 European leaders under the direction of Keir Starmer, trying to find a plan for a ceasefire, trying to agree something with Zelensky that they could present on his behalf to Trump, because they understand that Zelensky himself cannot present anything without insulting everybody in the room. The point is that this will proceed only after all, and I say all, the people who are in the room in London are gone from the stage, because everything that they discussed in London was totally irrelevant and is not taking into account the realities of this world, meaning what the Russians are saying and what the United States are saying. This peace that they have offered is contingent upon American security guarantees, which Donald Trump very loudly said will not be presented.

6:40
This peace with strength, with European boots on the ground, the French and the British and anybody else who joins the “coalition of the willing” to enforce this and ensure that Russia does not attack Ukraine again — they will be blown to bits by the Russians.

NewsX:
Okay.

Doctorow:
Mr. Putin and Mr. Lavrov said very explicitly, no foreign troops in Ukraine.

NewsX: 7:11
Keith Vaz, I wanted to come to you on this next question. Do you think it’s ethical for Germany and other European nations to consider reopening the Nord Stream while Ukraine continues to suffer from constant Russian aggression?

Vaz:
I think Gilbert is right. It is premature to discuss these issues, because it is only newspaper reports in the “Financial Times” and other newspapers. I said there are steps that need to be taken before it could even happen. He then went on to make it a wider discussion. And I have to correct him to this extent, not correct him, take a different view to him, which is that President Trump has been saying for years in his first term and now in the second term, Europe needs to stand up for itself. And now Europe is standing up for itself. And Gilbert is poo pooing it and saying, oh, it’s never, you know, there’s no point in these people doing it because they’re all going to be blown to bits.

8:11
But actually, it is important that the European Union plus Great Britain should be working together to guarantee its own security and the security of Ukraine. That’s what President Trump has been talking about. First of all, they’ve got to increase defense expenditure. Britain has pledged to do this up to 3%. The others have got to do it as well.

And secondly, they’ve got to act in unison. So I would urge people to watch this space. There needed to be something happening after what happened in the Oval Office. And this is perhaps the face-saving measure for all, where we can actually get to some kind of conclusion. But that goes beyond the remit of this program.

But since Gilbert mentioned it, I thought I would put my 5p into that discussion. Nothing can happen on Nord Stream 2 unless the Americans agree and the Europeans agree, in particular Germany. I know our Bavarian friend, Bernd, is there with lots of political experience. It’ll now be up to the new Chancellor to decide whether or not they want to help sort out Europe’s energy issues, because actually they need this energy from Russia. There is no other source that is so close.

9:30
Unless we discover kind of oil under Bavaria, we’re going to have to rely on other countries in order to import this. So it’s going to take time, but I think we need to make sure that people are positive about trying to get first of all peace in Ukraine and then the other bits of the jigsaw that Gilbert talked about. If we can achieve those that would be terrific.

NewsX:
Bernd Posselt, I want to finally come to you. How has the loss of Russian gas through the Nord Stream affected European energy markets? If you can just get an overview of that, and maybe possibly how could its reopening alleviate the energy price volatility?

Posselt:
I think we need reactivation of the atomic energy. I think we must use the national resources with the modern science. I think we must need for some years the LNG terminals, LNG gas and other sources, also Arab sources, but the aim must be that Europe must become, and the European Union must become independent from Russian gas. We should never go back to this dependence [on] Russian gas, which was a disaster for us.

And we must build up a European energy union, a European defense union. This we should have done since a long time. I was always in favor of it. I fought for it for decades. But now the time came where we must do it.

11:24
So I can also accept only the idea of an alliance of willings or coalition of willings, this is a good first step. But at least we must have a real European defense union with a real European army, because this is what we need in the 21st century. If you have a car which doesn’t function, you must repair it, but then you must think about a new car at the same time. And that’s what we have to do as European Union.

Today’s discussion topic was a feature article in The Financial Times on the possibility of restarting the Nord Stream 2 pipeline should Donald Trump’s normalization of relations with Russia continue apace. Let us recall that the undamaged Nord Stream 2 pipeline can carry 27 million cubic meters of natural gas per annum direct from Russia to Germany.

As I mention, the entire idea is premature, given how far the Europeans are from accepting a peace with Russia over Ukraine.

Nonetheless, let them talk. No harm done.

Transcript submitted by a reader

PressTV: 0:00
Well, I’d like to welcome my guests to the program. Gilbert Doctorow, Independent International Affairs Analyst out of Brussels. And Christopher Hilali, researcher and political analyst out of Vershire in the US. Well, thank you both for being with me. Great to see both of you.

