Day by day the blindness and obtuseness of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and of his French comrade President Emmanuel Macron reach new and unimaginable heights.

This is perfectly clear from this morning’s Financial Times’ extensive report on the outcome of the meeting of 19 European leaders that Starmer convened in London on Sunday.

Understanding that Zelensky is his own worst enemy in dealing with the new administration in Washington, Starmer and Macron have decided to speak to Trump on Ukraine’s behalf. They are proposing a one-month Cease Fire that will cover hostile actions in the air, sea and relating to energy infrastructure. They do not propose to watch the 1000 km long battlefront, presumably because that is beyond their capabilities.

Putting aside the question about whether such a limited truce makes any sense on its own, they propose to enforce it by sending ‘boots on the ground’ from a still unspecified ‘coalition of the willing’ which their own armies would lead.

Here it is stunning that they are not listening to the flat refusal of President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov in their public statements of the past week to allow any stationing of foreign troops in Ukraine as guarantors of security. The very notion of NATO member countries having troops in Ukraine goes directly against the reasons for going to war that Russia announced back in February 2022.  Again, if Starmer and Macron had been paying attention, they also would have heard the Russians saying that such troops would be considered as co-belligerents and would be targeted for destruction, likely with tactical nuclear weapons.  Anybody listening out there in London?

But then again, Macron and Starmer are not listening to Washington either. They said yesterday that they require the US to provide air cover for the troops in their ‘coalition of the willing’ though last Friday Donald Trump made it perfectly clear that the USA will not provide any security guaranties to a peace in Ukraine.

You have to wonder what world Starmer, Macron and the other fools who gathered in London yesterday may be living in.  It is certainly not the one you, dear reader, and I share.

As regards Mr. Volodymyr Zelensky, who was guest of honor at the gathering in London, he had a session with reporters at the conclusion of the talks and just before he flew back to Kiev. This was covered very nicely by the BBC television news this morning, including the lengthy question from their reporter on whether Zelensky was prepared to do what Team Trump had demanded on Friday and to make a full apology to the American president.  Zelensky gave a rambling answer in line with the boorish remarks he delivered in the Oval Office. He said that the much-awaited deal on rare earth was still ready for signing, but quietly added that it had to include a U.S. security guaranty for his country after the war.  Very good, but such a guaranty was explicitly refused by Trump.

It is hard to imagine that any of these state actors will remain on the stage for more than a few months to come. Their mediocrity, nay, their rank stupidity would go unnoticed in ordinary times. But these are not ordinary times.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Transcript submitted by a reader

Prof. Glenn Diesen: 0:00
Good morning. I hope you’re all having a great day. Today I am joined by Dr. Gilbert Doktrow, an international affairs analyst and historian. It’s great to meet you.

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
Well, it’s a pleasure.

Diesen:
So I was just saying, I’m a fan of your work. I read your Substack and of course follow your interviews as well. And I really wanted to get your take on what’s happening in Europe now and also across the other side of the Atlantic, as we see now that the United States, well, seemingly is quite eager to end the war, which appears to be part of a larger scheme to reduce its presence in Europe and pivot to Asia. And if I’m not mistaken, a key counter-objective of the Europeans and the Zelensky seems to be to try to entangle the United States into their conflict.

So is it correct to say that getting the Americans to agree to security guarantees is the main approach forward or the main objective for the Europeans and Zelensky? I’m asking because Trump now just had a meeting with Macron, Starmer and of course also meeting Zelensky, and this appears to be the continuing pattern.

Doctorow: 1:20
Well, Trump is very hard to read. There are discrepancies from one day to another. What he’s saying either that Zelensky, as this came out in the press conference yesterday with Starmer, how can you meet with Zelensky on Friday when you just called him a dictator?

And then Trump says, oh, he’s a great guy. These flip-flops to intellectual people make Trump look like a buffoon, they make it look like he’s a lightweight, he’s– even some of my very competent and very worldly-wise colleagues in the alternative media were saying yesterday on a very renowned talk show that Trump is stepping on his own feet and that he will not achieve his objectives because of these reversals and discrepancies. However, what Trump is about is very difficult to understand. And when we try to understand, we’re sticking our necks out, because we could be very mistaken. In this discussion, I will do exactly that.

2:34
I’m going to stick my neck out, because otherwise I don’t see much reason to talk about it. Everyone has had a word, but they haven’t seen what I think I see, that this is a showman. This is a person, I’m speaking about Trump, who has a master feel for creating confusion in order to paralyze his enemies. One of our very well-known observers, former inspector in Iraq of nuclear weapons, was commenting yesterday that Trump doesn’t have any enemies in Europe who should make him worry, because Europe’s got nothing.

3:23
Well, things are not that simple from my perspective. And I think they’re not that simple from Trump’s perspective. If they were that simple, then Trump wouldn’t have received Starmer and Macron. Or he would have used it to trash them, which is what I almost expected when I heard such meetings were going to take place last week. They trashed Kaja Kallas. She flew to the States, and then she was told that Rubio has a very busy schedule and can’t see her.

They could have done that to Starmer. They could have done that to Macron. They didn’t. Why didn’t they? Because these people are dangerous. Now, they have friends on Capitol Hill. Macron was the first person since de Gaulle to be received by the joint houses of Congress, going back to the start of his first term. These are dangerous people who have a lot of friends among Republicans. Not every Republican is kneeling at Trump’s feet, particularly when the issues are, how do we get out of the Ukrainian situation? Or how do we renege on our obligations?

4:33
So Trump is facing very difficult challenges. And he is handling them from my perspective, brilliantly, not single-handedly, but by a team who have been choreographed, the whole sequence: a week ago, the call that Trump had with Putin, the speech that Hegseth made here in Brussels, Ukraine not returning to its original borders and not having a future in NATO; the speech by JD Vance explaining why the United States is not interested in backing up Europe if Europe is not interested in being democratic. These events, are a whole sequence that do not stop.

5:24
I just would like to say, I won’t ramble on. I’d like to bring this to a head right now. I do not listen to what Trump says. What Trump says is confusing, confusing intentionally. Not because his mind is confused, not at all. He knows what he wants.

But he is playing, he’s playing off Starmer, he’s playing off Macron, to sideline them while he’s hoping to complete the business with Russia over Ukraine, and then to present the Europeans and the Ukrainians with a fait accompli. Take it or leave it, because you can’t do anything about it. So that is what he’s doing. He’s disarming his enemies. And the fact that this is a correct reading of him comes from not what he said, but what he did.

6:13
On Monday of this week, we saw something, I don’t know, we haven’t seen it in 80 years. The United States voted with China and Russia against Europe. This is unbelievable. That is earthshaking. And it is proof that Trump is doing what he believes in.

And these are not arbitrary and accidental decisions. He slips into his conversations as he did with Starmer words which, if you were listening closely, tell you what he’s really about and not what he seems to be about when he’s very politely taking the invitation from King Charles from the hands of Starmer and giving him a big firm handshake and all of that. And he says in the middle of it that he’s known Trump for a long time and he doesn’t believe that Trump will betray his word. What more do you want?

7:07
If you want to listen. If you don’t want to listen, of course you didn’t hear it. This is why we are in very interesting times and very encouraging times. And I don’t think that I am falling for Trump. What I’m saying is based on very concrete and specific things that have happened in the last 10 days.

Diesen:
Well, I think you’re probably correct. I know that Jeffrey Sachs made the same comment in a conversation we had, where he pointed out that the noise of Trump has to be separated from his actions. And indeed, I think it can be helpful when looking at everything from this claim to Canada to ethnically cleansing Gaza. And none of this actually looks possible. It would be too crazy. But of course, it is interesting if you look at the noise he’s making what kind of a space it’s creating for maneuver.

7:59
And regarding you mentioned the Zelensky comments that is no longer a dictator. This is well, this is possibly part of Zelensky’s motivations as well, because Trump has gone along with Putin in terms of challenging his legitimacy. So if you challenge his legitimacy as a leader, the fact that Zelensky wants to sign these deals himself, it could suggest that he’s trying to regain his legitimacy with Trump. Now, if this is all he wants, it looks like a very cheap deal for Trump to be honest. But I saw the same with Macron and Starmer.

He was awfully vague on all the important issues which matters, primarily than security guarantees and He tried to send them away smiling, but they didn’t actually get anything. There was no promises. And of course, the United Nations things. I think this is as an action, This is very important. This is very historical, the fact that he didn’t want to name Russia as the only participant or only aggressor, the only one causing this conflict.

9:15
And this is something he also often repeats. This seems to be very important if you want to get a settlement to the conflict, because once you identify only Russia as the bad guy, it’s very difficult to have a proper compromise. But again, how do we know who he’s buttering up? Do you see his approach to Russia and the desire to end the war in Ukraine as genuine, or what is the ultimate objective here?

Doctorow:
No, I think it’s absolutely objective, and I’ve taken into account remarks that were made yesterday that this has to be done very quickly, because if it isn’t done quickly, it won’t be done at all.

Let’s unravel that “won’t be done at all”. What he means is that Russia will take all of Ukraine. That’s the obvious thing. If the negotiations go on, go on, because the Europeans are digging in their heels and trying to slow things down, the only thing that can happen is further loss of territory and probably to capture xxxxxx, which is definitely mentioned in Russian, by Russian experts, by Russian political actors as something they want very much. Of course, that would cut Ukraine off from the Black Sea. It would eliminate any threat to Russia’s presence in the Black Sea, that having some stretch that the British could use to install themselves wouldn’t exist any more.

10:41
Let’s go back to buttering up, and how he treated Macron versus Starmer. Starmer was of course a much more difficult, a much more serious threat to what he’s doing, because the British have been out in front as the, not as a lapdog as in the days of Tony Blair, but as the attack dog, they have been with MI6 among the plotters and implementers of some of the most violent and dangerous actions that have taken place in the last three years. By that I mean the Butcha case, which was used to force Europe to join America in the “sanctions from hell”. That’s of chemical attacks.

11:27
This is about the same time as Butcha, or just a few weeks before Buche, which were going to be laid at the door of Russia, just as MI6 had done this in Syria, putting such attacks at the door of Assad. The British have been vicious and very dangerous for world peace in their behavior in Ukraine. The attack of the Crimean bridge, this was all British-engineered. So I think that this is appreciated by Trump, and he had to find a way to neutralize Starmer. He did.

11:58
You’ll notice that the announcement that he’s putting into effect almost immediately, the 25 percent tariffs on everything in the EU, was made one day before Starmer came. It’s not an accident. And from the press conference, it was clear to me that the main thing that he and Trump were talking about over their working lunch was how Britain could avoid that fate and how a special deal could be cut as the Brits wanted from the time that they left the EU in the Brexit. They expected to have a special trade deal with the United States, which never happened because Biden, with his pro-Irish bias and distaste for everything British, didn’t give it to them. On the contrary, if we speak about emotions and personal influence on conduct of affairs, a Trump is a softy on England.

13:11
And so for him, it’s very convenient to divert the attention of the Brits from the settlements in Ukraine, which doesn’t bring any votes to Starmer, and instead to get him fully involved in the special trade deal, which would have a very big political boost to Starmer at home.

Diesen:
Yeah, so this is a switch more than just offer them the trade. Yeah, that’s an interesting observation. I didn’t really pick up on that, how much they escalated the tariff threats immediately before Starmer came. Of course, it’s good to have a character as well if you want to shift folks away from Ukraine. But they have two obstacles. One obviously are the Europeans who are now the main actor trying to prolong the war in Ukraine and avoid all negotiations, even diplomacy. But the second would be Zelensky, because of course, after Macron and Starmer, we now have today Zelensky in the United States, well, to sign this mineral deal. But obviously, there’s more going on here.

14:24
Zelensky’s main objective is also then to get some form of security guarantees, which could be used to pull the United States into the conflict. But how do you see Trump approaching Zelensky on this? Because, like you said, the British and the French can create problems for the United States, But does Ukraine have anything any more? Or can they just push Zelensky aside if he doesn’t fall in line? How do you read this situation?

14:56
I don’t think it’s a good moment to try to push Zelensky aside and to call elections at once, because we know who’s going to win: Zaluzhny. Zaluzhny is not one bit better than than Zelensky is on continuing versus ending the war, judging by his latest statements, his latest published statements in the past week. I forget, “The Spectator” where he published his remarks. And so the Ukrainians, I think, will just be left to the side for a while, before Trump and company decide what to do with them. But I think they will be presented with fait accompli, and they will have to accept it or face extermination.

Their situation is not pretty, but I’m not terribly concerned about the fate of one Mr. Zelensky. He has been a mass murderer. One million of his compatriots are in graves or are severely wounded and will never have normal lives. So all because of this war that he has perpetuated against all common sense, against all normal military doctrine.

Diesen: 16:10
You mentioned Britain’s very profound role in this whole conflict and you mentioned the Crimean bridge, Butcha, all of this. But of course, Britain was also pushing the hardest, I think, for these deep strikes into Russian territories, which again, if we would go to a nuclear exchange, this seems to be the path. But also, we saw that the British were quite central in undermining the Minsk agreement for those seven years as well. We can’t also forget that it was Boris Johnson who went on behalf of the US and the UK in 2022 to cancel the Istanbul agreement. So it does seem like the British have a huge role in this.

17:03
Even after the coup in Ukraine, as the “New York Times” reported, on the first day after the coup, the new intelligence chief of Ukraine, which again, approved by the US and UK, the first thing he did on the first day apparently was to call MI6 and CIA to have a trilateral covert partnership against Russia. So they have really been very much at the center of this. But again, for the British, this was always in partnership with the United States. So this, the fact that the Americans are turning back now, how will the British deal with this ultimately?

Because they have two options they can, one, they can try to preserve this special partnership by folding to the Americans and doing what they want, or alternatively, they can see this as taking on a new post-Brexit key role in Europe by trying to fill the shoes of United States, no matter how unlikely or unrealistic this would be. But would you have any predictions how the British are going to play this? Because they seem like they have a much more key role in this war than the French.

Doctorow: 18:11
Oh, they do. And as they’ve invested much more politically, as you say. Macron, let’s remember, he’s a chameleon. He has changed his views on whether or not we should approach the Kremlin, whether we should approach it with tanks, or approach it with an olive branch, repeatedly over the last two years. Whereas the British have been unswerving in their position about the need for Ukraine to win and Russia to lose.

I’m publishing my war diaries, as I call them, within the next four to six weeks. First is volume one covering 2022 to 2023, and then there’ll be, I hope the war comes to an end and I can put an end to this publication for the volume two this year still. And what I found coming through what I’ve written, of course, I’ve been mistaken, mistaken, mistaken, always calling the end of the war when nothing like that happened, like everyone else. All peers in particularly in the non-mainstream press have been calling “it will fall in two or three weeks”, that it was going to the wall. It’s all over.

19:30
But these sensationalist comments, I can understand. They attract viewers, and viewers attract sponsors to internet platforms. But that doesn’t make them valuable by themselves. I, of course, have made my mistakes. But what I found in my book, the leitmotif in my book, is writing history looking forward, as opposed to writing history looking backward.

But looking backward, things come up and appear to be very important, which weren’t important when we were looking forward. I was amazed at how I had missed the importance of the Istanbul agreements and of their being cancelled. Missed it. No, I wrote about it. But I was listening to Russian news and to Russian intellectual opinion makers. And they weren’t very happy with that. They thought they were getting more, that Putin was giving much too much to the Ukrainians. And so when it failed, I wasn’t particularly disturbed. Who could predict that one million people will die as a result of this? It was not in our thoughts.

20:47
There are other landmarks over the last three years, which similarly seem to be historic, but only retrospectively. They weren’t historic when they happened. So how things look going forward, I think that effectively, Starmer will be bought off by the trade deal, which is vastly more important to his political fortunes in Britain than anything else. Also with respect to the British and the continental powers, how they relate to Russia, the hostility that we see, the Danes are really over the top right now in their calling for vengeance against Russia. I mean, it may have something to do with one of the most important brands in the country having been stripped of Danish ownership in Carlsberg, Russia, which I think accounted at one point for 10% of the companies overall sales.

And now it’s in the hands of the people who actually built Baltica before the Danish came in. Anyway, that’s a separate issue, but there are reasons why the elites in these countries have been very hard on Russia, even harder than the States, that it’s not clear to many of the political commentators and majority political commentators, of course, in America. And they assume that America is the intellectual wellspring of everything neoconservative and so on, of everything that’s going on. But I hope you’ll agree with me that there’s a very strong neoconservative movement, was always, in Europe without the Americans.

22:32
And so it is they have their own reasons for their enmity for Russia. One is powerlessness; that doesn’t make people generous. They tend to resent and to hate others who are more powerful, more successful than they are. And Russia is vastly more powerful than any of these countries in Europe. They didn’t have to think about it, so long as there was the American backup.

But when the Russians moved into Ukraine, all of the Europeans understood that they are defenseless. And that made them very nervous and being nervous filled them with hatred. I’m not speaking about men in the street. People in the street have other things to worry about, and inflation and price of energy. These were things that bothered people in the street, which they did not connect to the Russian war.

23:30
But the people at the top who were running the show, of course, they were nervous, and they have reason to be. But of course, the war in Ukraine was stage-managed, incited by the United States. Britain had a very important executional role, implementing role, but it was not the source of this policy; that was the United States. And when the Russians finally reacted, after having been poked so many times, then Europe understood they had a dangerous neighbor. They were defenseless because they did _not_ have a dangerous neighbor. They weren’t stupid. They understood that there was no threat from the East. America created the threat from the East for its own reasons.

Diesen: 24:26
Yeah, I think this huge unpredictable threat or uncertainty at least from Russia has been always a key source in Europe for extreme hatred. I think a lot of it actually came after the Napoleonic wars because they had pushed the– well, it [sold] the rivalry between the British and the French and instead it put forward this huge Russia as a huge Eurasian land power which was beyond, I guess the strategic competitiveness of the British which was to control the seas. So it created this hatred which was a key theme throughout the 19th century. Indeed, since Cobden’s pamphlet in 1836 of Russophobia, how the irrational hatred of Russia had more or less consumed Britain to the extent they weren’t acting in their national interest any more. It’s always, again, for 200 years been a very central part of their thinking. But no, so it probably has a huge impact.

25:24
And well, regarding what you said, just comment on the Istanbul. I think the sabotage of the Istanbul agreement was one thing, but if it would have been replaced by something else, it wouldn’t have been so bad. But after sabotaging these negotiations, this is when NATO went out and said, also, we’re not going to negotiate with Russia. We’re not going to have diplomacy. We’re not even going to sit down to talk with them.

And the Ukrainians followed suit by passing this decree that it’s illegal to talk to the Russians. Now, if you see that the Russians are in a conflict for which they consider to be an existential threat, nobody wants to talk to them, then the only alternative is becomes a war of attrition. That is to bleed dry a Ukrainian army armed with hundreds of thousands of men armed to the teeth by NATO. It was destined, I guess, to be such a horrible bloodbath. I was curious, though, in this relationship between the way the Americans are trying to work the Europeans, because a key issue has been this focus on human rights and the freedom of speech.

26:37
As we know with the vice president Vance, in Munich, he commented that the Europeans were taking this authoritarian turn. That is, whenever there’s any dissent in Europe, there’s a tendency to simply denounce it as having evil intentions. So if the Hungarians oppose their far right, the Slovakians oppose it, their far right. When we deal with Moldova, it’s okay to rig an election because the alternative is seen as pro-Russian. The same logic attempting to, toppling, the government in Georgia or even in Romania, where not just the elections were annulled, but even detaining the presidential election winner, the police detaining him. I mean, we tend to get away with this because everything is always framed as being in the support of democracy or anti-democratic far-right, pro-Russian, whatever we want to say to delegitimize.

27:32
But I noticed Vance brought this up in front of Starmer as well, which if everything was about geopolitics, it seems almost very provocative to bring up the decline of free speech in the United Kingdom. Do you think this plays into the wider efforts to get the British on the side, to not oppose Trump’s efforts with Ukraine? Or is this more of a home base issue where Trump has taken this anti-woke pro-free speech position or it doesn’t have anything to do with Ukraine?

Doctorow: 28:12
I think it’s ideological warfare. They are turning the coat inside out. Just remember where the sanctions on Russia began. They didn’t begin in 2022. They didn’t begin in 2014. They began in [2008], in the aftermath of the Georgian war, in the aftermath of Vladimir Putin’s 2007 speech to Munich, when the United States scrambled to find an answer and to punish Russia and a logic for punishing Russia. And it was, as you say, a whole question of human rights.

That was the issue that was used to propel the Magnitsky Act in 2012 in the States to pass Congress and to impose on Russia very significant punishments, sanctions. And then that was followed shortly afterwards by an effort again by the same authors of the Magnitsky Act to have here in Europe a European Magnitsky Act. And what were they talking about? They were talking about violation of human rights, anti-democratic behavior. And so JD Vance and his speech was turning it back on them, turning it back on the Europeans.

29:43
We have these sanctions that originally were put and been built up against Russia, all because it supposedly did not honor human rights and free speech and all the other wonderful virtues. Now, you gentlemen are doing exactly the same thing. This was brilliant. But I say, I think you’re correct in identifying it as having primarily an American audience. It is an ideological battle within the United States.

And he took his spear and carried it to Munich. And he directed against people who well deserved it. It was brave. It was, again, earth-shaking here in Europe for them to be accused of what they rightly should be accused of, knowing as we do, as you certainly know already, the level of censorship here in Europe, which is considerably greater than the United States, has been at the worst moments in this Russia-Ukraine war.

30:51
Yeah, I know. It’s quite overwhelming, and it’s very strange because it’s not met with opposition, it’s almost met with applause because whenever we impose censorship that is shutting down media, crushing dissent, it’s always in the name of protecting democracy, in the name of saving people from disinformation. And yeah, so again, we have one legitimate position and if you deviate from it, it’s always some right-wing conspiracy almost. It’s very strange to see how the tolerance for opposition is gone. So geopolitics aside, I think it was healthy for Vance to push this forward and actually use such a forum to actually hold the Europeans a bit accountable to what’s happening. Of course, I don’t think the Europeans took the message though, because all the media effectively just explained that Vance is a MAGA, He’s a Christian fundamentalist, he’s maybe a Putinist, he’s taking China’s side over [Europe].

31:52
It’s all labels again, to just show how bad he is for criticizing us, but no one actually counters his arguments, because there was a lot of good sound arguments about the dangerous path we’re going down, which is obviously not in our interest either.

Doctorow:
Well, there are two things I want to call out. One is, I want to go back to where you started this discussion on China and the pivot to China. I don’t think that’s what’s really happening. I think again, this is rhetoric by Trump. I don’t think it’s policy by Trump. I expect to see a big three, maybe a big four, of a Yalta, a new Yalta. I say four because India would join it. We now see on May 9th the Russians have as their honored guests Xi from China and Modi. I would not be surprised if, again, if Trump has his way and things move swiftly, that Trump will also be there.

32:55
The four of them will be dealing with geopolitical solutions. So I don’t take at face value all of the remarks about a pivot against– the United States has to move its forces out so it can concentrate on China. This is a way of getting the forces out. But it isn’t the end game. The end game will be what they actually _do_ with China.

Now with the question of the ideological warfare, let’s remember what comes with this notion of defending human rights and these values, our shared values. The shared values of democracy are peace loving, because democracies are by definition peace loving. Don’t pay attention to the facts that the Democratic United States has been at war without a moment’s pause for the last 30 years. That doesn’t count. That’s reality. We’re not talking reality. We’re talking theory. We don’t want the facts to get in the way of our theory. And the theory is that democratic nations are by nature supported by the people. And they can afford to be peace-like, whereas autocratic or authoritarian regimes do not enjoy the support of their people.

34:11
And therefore, they have to keep their people in place and under their direct control by waging foreign wars. And that’s why they’re war-like. And here Vance is throwing this back in the face of Europe. The European peace project has actually become a European war project. Not just as an arbitrary accidental thing, but because they betrayed democratic values that are supposed to make Europe peace-like.

Diesen: 34:39
Yeah, no, I thought you brought up excellent points, but actually you’re walking into my last question here because what do you see as Russians’ intentions or approach going forward? Because as you said, if the war continues, they can take all of Ukraine, so they have an interest there. But on the other hand, this is also an historical opportunity to get a deal with the Americans to actually just get a, not just finishing this war permanently in Ukraine, to get a settlement which they agree upon so it won’t flare up again. It’s also an opportunity to deal with the European security architecture as we never had a mutually acceptable European security architecture after the Cold War. So there’s a lot of opportunities there as well.