Starting it off in Brussels and Gilbert. I mean, It was quite a show. What are your thoughts about these tumultuous talks that took place at the White House between Zelensky, Trump, and US Vice President, JD Vance?

Doctorow:
This was very carefully stage-managed. I think it’s a mistake to look at Trump as a superficial, lightweight person who might be amusing and who is known for his reality shows. This man is a showman in the most profound sense. In the last two weeks, we have seen a succession of historic events that have confused world leaders, but have not confused those of us among the observer groups who understand or try to understand what his objectives are. And there are clear objectives, and they’re extremely well served by these successive acts that he’s coordinated, choreographed with his very capable team.

1:31
Going back to the talk, the telephone conversation that he had with Vladimir Putin, followed the next day by a speech here in Brussels by Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, in which he told the support group for Ukraine that Ukraine had no future in NATO and could not, would not go back to its pre-war boundaries, followed by the Munich Security Conference appearance of JD Vance, in which he drove a stake between the United States and its European allies, saying the United States could not and would not support them if they themselves are betraying democracy, which he demonstrated at length. And now we have this event in the White House, in the Oval Office.

2:17
It was very well choreographed. He let Zelensky hang himself. He let him show his ugly nature, his pure hatred for Russia and for Mr. Putin, which make it impossible to conclude a peace. And then he brought the hammer down on Zelensky and made it very clear that there will be no further US aid to Ukraine and that the war will end. And not by a peace, but by a capitulation as the Russians maul his country and his country has no self defense.

PressTV: 2:49
Yeah, definitely very interesting. Well, Christopher, your thoughts, I mean, because we have definitely seen a 180 degree turnaround coming out of the White House, your perspective of why is Trump supporting Russia in the way he did? And we compare it to the Biden, not only the Biden White House, but the European allies who supported Kiev and continue to support Kiev. I mean, is it that Donald Trump, it really is because he wants peace, because he says this was ridiculous to begin with? Is it to get back at Biden that he thinks very much he’s involved in major kickbacks out of the Ukraine deal. I mean, your overall assessment of what’s happening.

Hilali: 3:39
Listen, I mean, this is a this is a transformational moment for US foreign policy and for the US’s standing in the world. Prior to this, we were talking often about BRICS, the development of the multipolar world, the end of US hegemony and US unipolarity. And I think that a part of the equation is that in order for the United States to stay relevant, in order for the United States to play the great game on a global scale, there have to be some concessions made to some other powerful nations. And, of course, in this case, the Russian Federation.

4:12
So the idea that Trump now is open for business with Russia and is seeking a quick end to this war is, I think, part of a larger strategy that might be to pull Russia away from China and away from that global South alliance system that has been created. And, of course, we’ve seen already articles coming out of some very famous theorists and international relations experts in Russia at prominent universities basically saying to Putin and to the Russian government, don’t fall for the trap, because they, of course, said that the West can never be trusted. Of course, what we saw with Zelensky was something that we’ve always known to exist because we’ve seen the US turn against its longtime allies, whether it was in South Vietnam, in Panama, in Iran, in Iraq, in Libya, and so many other places around the world throughout, of course, especially the last century.

5:01
What we haven’t seen is we haven’t seen it in front of the cameras. Now everybody was able to watch in real time what the US government does to its vassals once they kind of go outside of their bounds. And so I think that this is going to definitely reshape the relationship, not only between the US and Ukraine, but between the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom, and by extension, of course, with the Russian Federation.

PressTV: 5:27
Yeah, well, let’s talk about that, Gilbert. How significant is the difference between Washington and Brussels and London, and where do you see this particular schism going?

Doctorow:
Well, I’d like to take a step back and comment on what my fellow panelist has said. I agree entirely that what we are seeing is far bigger than the Ukraine war. It is a reordering of the global power structure. And what I see coming is not US efforts to separate Russia from China, which is impossible, and I think people around Trump understand that perfectly well. But to have a new Yalta, A new realpolitik, realism, division of spheres of influence among major powers.

6:22
And I think it’s quite possible we will see that new Yalta taking place in Moscow on May 9th. On May 9th, President Xi from China will be in Moscow. We now know that President Modi from India will be there. And the only thing missing is Donald Trump. It would be logical to expect to see him there and for them to perform this big global division of spheres of influence that can bring peace for the coming 50 years, if it is properly implemented. And in this big picture, Ukraine is a very small question.