35:27
But there’s also lack of trust, because we’ve had these resets in the past and the way Russia sees it they were stabbed in the back at their return. So how do you see Russia going? Did you see them preferring to delay settlements so they can get their territory or will they prioritize the political settlement? And also, what does America want from Russia? Because it’s a bit unclear.

It does appear that a key objective is to try to drive a wedge between Russia and China, but to what extent is this realistic? And can this also be seen in the context of Trump calling for this great-power dialogue that is talking about reducing nuclear weapons, slashing military budgets. I’m just trying to separate the noise from the actual objectives. And to what extent would the American objective be able to be harmonized with the Russian? That’s a big question.

Doctorow: 36:31
Again– In the cacophony that’s coming out of the Trump administration, it’s very hard to see what is his real objective and what are his talking points and what he’s using to confuse the people who stand in his way.

And I think, for example, one of the things, one of the ideas that has been thrown out for consideration is to cut the US military budget by 50%. Not by the 5% or 8% a year that was talked about, which was really just moving money from here to there for pet projects and removing projects that have failed. No, no, they actually cut it by 50%. And I think that is sincere. I think this is his objective.

Look, he had an epiphany moment. He was nearly killed. And I don’t think that that had no effect on the man’s understanding of what he can achieve in four years or should try to achieve. So I would give him credence. I would trust him to be sincere to end the war.

As for the Russians, no, of course, they don’t want to take all of Ukraine. That was never an issue. They want, as you just described, a political settlement and a new security architecture in Europe, which they can achieve with Trump. He’s already almost said it. He wants to pull troops out of … Europe. That changes dynamics here. The Europeans can step, can move, shift from foot to foot. Oh, we will have, we will invest in new armaments industry and we… wait a minute. That’s 10 years from now. We’re living today. And today Russia can overrun you, you know, in two or three weeks.

38:13
I think how long would Estonia last? A couple of hours? The reality today is the Europeans are defenseless by their own choice because they didn’t see anything to defend themselves against. And so once the United States pulls back, there have to be someone, either the existing people who will eat their own words and try to hold power by shifting policy to where it’s headed under US direction, or they’ll be removed. I think the first is more likely that people will not be thrown out, but they will change their positions and start to adopt realistic assessments. We’re living in very interesting times and I remain optimistic, but I don’t pay too much attention to words right now.

Diesen: 39:02
By the way, I think I misspoke with Russia taking all of Ukraine. I do think that’s a ridiculous proposition. They have no interest to go into Western Ukraine where no one will welcome them effectively. But walking up to the Dnieper, quite possible. And also it has to be pointed out that the four regions there next, that is Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, they’re not controlling all the territories yet, which have now been brought into the constitution of Russia that this is, well, not their constitution, but that this is their territory.

So do they, I guess, do they see it’s favorable, I guess, to control these territories before they have a deal? Because for me, there’s many things which, there’s not that many things that can be negotiated. For example, no NATO. I think this is a key issue. This is either yes or no. So I think this is just non-negotiable. They can’t accept this. The issue of security guarantees, I don’t think the Russians could accept this either. They might have observers from non-European countries, but to have NATO soldiers being the peacekeepers along the Russian border in a proxy war that just fought with NATO, it doesn’t make any sense at all.

40:18
But in one area where it’s always been very uncertain is to what extent the Russians will be prepared to negotiate over the territories because they’re not controlling all the territories which they’re claiming, well, to claiming that belongs to Russia now. So do you see that there’s any scope there for negotiating over the administrative borders? I asked this in Moscow as well, but no one seems to be quite sure what, well, no one’s playing with open cards just yet.

But is this an area where there could be negotiation? Because this could be a problem if Russia demands, for example, to cross the Dnieper to have all the territory of Kherson and Zaporizhzhye. This would be very difficult for any Ukrainian government to accept. It would also be very difficult for Trump to make the Europeans and the Ukrainians approve. So it looks like it could be a deal breaker. Now if the Russians have more time to seize territories, it will be one thing, but do you think this will be an area where– administrate border that is, where Russia will be willing to negotiate?

Doctorow: 41:25
Well, Putin two days ago addressed this question directly, and he said that they expect to hold all the territory of the oblast as they originally were constituted and as they have been brought into the Russian Federation constitution.

Where are they? They have 98% or 100% of Lugansk. Lugansk always was the oblast that they had the greatest percentage of, but now it’s a hundred percent. Where are they in Donetsk, which was the most difficult case because it’s where the Ukrainians had spent eight years really building up fortifications that were almost insuperable and which were very expensive in manpower to take for the Russians.

The Russians had 50 percent of Donetsk going back two years ago. As a result of the advances in the last several months, they now at 75 percent. And the remaining 25 percent is really a sprint to the Dnieper. Once they take a couple of cities, which are now under, well, one is under siege and two will soon be under siege. The ones that are almost iconic, Kramatorsk and Slavyansk, which were the cradle of the Russian revolt, the Russian-speaking revolt against Kiev 2014, then it’s just flat land to the Dnieper. So if the war goes on for a couple more months, Russians could take almost the whole or all of Donetsk.

43:06
The other two, of course, the capital city of Kherson is on the right bank of the Dniepr. So that is a touchy situation. But the great part of the landmass of Kherson is under Russian control now. It will be difficult negotiations, of course, but I think the Russians will sacrifice something here if it means bringing in the revised security architecture.

And again, we all hear in Trump’s words what we want to hear. I heard that it was as much as accepted in December 2021 ultimatum that Ryabkov delivered to NATO and to Washington. It sounds to me that Trump’s accepted that. He said pulling out American troops from these post 1994 NATO expansion territories, former Warsaw Pact and the Baltics. He didn’t say all of NATO would be pulled out, because NATO also is Europeans. And the Germans, for example, had their advance state postings in the Baltics, but Americans would pull back and that is of decisive importance.

44:23
If he can concede that, and he did it, again, mixed in with other words, so you wouldn’t necessarily pay attention to it, unless you wanted to pick it out, as I did, It sounds like there is the making of a real comprehensive US-Russian agreement.

Diesen:
Yeah, something everyone actually, a peaceful settlement which would actually be focusing on positive-sum gain, which everyone would gain from, because I think the security architecture we built over the past 30 years was always premised on the– stability was premised on the perpetual weakness of Russia. Now I think that’s out of the window. We have to kind of return to the common sense that Russian security also have to be a consideration when you’re developing European security.

45:09
But anyways, I do wish the Europeans would appreciate that what Trump is doing is not capitulation or doing Russia any great favors because the Ukrainian army is collapsing. And as you said, this is happening at a time when the Donbas, they’re almost reaching the administrative border, like three kilometers away from from Zaporizhzhya. And when they reach this, there’s no more fortification lines. There’s no more industrial regions where you can use to set up defense. No more major cities. It’s going to be, as the Ukrainian army now collapses, there’s also open spaces. The deal I think which Ukraine and the Europeans will be presented with if we wait another six months is going to be a lot worse than what we’re seeing now. And there’s not much we can do any more. We lost the proxy war.

46:02
And I see the EU setting up this, preparing a tribunal for Putin. I saw it yesterday. It was very strange. Usually they do this after you win a war, not after you lose a war, but I guess this is where we are. Anyways, thank you so much for your time. Do you have any final comments you would like to make?

Doctorow: 46:21
No, I just think there’s reason for optimism. The Russians themselves are saying there’s no reason for euphoria. There’s a lot of work to be done, But they’re heading in the right direction. The most important thing which captured the imagination of Vladimir Putin and his entourage was the American understanding that the settlement in Ukraine has to be part of a very broad settlement of, a reestablishment of contacts, regular contacts between Russia and the United States by reinstating various programs that are of mutual interest. These programs, whether it’s arms limitation or it’s in space or other topics that are mutual interest. In this case, the new topic would be the Northern sea route.

47:08
The topics themselves have content and value, but the greater importance of these contacts is establishing regular flow of experts there and back. That is trust building. And a durable peace is possible, as Trump seems to understand, only when there is mutual trust. And as Starmer and Macron and all the other Europeans refuse to understand, you cannot have a durable peace with a sworn enemy.

Diesen:
Oh, and I think this is what’s the main source of optimism for the Russians as well. The fact, what they haven’t seen in decades, which is an American leader recognizing that Russia has security concerns. This is a big no-no in Europe. We can’t recognize that Russia has security interests and security concerns. Furthermore, recognizing that we have participated, that is NATO has participated in causing the conflict we’re currently in, instead of being a struggle between the force of good versus the new reincarnation of Hitler.

So I think this is something that, yeah, gives some reason for optimism. Anyways, sorry, I went a little bit over time there, so thank you so much, Gilbert Docterow.

Doctorow: 48:28
Well, thanks for the invitation, I enjoyed it.

CNN and other major media are today carrying video clips on their youtube channels giving us a glimpse of the 19 or so European and transatlantic leaders who gathered in London to discuss with Volodymyr Zelensky how to continue their cooperation in defense of Ukraine following the debacle in the White House in Washington yesterday, when Zelensky was humiliated before the television cameras and was shown to the door. Among the 19 whom I counted when they posed for the obligatory group photo were  Emmanuel Macron, Donald Tusk, Georgia Meloni, Justin Trudeau, Mark Rutte, Ursula von der Leyen.

In the few introductory words delivered by Keir Starmer, we heard that their common mission is to provide for European security, in which defending Ukraine plays a vital role. They seemingly wish to arrive at a common position on defending Ukraine that they will later present to Washington.

The problem with this is that they are knowingly running directly against the now crystal clear position of Donald Trump to wash his hands of Zelensky and to allow the Russians to finish up this war as they see best. The U.S. is about to cut off shipments of arms prepared by Biden in his last days and will surely not send any further weapons to Kiev out of its current budget.

It is utterly bizarre that these stubborn Europeans think that they have some leverage with Trump. Their blindness is not merely to the obvious fact that absent the participation of the USA in the war effort consisting of materiel, money and critically important satellite intelligence to guide battlefield operations, the Ukrainian forces have no chance whatsoever of standing up to Russia.  Europe’s possible aid will solve nothing.

More to the point, when they speak of European security, they overlook the fact that without vibrant U.S. participation in NATO, NATO can fold its tents since it will be nonfunctional. It lacks the air lift, the armaments manufacturing capacity, most everything to sustain a war that will last more than a few days.

By their present gathering, these leaders are setting the stage for a U.S. pull-out from NATO.  They forget how the United States under any president, not just Donald J. Trump, reacts to defiance from allies.  Just think back to 2003 when Germany, France and Belgium had the temerity to veto the U.S. drafted resolution before the UN Security Council approving the planned invasion of Iraq over alleged weapons of mass destruction.  Within days, French wines were being poured out into the gutters, French fries were renamed ‘freedom fries’ and there was outrage and indignation across the land.  No less will result from the stupid, pig-headed action of these European heads of government in London today.

As for Keir Starmer, he must be the stupidest of the lot.  When in Washington meeting with Donald Trump, he was offered a tariff free trade deal with the USA that his country has sought ever since Brexit. He failed to see that this was the deal:  you get tariff free trade if you just shut up about Ukraine.  But shut up this oaf could not do.  As they say in Washington, there now will be consequences.

On related news of the day, it appears that King Charles today gave an audience to his good friend Volodymyr Zelensky.  And does he still expect Donald Trump to come calling for the state visit and private dinner with the King that Starmer delivered during his visit?

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Considering their own concerns over how to read Donald Trump’s confusing, often contradictory rhetoric  as it relates to their hopes for a reset of relations with Washington, it is not surprising that Press TV devoted their feature Saturday night program Spotlight to the heated dispute in the White House on Friday between President Trump and the visiting dictator from Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky.

For Western viewers of the extraordinary clash and unexpected removal of Zelensky to the street, without any further talks on mineral rights or participation in the state lunch, it was clear that Zelensky was deemed incapable of making peace and so unworthy of further participation in the process. For Iranians, the question was always whether Trump himself is capable of making and keeping a peace.

A senior journalist in the Press TV team led the discussion    My fellow panelist was Christopher Helali, a Researcher and Political Analyst, Vershire, USA. Though it was not said on air, Helali is apparently a member of the American Communist Party.

I was delighted to be asked whether Donald Trump’s brutal treatment of Zelensky has had some impact on American domestic politics, because it gave me the chance to point to the dramatic shift in the position of the most voluble Russia-hater and Kiev promoter on Capital Hill, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. With reference to the Oval Office conflict, Graham fully backed the President of the United States and denounced Zelensky for what was, essentially, lèse majesté.

http://www.urmedium.net/c/presstv/132857 

Translation below into German (Andreass Mylaeus)

Press TV, Iran: Trump – Zelensky Showdown

Angesichts ihrer eigenen Bedenken, wie sie Donald Trumps verwirrende, oft widersprüchliche Rhetorik in Bezug auf ihre Hoffnungen auf eine Wiederaufnahme der Beziehungen zu Washington interpretieren sollen, ist es nicht verwunderlich, dass Press TV seine Samstagabend-Sendung Spotlight dem hitzigen Streit im Weißen Haus am Freitag zwischen Präsident Trump und dem besuchenden Diktator aus der Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, gewidmet hat.

Für westliche Zuschauer war es angesichts des außergewöhnlichen Zusammenstoßes und des unerwarteten Rauswurfs Zelenskys auf die Strasse, ohne weitere Gespräche über Schürfrechte oder die Teilnahme am Staatsbankett, klar, dass Zelensky als unfähig angesehen wurde, Frieden zu schließen, und daher einer weiteren Teilnahme an dem Prozess nicht würdig war. Für die Iraner stellte sich immer die Frage, ob Trump selbst in der Lage ist, Frieden zu schließen und zu bewahren.

Ein leitender Journalist des Press TV-Teams leitete die Diskussion. Mein Mitdiskutant war Christopher Helali, ein Forscher und Politikanalyst aus Vershire, USA. Obwohl es nicht in der Sendung gesagt wurde, ist Helali offenbar Mitglied der Kommunistischen Partei Amerikas.

Ich war erfreut, gefragt zu werden, ob Donald Trumps brutale Behandlung von Selensky Auswirkungen auf die amerikanische Innenpolitik hatte, denn so konnte ich auf die dramatische Veränderung in der Position des wortgewaltigsten Russland-Hassers und Kiew-Förderers auf dem Capitol Hill, Senator Lindsey Graham aus South Carolina, hinweisen. In Bezug auf den Oval-Office-Konflikt stellte sich Graham voll und ganz hinter den Präsidenten der Vereinigten Staaten und verurteilte Selensky wegen Majestätsbeleidigung.

A lengthy chat with Professor Glenn Diesen

It was an honor to be invited by Glenn Diesen for a video-recorded chat yesterday to discuss latest developments in the Russia-Ukraine war. Though we spoke prior to the dramatic events in the Oval Office when Trump and Zelensky had an open spat before the mass media, nearly everything in the recording remains highly relevant, including the outlook for the war’s end.

Glenn Diesen is a professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway who bravely sets out his own well-informed and independent views on Russia and the security interests of Europe. He attracts to his video interviews Jeffrey Sachs and other well-known authorities. 

Yesterday’s Trump-Zelensky press conference marks a historical turning point. We were all witnesses to the moment that Ukraine was ‘thown under the bus,’ meaning when Washington said it will not provide security guarantees to Ukraine and will not supply further arms. We all understood why this is happening.  I borrow from the remarks of Donald Trump yesterday when I say it is to spare the world a progression to World War III that Zelensky and his backers in the European Union are blithely courting by backing a lost cause. Kiev does not have the manpower for a fair-and-square victory on the field of battle. Kiev is using physical force to dragoon men off the city streets and send them to the field of battle, as Trump correctly observed.

In telling Zelensky point blank that he ‘has no cards to play,’ Donald Trump was calling for a Technical Knock-Out if I may introduce the language of boxing matches. Perhaps Zelensky is doing just fine, but his country is being mauled, destroyed now that Russians have ‘taken off the gloves’ and have dropped any pretense of humanitarian solicitude for their fellow Slavs.

From a pre-war population of about 40 million, Ukraine is now down to about 18 million as a result of massive outflow of mothers, children, draft dodgers heading East and West.  Yes, Russia has been a big recipient of Ukrainians seeking refuge from the bitter fighting.

 Russia has also publicly declared its readiness to use its tactical nuclear arsenal to annihilate any NATO ‘peacekeeping’ troops that Britain, France and other Allied nations are foolish enough to send into Ukraine. They are saying that they have no intention of going into the trenches to shoot down NATO soldiers. No, they will wipe out 10,000 troop concentrations at a blow with their nuclear arms, and will not have any regrets because they have given fair warning to the enemy.

Then one must consider that absent a sufficient regular fighting force, if the war continues Ukraine will be resorting to ever more risky terrorist acts such as bombing nuclear power plants with support from the British MI6 which has been their helpmate in every dastardly terror attack on Russia these past three years.  Terror too can easily escalate to full-blown nuclear war.

It is manifestly clear that Donald Trump had these considerations in mind when he called upon Zelensky to accept the TKO verdict.

But before he reached that point, Trump allowed Zelensky to speak freely and so to demonstrate before the world mass media what a madman he is, how filled with hate and warmongering.  Then and only then did Trump bring down the hammer on Zelensky, allowing J.D. Vance to strike the first blows.

This was, as Trump said, wonderful television for the American public. He made his point and then security guys and gals accompanied Zelensky to the exit.

                                                                     ****

To anyone with eyes to see, ears to hear it is clear that the game is up, that Trump has washed his hands of Zelensky.

Of course, in our high politics, especially here in Europe, there is no shortage of the deaf and blind.

Soon after the disaster in the White House, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas spoke before the microphones and assured Kiev that Europe would step up its deliveries of military assistance needed to keep the armies fighting.

Given that the EU cannot go directly against the United States on this most important issue in foreign policy without also losing U.S. support for NATO and the Article 5 security guaranties that it has taken for  granted over decades, I do not see how Kallas can remain in her post for more than a few weeks. Without renouncing this utter stupidity of the EU Vice President, Commission Chair Ursula von der Leyen is also putting her political future on the line and will be chopped. 

For all it is worth, these worthies will have company.  The Secretary General of NATO Mark Rutte is probably sending out his resume at this moment, because he, too, has refused to see the determination of Donald Trump to implement a wholly new direction in U.S. foreign and military policy for which NATO war mongerers are only a hindrance.

For its part, The Financial Times today has an editorial dealing with the Trump-Zelensky hot dispute. Quite naturally they are suggesting that Trump is in Vladimir Putin’s pocket.  I wonder how long the FT journalists will be welcome at White House news briefings.

I have called yesterday’s fracas in the White House historic. And, being an historian by training, I feel very comfortable with that determination.  Mark the date, clip some newspaper accounts.  You may wish to explain that you were an eyewitness to your children or grandchildren 20 years hence.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Der Eklat zwischen Trump und Zelensky im Weißen Haus

Die gestrige Pressekonferenz von Trump und Zelensky markiert einen historischen Wendepunkt. Wir alle waren Zeugen des Moments, in dem die Ukraine „unter den Bus geworfen“ wurde, d.h. als Washington erklärte, dass es der Ukraine keine Sicherheitsgarantien geben und keine weiteren Waffen liefern werde. Wir alle haben verstanden, warum dies geschieht. Ich lehne mich an die gestrigen Äußerungen von Donald Trump an, wenn ich sage, dass Zelensky und seine Unterstützer in der Europäischen Union die Welt in einen weiteren Weltkrieg treiben werden, indem sie eine verlorene Sache unterstützen. Kiew verfügt nicht über die nötigen Truppen für einen fairen und eindeutigen Sieg auf dem Schlachtfeld. Kiew setzt physische Gewalt ein, um Männer von den Straßen der Stadt zu holen und sie auf das Schlachtfeld zu schicken, wie Trump richtig bemerkte.

Indem er Selensky unverblümt sagte, dass er „keine Karten mehr hat, die er ausspielen kann“, forderte Donald Trump einen technischen K.O., wenn ich die Sprache der Boxkämpfe verwenden darf. Vielleicht schlägt sich Selensky gut, aber sein Land wird zerfleischt und zerstört, jetzt, da die Russen „die Handschuhe ausgezogen“ und jeden Anschein von humanitärer Fürsorge für ihre slawischen Mitmenschen abgelegt haben.

Von einer Vorkriegsbevölkerung von etwa 40 Millionen ist die Ukraine heute auf etwa 18 Millionen geschrumpft, was auf die massive Abwanderung von Müttern, Kindern und Wehrdienstverweigerern in Richtung Osten und Westen zurückzuführen ist. Ja, Russland hat viele Ukrainer aufgenommen, die vor den erbitterten Kämpfen Zuflucht suchten.

Russland hat auch öffentlich seine Bereitschaft erklärt, sein taktisches Nukleararsenal einzusetzen, um alle NATO-„Friedenstruppen“ zu vernichten, wenn Großbritannien, Frankreich und andere alliierte Nationen dummerweise solche in die Ukraine schicken. Sie sagen, dass sie nicht die Absicht haben, in die Schützengräben zu gehen, um NATO-Soldaten abzuschießen. Nein, sie werden 10.000 Truppenkonzentrationen mit einem Schlag mit ihren Atomwaffen auslöschen und werden es nicht bereuen, weil sie den Feind fair gewarnt haben.

Dann muss man bedenken, dass die Ukraine, wenn keine ausreichende reguläre Kampftruppe vorhanden ist und der Krieg weitergeht, zu immer riskanteren Terrorakten greifen wird, wie z.B. Bombenanschläge auf Kernkraftwerke mit Unterstützung des britischen MI6, der ihr Komplize bei jedem heimtückischen Terroranschlag auf Russland in den letzten drei Jahren war. Auch der Terror kann leicht zu einem ausgewachsenen Atomkrieg eskalieren.

Es ist offensichtlich, dass Donald Trump diese Überlegungen im Hinterkopf hatte, als er Selensky aufforderte, das Urteil „technischer KO“ zu akzeptieren.

Doch bevor er diesen Punkt erreichte, erlaubte Trump Selensky, frei zu sprechen und so vor den Weltmedien zu demonstrieren, was für ein Verrückter er ist, wie erfüllt von Hass und Kriegstreiberei. Dann und nur dann ließ Trump den Hammer auf Selensky niedersausen und erlaubte J.D. Vance, die ersten Schläge auszuführen.

Das war, wie Trump sagte, wunderbares Fernsehen für die amerikanische Öffentlichkeit. Er brachte seinen Standpunkt vor und dann begleiteten Sicherheitsleute Zelensky zum Ausgang.

                                                                     ****

Für jeden, der Augen hat zu sehen und Ohren hat zu hören, ist klar, dass das Spiel vorbei ist, dass Trump seine Hände in Unschuld gewaschen hat.

Natürlich gibt es in unserer hohen Politik, insbesondere hier in Europa, keinen Mangel an Tauben und Blinden.

Kurz nach der Katastrophe im Weißen Haus trat die Hohe Vertreterin der EU für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik, Kaja Kallas, vor die Mikrofone und versicherte Kiew, dass Europa seine Lieferungen militärischer Hilfe, die für die Aufrechterhaltung der Kampfhandlungen der Armeen erforderlich sind, verstärken werde.

Da die EU in dieser wichtigsten außenpolitischen Frage nicht direkt gegen die Vereinigten Staaten vorgehen kann, ohne auch die Unterstützung der USA für die NATO und die Sicherheitsgarantien nach Artikel 5 zu verlieren, die sie über Jahrzehnte hinweg als selbstverständlich angesehen hat, sehe ich nicht, wie Kallas länger als ein paar Wochen auf ihrem Posten bleiben kann. Ohne auf diese völlige Dummheit der EU-Vizepräsidentin zu verzichten, setzt auch die Kommissionsvorsitzende Ursula von der Leyen ihre politische Zukunft aufs Spiel und wird fallen.

Auf jeden Fall werden diese Würdenträger Gesellschaft haben. Der NATO-Generalsekretär Mark Rutte schickt wahrscheinlich gerade seinen Lebenslauf raus, weil auch er sich geweigert hat, die Entschlossenheit von Donald Trump anzuerkennen, eine völlig neue Richtung in der US-Außen- und Militärpolitik einzuschlagen, für die die NATO-Kriegstreiber nur ein Hindernis darstellen.