PressTV: 7:04
Right. Well, Christopher, I mean, Trump has openly said that the US wants a percentage of Ukraine’s rare earth minerals and signing that agreement would lead to the end of the war. Your thoughts on that side of things. I mean, was a big part of this war to begin with about controlling Ukraine and its natural resources or how do you see it? And did this have anything to do with the reason that the US carried out the 2014 coup in Ukraine to begin with when they had a pro-Russian president? I mean, your assessment.

Hilali: 7:42
Certainly, the economic factors have been behind the 2014 fascist junta that the United States and other Western countries supported. And of course we know that it’s not only rare earth minerals, but also, for example, agricultural goods like wheat, also, for example, various other commodities that Ukraine has in large quantities, given its land size, that the West was interested [in]. The West was interested also in the deindustrialization of Ukraine, in tearing apart a lot of its major industries, which the Russians, in territories that have been liberated and have become part of the Russian Federation have been put back on line. I visited one of these industries in Lugansk, which was a major steel factory, which had gone down to four or five thousand workers and is back up now to 30,000 because of the investment by the Russian Federation.

8:34
So what you saw was something akin to the 90s, katastroika, what they called [it] in the Russian sphere, basically a complete liquidation of the Ukrainian economy and the ability for major companies and corporations to take what they could from Ukraine to the West. Given the fact now that the situation has changed, of course, Russia has pursued some sort of opening to Trump to also have a deal in terms of rare earth minerals. So who knows what ends up happening, but I can say that if Kiev doesn’t agree, if Zelensky doesn’t agree to this minerals deal, and if Ukraine is not able to stabilize its situation, I think Zelensky’s going to go either by force or be removed altogether in a new election, and there’s going to have to be some final settlement on the situation there.

9:22
But of course, as I agree with my colleague, Ukraine is a small part of what’s ongoing. I do believe that there are some who want a sort of new Yalta situation. I don’t think the Europeans are necessarily fond of that idea, but I also think that there are some people in the Trump camp, in the MAGA camp, who are very anti-China and really wouldn’t want to see that. So there are, I would say, contradictions within each of the camps as to what comes next, but I think that if there were to be a new order, sort of divvied up in the next few months or so, I think it would be a really transformative event and something that would leave the Europeans out in the cold.

PressTV: 9:59
Well, let’s talk about the Europeans a little bit more, Gilbert. Why this split in this way? Why do the Europeans continue to say that they support this war, that they will support Zelensky, that they will give money, they will send troops? Explain that, please.

Doctorow:
They’re heavily invested personally in this. Over the last three years, they’ve made enormous commitments. And for most of them, it’s very difficult to reverse course. For some, like Macron, that’s not a problem. He’s a chameleon. Every two, three days, he’s come up with another initiative which more or less has been contradicting the initiative that preceded it. Either he’s pro-Russian, he wants to go and make peace, or he wants to bring the French troops onto Ukraine to fight the Russians. So Macron won’t have a problem reversing course.

10:50
But someone like Starmer, who’s a little bit more dense and a little bit more consistent in his dense nature, is going to have a terrible time reversing course. So just the reality of top personalities in political life that have made enormous personal investments in a failing policy, it’s hard for them to change course. I believe that most of these people will disappear. Kaja Kallas, who yesterday, after the fracas in the Oval Office, appeared before microphones to say that– what you have quoted on screen– that the EU will continue to step up its supply of materiel to assist the Ukrainians to continue the war. I don’t believe she’s going to last two or three weeks. This is putting Europe directly against US foreign policy that’s clearly stated. Europe cannot do that. The risk is that Trump will not only walk away from Ukraine, which he has done. Today was the end of US support for Ukraine. There’s nothing further to discuss about this minerals deal. It will never take place.

12:01
But the Europeans will risk losing the United States participation in NATO. If they continue to object and to frustrate the plans of Trump to make a peace in Ukraine, NATO is dead, dead. And that, for Europe, means Europe will be totally defenseless. And all the European leaders who will have made that possible will be gone, gone. They should be distributing their resumes right now.

PressTV: 12:33
Well, Christopher, your thoughts, I mean, would you say that this meeting between Trump and Zelensky in the White House was basically not just significant, but symbolic of a tectonic shift when we look at– this can be a point in this transformation of this new world order, that the clarity of what was taking place, it was extremely significant. I mean, how do you see it in the whole realm of things and significant of that new world order, of that multipolar world?