Die Financial Times ihrerseits hat heute einen Leitartikel, der sich mit dem heißen Streit zwischen Trump und Zelensky befasst. Ganz selbstverständlich wird darin angedeutet, dass Trump in der Tasche von Wladimir Putin steckt. Ich frage mich, wie lange die FT-Journalisten noch zu den Pressekonferenzen im Weißen Haus eingeladen werden.

Ich habe den gestrigen Tumult im Weißen Haus als historisch bezeichnet. Und als ausgebildeter Historiker fühle ich mich mit dieser Einschätzung sehr wohl. Merken Sie sich das Datum, schneiden Sie einige Zeitungsberichte aus. Vielleicht möchten Sie Ihren Kindern oder Enkeln in 20 Jahren erklären, dass Sie Augenzeuge waren.

Translation below into Spanish (Chod Zom)

El altercado Trump-Zelensky en la Casa Blanca

La rueda de prensa de ayer entre Trump y Zelensky marca un punto de inflexión histórico. Todos fuimos testigos del momento en que Ucrania fue «arrojada debajo del autobús», es decir, cuando Washington anunció que no proporcionaría garantías de seguridad a Ucrania ni suministraría más armas. Todos entendimos por qué estaba ocurriendo esto. Tomo las palabras de Donald Trump de ayer, para expresar que es para evitar que el mundo se dirija hacia una Tercera Guerra Mundial, algo que Zelensky y sus aliados en la Unión Europea están cortejando alegremente al apoyar una causa perdida. Kiev no tiene el personal necesario para lograr una victoria justa en el campo de batalla. Kiev está utilizando la fuerza física para sacar por la fuerza a los hombres de las calles de la ciudad y enviarlos al campo de batalla, como observó correctamente Trump.

Al decirle a Zelensky a bocajarro que «no tiene cartas que jugar», Donald Trump estaba pidiendo un Knock-Out técnico, si se me permite introducir el lenguaje de los combates de boxeo. Tal vez Zelensky lo esté haciendo bien, pero su país está siendo maltratado severamente, destruido ahora que los rusos ”se han quitado los guantes” y han abandonado cualquier pretensión de solicitud humanitaria por sus amigos eslavos.

Ucrania, que antes de la guerra contaba con unos 40 millones de habitantes, se ha reducido a unos 18 millones como consecuencia de la salida masiva de madres, niños y evasores de la conscripción, encaminados hacia el Este y el Oeste. Sí, Rusia ha sido un gran receptor de ucranianos que buscan refugio de los encarnizados combates.

 Rusia también ha declarado públicamente que está dispuesta a utilizar su arsenal nuclear táctico para aniquilar a cualquier tropa de «mantenimiento de la paz» de la OTAN que Gran Bretaña, Francia y otras naciones aliadas, que sean lo suficientemente tontas como para enviarlas a Ucrania. Dicen que no tienen intención de ir a las trincheras a derribar soldados de la OTAN. No, aniquilarán concentraciones de tropas de 10.000 de un golpe con sus armas nucleares, y no tendrán ningún remordimiento porque han dado un aviso honesto al enemigo.

Luego hay que tener en cuenta que, a falta de una fuerza de combate regular suficiente, si la guerra continúa Ucrania recurrirá a actos terroristas cada vez más arriesgados, como bombardear centrales nucleares con el apoyo del MI6 británico, que ha sido su útil compañero en todos los viles ataques terroristas contra Rusia de los últimos tres años. El terror también puede escalar fácilmente a una guerra nuclear en toda regla.

Está manifiestamente claro que Donald Trump tenía estas consideraciones en mente cuando pidió a Zelensky que aceptara el veredicto del TKO.

Pero antes de llegar a ese punto, Trump permitió que Zelensky hablara libremente y demostrara así ante los medios de comunicación de todo el mundo lo loco que está, lo lleno de odio y belicismo que está. Entonces, y sólo entonces, Trump hizo caer el martillo sobre Zelensky, permitiendo que J.D. Vance diera los primeros golpes.

Esto fue, como dijo Trump, una televisión maravillosa para el público estadounidense. Trump dejó claro su punto de vista y luego los chicos y chicas de seguridad acompañaron a Zelensky a la salida.

                                                                     ****
Para cualquiera que tenga ojos para ver y oídos para oír está claro que el juego ha terminado, que Trump se ha lavado las manos con Zelensky.

Por supuesto, en nuestra alta política, especialmente aquí en Europa, no hay escasez de sordos y ciegos.

Poco después del desastre en la Casa Blanca, el Alto Representante de la UE para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad, Kaja Kallas, habló ante los micrófonos y aseguró a Kiev que Europa intensificaría sus entregas de ayuda militar necesarias para mantener a los ejércitos luchando.

Dado que la UE no puede ir directamente contra Estados Unidos en este asunto tan importante de la política exterior sin perder también el apoyo estadounidense en la OTAN y las garantías de seguridad del Artículo 5, que se han dado por sentado durante décadas, no veo cómo Kallas puede permanecer en su puesto más de unas pocas semanas. Sin renunciar a esta absoluta estupidez del Vicepresidente de la UE, el Presidente de la Comisión, Ursula von der Leyen, también está poniendo su futuro político en juego y será descuartizada.

Por si sirve de algo, estos dignatarios tendrán compañía.  El secretario general de la OTAN, Mark Rutte, probablemente esté enviando su currículum en este momento, porque él también se ha negado a ver la determinación de Donald Trump de implementar una dirección totalmente nueva en la política exterior y militar de Estados Unidos, para la cual los belicistas de la OTAN son sólo un obstáculo.

Por su parte, The Financial Times hoy tiene un editorial en el que aborda la acalorada disputa Trump-Zelensky. Como es natural, sugieren que Trump está en el bolsillo de Vladimir Putin. Me pregunto hasta cuándo serán bienvenidos los periodistas del FT a las sesiones informativas de la Casa Blanca.

He calificado de histórico el altercado de ayer en la Casa Blanca. Y, siendo historiador de formación, me siento muy cómodo con esa determinación. Marque la fecha, recorte algunos artículos de prensa. Tal vez quiera explicar que fue testigo presencial a sus hijos o nietos dentro de 20 años.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Even some of the most astute and worldly-wise commentators on Trump in alternative media underappreciate him and persist in seeing him as a buffoon whose inconsistencies and contradictions in his public statements from one day to another are convincing proof that he cannot see an initiative through to successful conclusion. This is precisely what I saw and heard earlier today when listening to the ‘Judging Freedom’ interview with Colonel Larry Wilkerson, whom I otherwise greatly respect for his observations on U.S. relations with Israel or on the battlefield situation in the Russia-Ukraine war.

To be fair as possible, I note that in my own commentary a day ago on the President’s press conference with Emmanuel Macron I, too, feared that Trump had come close to endorsing the idea of a European peace keeping force in post-war Ukraine. Mea culpa…

No, this fellow Trump is a master at deception. Today’s press conference with Keir Starmer was proof positive that the vague, nonspecific notion of America back-stopping the European peace keepers in Ukraine is, strictly speaking, a tactic to shut up the Europeans while Washington puts together a mutually acceptable end-game solution with Moscow that it imposes on Ukraine and Europe at the appropriate moment.

Starmer was evasive when reporters asked him if he got a firm commitment from Trump to provide American military support to a peace keeping force. Trump for his part slipped into his own response to this question the remark that he didn’t think the Russians would break the peace, meaning that the whole peacekeeping mission is of doubtful use. Instead, Trump spoke of the rare earth deals that he expects to sign with Zelensky tomorrow, saying it itself is a guaranty of peace. He clearly meant that the presence of American engineers, mining experts on the ground in Ukraine would prevent the Russians from further military action.  If others chose to interpret his words as meaning that the mining work would be protected by U.S. military, as Larry Wilkerson did, that was nowhere to be found in Trump’s words.

It is essential to our understanding of what Trump was doing to consider that he chose to announce his decision to impose 25% tariffs on the European Union countries the day before Starmer arrived. It appears from answers to reporters’ questions that the working lunch Starmer and Trump had was devoted mostly to sparing the United Kingdom from such a fate. Indeed, Trump said that he and Starmer agreed that their assistants would be preparing a great trade deal for the U.K.

In brief, Trump gave Starmer the clear message to be happy to go home with a trade deal that Europeans would all envy, that would confirm the ‘special relationship’ between their two countries. Starmer should therefore just shut up about joining the peace negotiations over Ukraine and about the peace-keeping mission.  Let us remember that the British have from the very beginning been the most hawkish, warlike country in Europe, the plotters of Ukraine’s most damaging attacks on Russia and false flag operations. So Trump offered them a valuable prize if they back down.

I rest my case in favor of Trump’s brilliant conduct of his peace initiative on what he does, not on what he says.  There could be no better demonstration of Team Trump’s political and geopolitical skills than the votes in the United Nations this past Monday, when the USA voted against the EU drafted resolution putting the blame for the war on Russia and demanding withdrawal of its troops to the pre-war frontiers. And then the USA joined China and Russia in the Security Council to vote a resolution calling for a speedy end to the war without attributing responsibility for the war to Russia or demanding that it give up the territory it now holds. Moreover, the United States had forced the permanent and temporary European representatives in the Security Council to sit on their hands and let the resolution pass by abstaining.  That was a day like no other in decades of East-West relations.

Let us be of good faith.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Die heutige Pressekonferenz von Trump und Starmer

Selbst einige der scharfsinnigsten und weltgewandtesten Kommentatoren zu Trump in alternativen Medien unterschätzen ihn und sehen in ihm weiterhin einen Possenreißer, dessen Unbeständigkeit und Widersprüche in seinen öffentlichen Äußerungen von einem Tag auf den anderen ein überzeugender Beweis dafür sind, dass er eine Initiative nicht bis zum erfolgreichen Abschluss durchziehen kann. Genau das habe ich heute Morgen gesehen und gehört, als ich das Interview „Judging Freedom“ mit Colonel Larry Wilkerson hörte, den ich ansonsten für seine Beobachtungen zu den Beziehungen der USA zu Israel oder zur Situation auf dem Schlachtfeld im Russland-Ukraine-Krieg sehr schätze.

Um so fair wie möglich zu sein, möchte ich anmerken, dass ich in meinem eigenen Kommentar von gestern zur Pressekonferenz des Präsidenten mit Emmanuel Macron auch befürchtet hatte, dass Trump der Idee einer europäischen Friedenstruppe in der Nachkriegs-Ukraine nahe gekommen war. Mea culpa …

Nein, dieser Trump ist ein Meister der Täuschung. Die heutige Pressekonferenz mit Keith Starmer war der eindeutige Beweis dafür, dass die vage, unspezifische Vorstellung, Amerika würde den europäischen Friedenstruppen in der Ukraine den Rücken stärken, streng genommen eine Taktik ist, um die Europäer zum Schweigen zu bringen, während Washington eine für beide Seiten akzeptable Endlösung mit Moskau ausarbeitet, die es der Ukraine und Europa zum geeigneten Zeitpunkt aufzwingt.

Starmer wich aus, als Reporter ihn fragten, ob er von Trump die feste Zusage erhalten habe, dass das amerikanische Militär eine Friedenstruppe unterstützen werde. Trump seinerseits ließ in seine Antwort auf diese Frage die Bemerkung einfließen, dass er nicht glaube, dass die Russen den Frieden brechen würden, was bedeutet, dass der Nutzen der gesamten Friedensmission zweifelhaft ist. Stattdessen sprach Trump von den Abkommen über Seltene Erden, die er morgen mit Zelensky unterzeichnen will, und sagte, dies sei an sich schon eine Garantie für den Frieden. Er meinte damit ganz klar, dass die Anwesenheit amerikanischer Ingenieure und Bergbauexperten vor Ort in der Ukraine die Russen von weiteren Militäraktionen abhalten würde. Wenn andere seine Worte so interpretieren, dass die Bergbauarbeiten vom US-Militär geschützt würden, wie Larry Wilkerson es tat, dann war das in Trumps Worten nirgends zu finden.

Für unser Verständnis dessen, was Trump tat, ist es wichtig zu berücksichtigen, dass er seine Entscheidung, Zölle in Höhe von 25 % auf die Länder der Europäischen Union zu erheben, am Tag vor Starmer bekannt gab. Aus den Antworten auf die Fragen der Reporter geht hervor, dass das Arbeitsessen, das Starmer und Trump hatten, hauptsächlich dazu diente, das Vereinigte Königreich vor einem solchen Schicksal zu bewahren. Tatsächlich sagte Trump, dass er und Starmer vereinbart hätten, dass ihre Assistenten ein großartiges Handelsabkommen für das Vereinigte Königreich vorbereiten würden.

Kurz gesagt, Trump gab Starmer die klare Botschaft, dass er sich freuen solle, mit einem Handelsabkommen nach Hause zu gehen, um das ihn alle Europäer beneiden würden und das die „besondere Beziehung“ zwischen ihren beiden Ländern bestätigen würde. Starmer sollte daher einfach den Mund halten, wenn es um die Teilnahme an den Friedensverhandlungen über die Ukraine und um die Friedensmission geht. Wir sollten uns daran erinnern, dass die Briten von Anfang an das kriegerischste Land in Europa waren, die Drahtzieher der schädlichsten Angriffe der Ukraine auf Russland und der Operationen unter falscher Flagge. Trump hat ihnen also einen wertvollen Preis angeboten, wenn sie nachgeben.

Ich beende meine Beweisführung zugunsten von Trumps brillanter Durchführung seiner Friedensinitiative mit dem, was er tut, nicht mit dem, was er sagt. Es könnte keine bessere Demonstration der politischen und geopolitischen Fähigkeiten des Trump-Teams geben als die Abstimmungen in den Vereinten Nationen am vergangenen Montag, als die USA gegen die von der EU entworfene Resolution stimmten, die Russland die Schuld für den Krieg gab und den Abzug seiner Truppen auf die Vorkriegsgrenzen forderte. Und dann schlossen sich die USA im Sicherheitsrat China und Russland an, um für eine Resolution zu stimmen, die ein schnelles Ende des Krieges fordert, ohne Russland die Verantwortung für den Krieg zuzuschreiben oder zu fordern, dass es das Gebiet, das es jetzt besetzt hält, aufgibt. Darüber hinaus hatten die Vereinigten Staaten die ständigen und nichtständigen europäischen Vertreter im Sicherheitsrat gezwungen, sich zurückzuhalten und die Resolution durch Stimmenthaltung passieren zu lassen. Das war ein Tag wie kein anderer in den Jahrzehnten der Ost-West-Beziehungen.

Translation into Spanish below (Chod Zom)

La rueda de prensa de Trump y Starmer de hoy

Incluso algunos de los comentaristas más astutos y conocedores del mundo de Trump en los medios alternativos lo menosprecian y persisten en verlo como un bufón cuyas incoherencias y contradicciones en sus declaraciones públicas son una prueba convincente de que no puede llevar a cabo una iniciativa con éxito. Esto es precisamente lo que he visto y oído hoy al escuchar la entrevista Judging Freedom con el coronel Larry Wilkerson, a quien, por otra parte, respeto mucho por sus observaciones sobre las relaciones de Estados Unidos con Israel o sobre la situación en el campo de batalla en la guerra entre Rusia y Ucrania.

Para ser lo más justo posible, señalo que, en mi propio comentario de hace un día sobre la rueda de prensa del presidente con Emmanuel Macron, yo también temía que Trump hubiera estado a punto de respaldar la idea de una fuerza europea de mantenimiento de la paz en Ucrania tras la guerra. Mea culpa…

No, Trump es un maestro del engaño. La rueda de prensa de hoy con Keith Starmer ha demostrado que la idea vaga e imprecisa de que Estados Unidos apoye a las fuerzas de paz europeas en Ucrania es, estrictamente hablando, una táctica para hacer callar a los europeos mientras Washington elabora una solución final mutuamente aceptable con Moscú que imponga a Ucrania y Europa en el momento oportuno.

Starmer se mostró evasivo cuando los periodistas le preguntaron si había obtenido un compromiso firme de Trump para proporcionar apoyo militar estadounidense a una fuerza de mantenimiento de la paz. Trump, por su parte, insinuó en su respuesta a esta pregunta que no creía que los rusos fueran a romper la paz, lo que significa que toda la misión de mantenimiento de la paz es de dudosa utilidad. En su lugar, Trump habló de los acuerdos sobre tierras raras que espera firmar mañana con Zelensky, diciendo que eso en sí mismo es una garantía de paz. Claramente se refería a que la presencia de ingenieros y expertos mineros estadounidenses en el terreno ucraniano impediría a los rusos emprender nuevas acciones militares.  Si otros interpretaron sus palabras en el sentido de que la actividad minera estaría protegida por militares estadounidenses, como hizo Larry Wilkerson, eso no se encontraba en ninguna parte de las palabras de Trump.

Para comprender lo que estaba haciendo Trump es esencial tener en cuenta que decidió anunciar su decisión de imponer aranceles del 25 % a los países de la Unión Europea el día antes de la llegada de Starmer. De las respuestas a las preguntas de los periodistas se desprende que el principal tema del almuerzo de trabajo entre Starmer y Trump fue evitar que el Reino Unido cayera en esa situación. De hecho, Trump dijo que él y Starmer habían acordado que sus asistentes prepararan un gran acuerdo comercial para el Reino Unido.

En resumen, Trump dio a Starmer el claro mensaje de que se conformara con volver a casa con un acuerdo comercial que todos los europeos envidiarían y que confirmaría la «relación especial» entre sus dos países. Por lo tanto, Starmer debería callarse la boca sobre su participación en las negociaciones de paz sobre Ucrania y sobre la misión de mantenimiento de la paz.  Recordemos que los británicos han sido desde el principio el país más belicista y halcón de Europa, los artífices de los ataques más dañinos de Ucrania contra Rusia y de las operaciones de falsa bandera. Así que Trump les ofreció un valioso premio si se echaban atrás.

Apoyo mis argumentos a favor de la brillante gestión de Trump de su iniciativa de paz, tanto en lo que hace como en lo que dice.  No podría haber mejor demostración de las habilidades políticas y geopolíticas del equipo de Trump que las votaciones en las Naciones Unidas del pasado lunes, cuando EE. UU. votó en contra de la resolución redactada por la UE que culpaba a Rusia de la guerra y exigía la retirada de sus tropas a las fronteras anteriores a la guerra. Y, después, Estados Unidos se unió a China y Rusia en el Consejo de Seguridad para votar una resolución que pedía el fin rápido de la guerra sin atribuir la responsabilidad a Rusia ni exigirle que renunciara al territorio que posee actualmente. Además, Estados Unidos había obligado a los representantes europeos permanentes y temporales en el Consejo de Seguridad a abstenerse y permitir que se aprobara la resolución.  Aquel fue un día sin precedentes en décadas de relaciones Este-Oeste.

Seamos de buena fe.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Transcript submitted by a reader

Napolitano: 0:32
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for “Judging Freedom”. Today is Wednesday, February 26th, 2025. Professor Gilbert Doctorow will be here with us in just a moment on Europe Stands Alone. But first this.

0:48
[commercial message]

1:57
Professor Doctorow, welcome here, my dear friend. Always a pleasure to chat with you. I wonder if Emmanuel Macron on his flight over the Atlantic from Washington back to Paris felt fulfilled or gratified. I mean, another way to put this is what leverage do President Macron and Prime Minister Starmer have with President Trump?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 2:24
Not much. They are respected in a way that Donald does not respect the Canadians, for example, and all the– and Germany, for example. He has a certain romantic inspiration with the United Kingdom, so he is not about to insult the prime minister the way he did Angela Merkel during his first term. As for Macron, I don’t think that he feels very comfortable with Macron, but Macron has nothing to offer him. And I think what came out of the meeting they had in the White House and the press conference which followed it, which was easily available on YouTube by a variety of carriers, showed that Macron thought that he had done mission accomplished and that he had brought Donald Trump on line for the European role in the post-peace Ukraine.

3:34
But as even a Russia-hostile news organization like the “Financial Times” commented yesterday morning, Donald Trump had not been forthcoming. He had not committed the United States to anything, even if Macron said that he thought he did.

Napolitano: 4:01
Very interesting. Why would the Europeans even expect Trump to include them in negotiations with the Russians?

Doctorow:
Well, they are committed, they have taken enormous expenses in following a line that was set down by the Biden administration. They have spent a lot, and they still have the prospect of spending a great deal more if they are involved in the post-peace situation. Now, there is a– let’s make a division here between the leaders of the countries and the national interests involved. Just as in your show, there’s a lot of discussion about-

Napolitano:
Let me stop you. Did you say there’s a gap between the national interest and what the leaders of these countries– we’re talking about France and Great Britain– want?

Doctorow: 5:03
And not just France and Great Britain. All of those EU countries that have signed on for the Biden program of marginalizing Russia and punishing Russia, They are led by people who, in the vernacular of critics, would be called compradors. They are people who are bought into the American empire, who personally profit from it, and who are indifferent to their own nation’s interests. Now, that isn’t a remarkable thing to say. A similar thing could be said about American foreign policy, which for 30 years by well-regarded polls showed that the majority of Americans were not interested in being the policemen to the world.

Napolitano: 5:58
Well, does the European public fear and despise Russia the way European leaders do?

Doctorow:
That’s a difficult question. There are certain people who do, of course. “Fear” is the better word and fear leads to despising. The key word here is “fear”. Yes, they do fear Russia, and they might well, because they’ve stirred it up. They have poked the bear in the eye repeatedly.

Let’s be honest about it. When the Russians moved into Ukraine, the Europeans suddenly understood that they are defenseless and they are defenseless without the American NATO participation. Now I’ve gone over this question, why are they defenceless? They spend 10 times more money on defense than Russia did before it went into the war.

6:56
So why do they have nothing to show up, to put up? Well, I can give you an example from the country I live in, from Belgium. I spoke to– it was at a luncheon that we had at one of these fancy clubs where the speaker was from the Defense Ministry of Belgium. And we were asking him about the budget and asking him about mobilization. And he said, what?

That Belgium cannot mobilize, it has no money in the budget for it. And then he told us where the money is going. Maybe 80 percent of the Belgian Ministry of Defense budget is going on personnel. That is the salaries and benefits of the serving military and the very large component of retired military, not on new hardware, simply to pay the existing forces, as small as they are, that Belgium has.

Napolitano: 7:48
Well, let me ask you about Great Britain. When Prime Minister Starmer two weeks ago offered to send troops to Ukraine, was that essentially a farce? Does he have the troops to send?

Doctorow:
No, of course he doesn’t. As far as I know, the active military force of Britain is something like 50,000 people. I could be wrong, but this way or that. But there’s a reason why these were so small. And it’s not because these countries were dependent on America for their defense. As Donald Trump has been saying, they haven’t paid their fair share. No, no, they knew what they were doing. The reason why Europe was defenseless was because Europe saw no need for defense.

8:33
Europe understood that there was no hostile country in their neighborhood. They did not, until they were provoked and pushed by Washington, they did not see Russia as threatening. The United States policy so provoked Russia that it invaded Ukraine, and that was the epiphany moment for Europe. when they saw that they were defenseless. But it’s not because they had been stupid before. It’s not because they had been cheapskates before– they’d spent a vast amount of money that was wasted– it’s because there was no threat until the United States created a threat by forcing its way into Ukraine by the coup d’état that triggered a very strong Russian reaction.

Napolitano: 9:21
Do the European leaders by and large– and we can use as our examples President Macron and Prime Minister Starmer– believe that Russia is worthy of trust with respect to any agreement that it enters into? Or are they like Victoria Nuland and Senator Graham, Senator Lindsey Graham, who believe that Russia needs to be rid of Vladimir Putin, can’t be trusted, wants to expand to the old Soviet borders, wants to invade Eastern Europe?

Doctorow:
Well, let’s differentiate here. When we speak about Macron, we’re speaking about a chameleon. His only interest is holding power and he will do whatever is opportunistic at the moment. So he has been for the last three years one of the leading voices condemning Russia, trying to mobilize Europe under his direction to defeat Russia. But as the situation changes, as the United States position becomes crystal clear, and as he finally realizes when he gets home and thinks it over that he didn’t persuade Donald Trump of anything, he will slowly– he will not be embarrassed to change his direction. He’s been changing his direction every two days for the last five years, so it’s not new. Mr. Starmer, I don’t think is so bright, and I don’t think he is such an opportunist. He would find it embarrassing to flip-flop the way Macron does quite naturally.