Hilali:
I think it is a real axial moment. I think it is a transformative moment. And I agree with my colleague that, of course, I don’t think that Zelensky is going to come back and sign this deal. And I think that Zelensky is emblematic of the old regime of Biden, the sort of neoliberal world order, the world order after 1991, where you had an alliance of neocons and neoliberals basically looking at, you know, US hegemony and unipolarity and sort of doing their will and sort of regime change, talking about human rights.

13:49
You even saw that last night. Zelensky went on Fox News, and one of the things he kept on talking about was about freedom, liberty, democracy, and human rights. The Trump administration isn’t necessarily interested in that. Neither are many others interested in that kind of language. It’s been utilized as a weapon and a tool over the past 30, 40 years against many countries. We remember Yugoslavia, even in sanctions regimes against Iran and many other countries.

14:12
So what we’re seeing now is we’re seeing, okay, forget about all that stuff. This is about power. This is about spheres of influence. This is about economy and how are we going to divvy up the world between these great powers. And Trump recognizes these great powers. It’s not like Trump keeps on talking about US is the best out of all of them. Trump recognizes and is very much enchanted by the other powerful leaders because he sees them almost as equals, and they treat each other in that way.

14:38
So I think that that will help to shape this new global transformation. What ends up happening, I don’t have a crystal ball, I couldn’t tell you, but I do believe that there is a big impetus for business to proceed as normal, for business to expand, for there to be cooperation and for there to be less of these ongoing wars that so many in the Trump administration have been decrying for so many years. So I think we are in a transformational moment. Let’s see if everyone can seize on this opportunity to create something new. It remains to be seen.

PressTV: 15:08
What do you see happening inside of the US, Gilbert? Because yes, we have Trump and his administration, and we have so many others in the perspective of continuing with the old ways. I mean, do you see this affecting majorly internal affairs, domestic affairs inside of the United States?

Doctorow:
We already saw this today by the appearance of Lindsey Graham in front of the microphone. Lindsey Graham has been the most vicious promoter of Ukraine and denigrator of Russia, seeking to destroy Russia through Ukraine. Today, after watching this fracas, this great rumpus in the Oval Office, Lindsey Graham came in front of the microphones and more or less said it’s all over with Zelensky. Now that’s a tremendous change.

16:09
Now let’s keep in mind that Mr. Trump is primarily orchestrating things for his American audience, as you’d expect. He’s an American politician, after all. And he prepared this show. He knew very well that when put in front of the cameras, Zelensky would show his ugly face and people would understand that this man is not someone you can make a peace with. That was broadcast perfectly on all American channels. And when Lindsey Graham backs away from Ukraine then you show how skillful a politician is Donald Trump.

PressTV: 16:51
Okay, well Christopher, where do you see this going? Do you think that we’re going to be seeing the end of the Russia-Ukraine war very soon?

Hilali:
I think that there’s a few options here. And actually, I lean more towards the option that the United States might end up telling Russia, we no longer will support Ukraine. The Europeans will continue to support Ukraine as long as they can. And of course, we know they have depleted weapons, stockpiles, even Germany has made this clear, and they don’t have the money and resources to do it.

I think that we’re within two years of the end of the war. But I think that what might end up happening is the US will no longer support Ukraine, Ukraine will still fight on the battlefield with some minor European support, and then the Russian Federation will continue to make major advances on the battlefield, especially once the US supplies have dwindled and are no longer a real threat.

17:43
We might also see Russian domination in the skies, which has been something that has been a back and forth throughout this special military operation. We really, we’ll see if the Russians are able to take control of the skies, I think this war is going to come to a very quick conclusion. However, the Europeans have made it very clear, especially some of the most important NATO countries, that they do not want to give up on Ukraine and that they see this as an existential fight, especially countries like the Baltic states, which are extremely Russophobic.

18:17
So I think that we’re going to continue to see some of this conflict go on for some time. But I think that in the end, if the United States withdraws its support, which I think is very likely now, and given the fact that my colleague mentioned Lindsey Graham’s change of heart, I think that is extremely significant. And when that happened yesterday, I think a lot of commentators, you know, were able to see the writing on the wall. I think that Kiev eventually is going to have to come to terms with territorial laws and a much smaller country that they now will have.

PressTV: 18:45
And on that note, I thank you both for being with me on this “Spotlight”, Gilbert Doctorow, independent international affairs analyst out of Brussels; and Christopher Halali, researcher and political analyst out of Vershire. And thank you, everyone, for being with us for another”Sspotlight”.

19:02
I’m Marzieh Hashemi. Hope to see you right here next time. Goodbye.