Napolitano: 10:44
What do you think Prime Minister Starmer hopes to achieve by his trip or his visit to the White House tomorrow? Apparently he is going to offer to increase the government’s military budget from 2 percent of GDP to 2.3 percent of GDP. I don’t know what that is in actual numbers. And he’s going to invite the president to dinner with the king. Well, that’s not going to animate Donald Trump, is it?

Doctorow: 11:22
Well, he wouldn’t mind having a dinner with the king. That would animate Donald Trump, but doesn’t obligate him to do anything. The numbers, as far as I know, were 12 billion pounds, which must be 15 billion dollars, something like that. This is the increase.

Napolitano:
But what does Starmer, to be blunt, what does Starmer hope to get from his trip to the White House tomorrow?

Doctorow:
The Americans backstopping the mission of European peacekeepers in Ukraine. They all know that without the United States logistical support, intelligence support from the satellites, they cannot possibly send troops there who will not be murdered very quickly by the Russian forces. So that is a critical point, and he hopes to bring Donald Trump around to this idea of being the final guarantor. It won’t work.

Napolitano: 12:20
Do Prime Minister Starmer and President Macron– I suppose we could throw in, we haven’t discussed him yet, Chancellor-in-waiting Merz– understand the Russians will never accept a foreign peacekeeping force in Ukraine, any more than America would accept Chinese troops in Mexico?

There are a number of reasons for it, and one that is very little discussed is, which way are they looking? The assumption that Macron set out, and that Starmer will certainly repeat when he’s in the Oval Office, is that the Russians can’t be trusted.

The Russians have already twice invaded, first in 2014 when they took Crimea and now, and then in 2022 when they invaded Ukraine and headed towards Kiev, the capital. They can’t be trusted. They’re aggressive, they’re recidivist. These are dictatorships, dictatorships are fragile, they only can maintain their people in place by foreign wars. And so, well, that’s the story that he’ll deliver.

13:38
I don’t think that Donald Trump will be buying any of it. But if you have such a position, if the Russians can’t be trusted and are intent on war, then you’ll be looking east. You’ll have all the peacekeepers looking east and they won’t be looking up over their heads while the Ukrainians restart their genocidal activities that precipitated the Russian invasion in 2022. That is firing east into Russian settlements. That is what touched off the war. And there you have it. The Russians have seen this–

Napolitano:
Do you know if the Ukrainians are still firing east using American ATACMS and British Storm Shadows, I think they’re called?

Doctorow:
Yeah, I don’t believe they are. What we read about, hear about now are primarily drone attacks. And let’s be clear about it. The drone attacks are much more difficult to stop than the ATACMS or Storm Shadows. These are first, these highly sophisticated missiles are extremely expensive. The Ukraine has few of them. They are husbanded, they are used sparingly, and they are reasonably easy to shoot down with the standard high-accuracy air defenses, of which Russia has perhaps the leading air defense.

15:17
Now the drones are a different story. They’re harder to detect. And maybe you shoot down a great, some of them, but whole swarms of them come in. You hear about a hundred or more drones being sent east by the Ukrainians, being sent west by the Russians, and inevitably some of them get through.

And we knew about this last week. We knew about the success of the Ukrainian drone in destroying an oil pipeline pumping station that was essential to maintain flows of petroleum, raw petroleum from Kazakhstan into the pipeline network in Turkey, I believe. It works. You can destroy things with the drones. The drones cost a fraction of the cost and the Ukrainians make many of them themselves in the underground small-scale plants.

16:19
This is a factor in what has slowed down the Russian advance, and why all calculations of how they can sprint and go to the Dnieper in two days are mistaken. With drones, a relatively small number of Ukrainian skilled forces can cause serious risk to the lives of an advancing Russian battalion. Therefore, they have to proceed very carefully. And this frustrates those of us, particularly the military experts, who are trying to tell us that the war is close to an end.

Napolitano:
Well, yes, the military experts that appear on this show, all of whom have a professional lifetime of experience in this, all tell us, you know, it’s not months, it’s weeks. Are you suggesting that the use of drones will extend the life of the Ukrainian military?

Doctorow:
It is extending the life. But all these experts are not spending much time looking at Russian television. They would see and hear from the soldiers on the ground who are being given the microphone by the Russian war journalists that it’s tough slogging, you have to be very careful of the little birdies, that is both the reconnaissance and the kamikaze birdies. They are deadly and the Russians use them to great advantage. We see on the screen this tank, that personnel carrier, whatever, every day being destroyed by one or another Russian–

Napolitano: 18:03
Well, are the Ukrainian, is the Ukrainian military pushing the Russians back or is the Russian military continuing to move inexorably but slowly westward?

Doctorow:
The second scenario, You described it very accurately and concisely. The Russians are advancing cautiously and not like a steamroller all along the front, but in select places where they see that the Ukrainians are weaker.

Napolitano: 18:36
What is the reaction of Russian elites to some of the more extreme statements articulated by President Trump? “Ukraine started the war, Zelensky is a dictator.” Comments of that nature, I would imagine they’re ecstatic over what he says, or do they not take him seriously because he sometimes says one thing on one day and the opposite on the next.

Doctorow:
Well, they don’t want to spoil the air. So they’re not directing attention to these inconsistencies in Donald Trump’s statements. I’d give them credit in being, that is, Russian television. Let’s be honest about it. These talk shows bring on serious experts, and they are given the microphone, and nothing is ever censored or cut from the transmissions on air.

19:35
But nonetheless, the hosts know what is acceptable and not acceptable to be aired. And the conversations are steered accordingly. There is nothing disparaging said about Donald Trump. What is paid attention to is less his words than his deeds. And I think the Russians were much more interested in what happened in the voting in the United Nations on Monday than they were in any particular remark that Donald Trump said about Zelensky.

Napolitano:
Why do you think, Professor Doctorow, president Trump is offering Ukraine continued military assistance in return for access to minerals in the earth, if he really wants to bring about peace? Why doesn’t he just turn off the Joe Biden military spigot?

Doctorow: 20:27
Well, he’s not adding anything to the flow.

Napolitano:
Well, what is he getting in return? Excuse me, what is he offering Ukraine in return for the mineral assets, or are those mineral assets payback for what Trump says is a loan and Biden says was a grant.

Doctorow:
It’s the retrospective payback. It is not the very– he’s very careful. And when he was speaking with Macron, he did not support the notion that the United States is going to commit anything further to Ukraine. I think it is of great importance to Donald Trump to be able to argue to the American people that he has taken back the enormous expense that the United States incurred without any strings attached under the Biden administration. He is going to spare himself the embarrassment of an Afghanistan 2.

21:31
He is stuck with a losing hand in Ukraine, but if he can at least have the external signs of recovery of America’s investment in this failed war, he will look good.

Napolitano:
Where are these minerals for which he’s negotiating? Some of our military people tell us that the vast majority of them are in the four provinces or oblasts that are now controlled by Russia in eastern Ukraine.

Doctorow:
Again it would be better if they paid more attention to what the Russians are saying. The Russians are saying on television that about 30 percent of these minerals are in the eastern provinces or the oblasts that Russia holds.

22:18
And indeed in his offer, in Vladimir Putin’s offer to Trump a day ago, to make available to the United States its resources in rare earth and other critical elements for modern and future electronics production. He mentioned both Russia’s vast expanse going out to the Far East where these deposits are located in various places, and to jointly exploit those elements that are in the four provinces, the oblasts that Russia has taken from the Ukraine.

So he also said that Russia’s holdings in all of these minerals and metals is, as he said, an order of magnitude greater than Ukraine’s and that is believable.

Napolitano: 23:19
Right, right, very interesting. Dr. Doctorow, thank you very much. As always, it has been a fascinating conversation with you. And as always, we are deeply appreciative. And as always, we look forward to seeing you next week.

Doctorow:
Thanks so much.

Napolitano:
Thank you. And coming up later today at one o’clock this afternoon, Professor Glenn Deason; at two o’clock, Phil Giraldi; at three o’clock, my dear friend, Congressman Thomas Massey; at four o’clock, midnight in Moscow, Pepe Escobar; and at 4.30, the always worth waiting for Colonel Douglas McGregor,

23:58
Judge Napolitano for “Judging Freedom”.

Translation below into Spanish (Chod Zom)

Transcripción de la edición de «Juzgar la libertad» del 26 de febrero

Transcripción enviada por un lector

Napolitano: 0:32
Hola a todos, aquí el juez Andrew Napolitano para «Juzgar la libertad». Hoy es miércoles, 26 de febrero de 2025. El profesor Gilbert Doctorow estará aquí con nosotros en un momento sobre «Europa está sola». Pero primero esto.

0:48
[mensaje comercial]

1:57
Profesor Doctorow, bienvenido aquí, mi querido amigo. Siempre es un placer charlar con usted. Me pregunto si Emmanuel Macron en su vuelo sobre el Atlántico desde Washington de vuelta a París se sintió realizado o gratificado. Quiero decir, otra forma de decirlo es ¿qué influencia tienen el presidente Macron y el primer ministro Starmer con el presidente Trump?

Doctor Gilbert Doctorow: 2:24
No mucho. Se les respeta de una manera que Donald no respeta a los canadienses, por ejemplo, y a todos los- y a Alemania, por ejemplo. Tiene cierta inspiración romántica con el Reino Unido, así que no va a insultar a la primera ministra como hizo con Angela Merkel durante su primer mandato. En cuanto a Macron, no creo que se sienta muy cómodo con Macron, pero Macron no tiene nada que ofrecerle. Y creo que lo que salió de la reunión que mantuvieron en la Casa Blanca y de la rueda de prensa que la siguió, que se pudo ver fácilmente en YouTube por diversos medios, demostró que Macron pensaba que había hecho misión cumplida y que había puesto a Donald Trump de acuerdo sobre el papel europeo en la Ucrania posterior a la paz.

3:34
Pero como incluso una organización de noticias hostil a Rusia como el «Financial Times» comentó ayer por la mañana, Donald Trump no había sido comunicativo. No había comprometido a Estados Unidos a nada, aunque Macron dijera que creía que sí.

Napolitano: 4:01
Muy interesante. ¿Por qué esperarían los europeos que Trump les incluyera en las negociaciones con los rusos?

Doctorow:
Bueno, están comprometidos, han asumido enormes gastos en seguir una línea que fue establecida por la administración Biden. Han gastado mucho, y todavía tienen la perspectiva de gastar mucho más si se ven envueltos en la situación posterior a la paz. Ahora, hay una… hagamos una división aquí entre los líderes de los países y los intereses nacionales implicados. Al igual que en su programa, hay mucha discusión sobre-

Napolitano:
Déjame detenerte. ¿Ha dicho que hay una brecha entre el interés nacional y lo que quieren los líderes de esos países, estamos hablando de Francia y Gran Bretaña?

Doctorow: 5:03
Y no sólo Francia y Gran Bretaña. Todos esos países de la UE que han firmado el programa de Biden para marginar a Rusia y castigarla, están dirigidos por personas que, en la jerga de los críticos, se llamarían comprados. Son personas que están compradas por el imperio estadounidense, que se benefician personalmente de él y que son indiferentes a los intereses de su propia nación. No es nada extraordinario. Algo similar podría decirse de la política exterior estadounidense, que durante 30 años, según sondeos bien considerados, demostró que la mayoría de los estadounidenses no estaban interesados en ser los policías del mundo.

Napolitano: 5:58
Bien, ¿teme y desprecia la opinión pública europea a Rusia como lo hacen los líderes europeos?

Doctorow:
Es una pregunta difícil. Hay ciertas personas que lo hacen, por supuesto. «Miedo» es la palabra más adecuada y el miedo conduce al desprecio. La palabra clave es «miedo». Sí, temen a Rusia, y bien podrían hacerlo, porque la han estado molestando. Han pinchado al oso en el ojo repetidamente.

Seamos sinceros en esto. Cuando los rusos entraron en Ucrania, los europeos comprendieron de repente que están indefensos y lo están sin la participación estadounidense de la OTAN. Ahora he repasado esta cuestión, ¿por qué están indefensos? Gastaban 10 veces más dinero en defensa que Rusia antes de entrar en guerra.

6:56
Entonces, ¿por qué no tienen nada que mostrar, que poner? Bueno, puedo darles un ejemplo del país en el que vivo, de Bélgica. Hablé, en un almuerzo que tuvimos en uno de esos clubes elegantes, donde el orador era del Ministerio de Defensa de Bélgica. Le preguntamos por el presupuesto y por la movilización. Y él dijo, ¿qué?

Bélgica no puede movilizar, no tiene dinero en el presupuesto para ello. Y luego nos dijo adónde va el dinero. Quizá el 80% del presupuesto del Ministerio de Defensa belga se destina a personal. Es decir, los salarios y las prestaciones de los militares en activo y del gran componente de militares retirados, no en nuevo material, simplemente para pagar a las fuerzas existentes, por pequeñas que sean, que tiene Bélgica.

Napolitano: 7:48
Permítame preguntarle por Gran Bretaña. Cuando el Primer Ministro Starmer ofreció hace dos semanas enviar tropas a Ucrania, ¿fue esencialmente una farsa? ¿Tiene tropas para enviar?

Doctorow:
No, por supuesto que no. Que yo sepa, la fuerza militar activa de Gran Bretaña es alrededor de unas 50.000 personas. Podría equivocarme, pero de esta manera o de otra. Pero hay una razón por la que son tan pequeñas. Y no es porque estos países dependieran de Estados Unidos para su defensa. Como Donald Trump ha estado diciendo, que no han pagado su justa parte. No, no, sabían lo que hacían. La razón por la que Europa estaba indefensa era porque Europa no veía la necesidad de defenderse.

8:33
Europa entendió que no había ningún país hostil en su vecindario. No lo hicieron, hasta que fueron provocados y empujados por Washington, no vieron a Rusia como una amenaza. La política de Estados Unidos provocó tanto a Rusia que invadió Ucrania, y ese fue el momento de epifanía para Europa, cuando vieron que estaban indefensos. Pero no es porque hubieran sido estúpidos antes. No es porque antes hubieran sido unos tacaños -habían gastado una enorme cantidad de dinero que se malgastó-, es porque no había ninguna amenaza hasta que Estados Unidos creó una amenaza al forzar su entrada en Ucrania mediante el golpe de Estado que desencadenó una reacción rusa muy fuerte.

Napolitano: 9:21
¿Creen los líderes europeos, en general -y podemos utilizar como ejemplos al presidente Macron y al primer ministro Starmer- que Rusia es digna de confianza con respecto a cualquier acuerdo que celebre? ¿O son como Victoria Nuland y el senador Graham, el senador Lindsey Graham, que creen que hay que deshacerse de Vladimir Putin, que no se puede confiar en Rusia, que quiere expandirse a las antiguas fronteras soviéticas, que quiere invadir Europa del Este?

Doctorow:
Bueno, vamos a diferenciar aquí. Cuando hablamos de Macron, hablamos de un camaleón. Su único interés es mantener el poder y hará lo que sea oportuno en cada momento. Así ha sido una de las principales voces condenando a Rusia durante los últimos tres años, tratando de movilizar a Europa bajo su dirección para derrotar a Rusia. Pero a medida que la situación cambie, a medida que la posición de Estados Unidos se vuelva clara como el cristal, y a medida que finalmente se dé cuenta, cuando llegue a casa y lo piense mejor, de que no ha persuadido a Donald Trump de nada, poco a poco… no le dará vergüenza cambiar de dirección. Ha estado cambiando su dirección cada dos días durante los últimos cinco años, así que no es nuevo. El Sr. Starmer, no creo que sea tan brillante, y no creo que sea tan oportunista. Le resultara vergonzoso cambiar de opinión como hace Macron con total naturalidad.

Napolitano: 10:44
¿Qué cree que espera conseguir el Primer Ministro Starmer con su viaje o su visita de mañana a la Casa Blanca? Aparentemente va a ofrecer aumentar el presupuesto militar del gobierno del 2 por ciento del PIB al 2,3 por ciento del PIB. No sé lo que es eso en cifras reales. Y va a invitar al presidente a cenar con el rey. Bueno, eso no va a animar a Donald Trump, ¿verdad?

Doctorow: 11:22
Bueno, a él no le importaría cenar con el rey. Eso animaría a Donald Trump, pero no le obliga a hacer nada. Las cifras, que yo sepa, eran de 12.000 millones de libras, que deben ser 15.000 millones de dólares, algo así. Este es el aumento.

Napolitano:
Pero, para ser franco, ¿qué espera Starmer obtener de su viaje a la Casa Blanca mañana?

Doctorow:
Que los estadounidenses respalden la misión de las fuerzas de paz europeas en Ucrania. Todos saben que sin el apoyo logístico de Estados Unidos, el apoyo de inteligencia de los satélites, no pueden enviar tropas allí que no sean asesinadas muy rápidamente por las fuerzas rusas. Así que ese es un punto crítico, y espera atraer a Donald Trump a esta idea de ser el garante final. No funcionará.

Napolitano: 12:20
¿Entienden el primer ministro Starmer y el presidente Macron -supongo que podríamos añadir, aún no hemos hablado de él, al canciller en ciernes Merz- que los rusos nunca aceptarán una fuerza extranjera de mantenimiento de la paz en Ucrania, al igual que Estados Unidos no aceptaría tropas chinas en México?

Doctorow:
Hay varias razones para ello, y una que se discute muy poco es, ¿hacia dónde miran? El supuesto que planteó Macron, y que sin duda repetirá Starmer cuando esté en el Despacho Oval, es que no se puede confiar en los rusos.

Los rusos ya han invadido dos veces, primero en 2014 cuando tomaron Crimea y ahora, y luego en 2022 cuando invadieron Ucrania y se dirigieron hacia Kiev, la capital. No se puede confiar en ellos. Son agresivos, son reincidentes. Son dictaduras, las dictaduras son frágiles, sólo pueden mantener a su gente en su lugar por las guerras extranjeras. Y así, bueno, esa es la historia que nos contará.

13:38
No creo que Donald Trump compre nada de eso. Pero uno tiene esa posición, si no se puede confiar en los rusos y están decididos a la guerra, entonces estarás mirando hacia el este. Tendrás a todas las fuerzas de paz mirando hacia el este y no estarán mirando por encima de sus cabezas mientras los ucranianos reinician sus actividades genocidas que precipitaron la invasión rusa en 2022. Es decir, de disparar hacia el este a los asentamientos rusos. Eso es lo que provocó la guerra. Y ahí lo tienen. Los rusos han visto esto…

Napolitano:
¿Sabe si los ucranianos siguen disparando hacia el este con ATACMS americanos y Storm Shadows británicos, creo que se llaman?

Doctorow:
Sí, no creo que lo hagan. De lo que leemos y oímos hablar ahora es sobre todo de ataques con drones. Y seamos claros al respecto. Los ataques de drones son mucho más difíciles de parar que los ATACMS o Storm Shadows. En primer lugar, estos misiles altamente sofisticados son extremadamente caros. Ucrania tiene pocos. Se utilizan con moderación y son razonablemente fáciles de derribar con las defensas antiaéreas estándar de alta precisión, de las que Rusia tiene quizás la principal defensa antiaérea.

15:17
Ahora bien, los drones son otra historia. Son más difíciles de detectar. Y tal vez usted derriba uns gran cantidad, algunos de ellos, pero vienen enjambres enteros de ellos. Se oye hablar de un centenar o más de aviones no tripulados enviados al este por los ucranianos, enviados al oeste por los rusos, e inevitablemente algunos de ellos consiguen pasar.

Y sabíamos de esto la semana pasada. Sabíamos del éxito del dron ucraniano en la destrucción de una estación de bombeo de un oleoducto que era esencial para mantener los flujos de petróleo, petróleo crudo de Kazajstán a la red de oleoductos en Turquía, creo. Funciona. Puedes destruir cosas con los drones. Los drones cuestan una fracción del costo y los ucranianos fabrican muchos de ellos, ellos mismos, a pequeña escala en plantas subterráneas.

16:19
Este es un factor que ha ralentizado el avance ruso, y por el que todos los cálculos de que pueden acelerar y llegar al Dnieper en dos días están equivocados. Con drones, un número relativamente pequeño de fuerzas expertas ucranianas puede poner en grave peligro la vida de un batallón ruso que avanza. Por lo tanto, tienen que proceder con mucho cuidado. Y esto frustra a aquellos de nosotros, en particular a los expertos militares, que intentan decirnos que la guerra está cerca de su fin.

Napolitano:
Bueno, sí, los expertos militares que aparecen en este programa, todos los cuales tienen una vida profesional con experiencia en esto, todos nos dicen, ya sabes, no son meses, son semanas. ¿Está sugiriendo que el uso de drones alargará la vida del ejército ucraniano?

Doctorow:
Se está extendiendo la vida. Pero todos estos expertos no pasan mucho tiempo mirando la televisión rusa. Verían y oirían de los soldados que están sobre el terreno, a los que los periodistas de guerra rusos les dan el micrófono, que es un trabajo duro, que hay que tener mucho cuidado con los pajaritos, tanto los de reconocimiento como los pajaritos kamikazes. Son mortales y los rusos los utilizan con gran ventaja. Vemos en la pantalla este tanque, ese transporte de personal, lo que sea, todos los días siendo destruido por uno u otro ruso…

Napolitano: 18:03.
Bueno, ¿está haciendo retroceder el ejército ucraniano a los rusos o sigue avanzando inexorablemente pero lentamente hacia el oeste el ejército ruso?

Doctorow:
Ha descrito el segundo escenario de forma muy precisa y concisa. Los rusos están avanzando con cautela y no como una apisonadora por todo el frente, sino en lugares concretos donde ven que los ucranianos son más débiles.

Napolitano: 18:36.
¿Cuál es la reacción de las élites rusas ante algunas de las declaraciones más extremas del presidente Trump, como «Ucrania empezó la guerra, Zelensky es un dictador»? Comentarios de esa naturaleza, me imagino, que se extasían con lo que dice o no le toman en serio porque a veces dice una cosa un día y la contraria al siguiente.

Doctorow:
Bueno, no quieren estropear el panorama. Así que no están prestando atención a estas inconsistencias en las declaraciones de Donald Trump. Yo les daría crédito por ser, en definitiva, la televisión rusa. Seamos sinceros. En estos programas de entrevistas se invita a expertos serios, se les da el micrófono y nunca se censura ni se corta nada de las transmisiones en directo.

19:35
Pero los presentadores saben qué es aceptable y qué no. Y las conversaciones se orientan en consecuencia. No se dicen cosas despectivas sobre Donald Trump. Se presta más atención a sus hechos que a sus palabras. Y creo que a los rusos les interesaba mucho más lo que ocurrió en la votación del lunes en las Naciones Unidas que cualquier comentario concreto que Donald Trump dijera sobre Zelensky.

Napolitano:
¿Por qué cree usted, profesor Doctorow, que el presidente Trump está ofreciendo asistencia militar continua a Ucrania a cambio de acceso a los minerales de la tierra, si realmente quiere lograr la paz? ¿Por qué no cierra el grifo de ayuda militar de Joe Biden?

Doctorow: 20:27
Bueno, no está añadiendo nada al flujo.

Napolitano:
Bueno, ¿qué está recibiendo a cambio? Perdón, ¿qué está ofreciendo a Ucrania a cambio de los activos minerales, o son esos activos minerales la devolución de lo que Trump dice que es un préstamo y Biden dice que era una entrega a fondo perdido.

Doctorow:
Es la revancha retrospectiva. No es lo mismo -él es muy cuidadoso. Y cuando hablaba con Macron, no apoyó la idea de que Estados Unidos vaya a comprometerse más con Ucrania. Creo que es de gran importancia para Donald Trump poder argumentar ante el pueblo estadounidense que ha recuperado el enorme gasto en el que Estados Unidos incurrió sin ningún compromiso bajo la administración Biden. Va a ahorrarse la vergüenza de un Afganistán 2.

21:31
Está atascado con una mano perdedora en Ucrania, pero si al menos puede tener los signos externos de recuperación de la inversión de Estados Unidos en esta guerra fallida, se verá bien.

Napolitano:
¿Dónde están esos minerales por los que está negociando? Algunos de nuestros militares nos dicen que la gran mayoría de ellos están en las cuatro provincias u oblasts que ahora controla Rusia en el este de Ucrania.

Doctorow:
Una vez más, sería mejor si prestaran más atención a lo que dicen los rusos. Los rusos están diciendo en televisión que alrededor del 30 por ciento de estos minerales se encuentran en las provincias orientales o los oblasts que Rusia tiene en su poder.

22:18
Y de hecho en su oferta, en la oferta de Vladimir Putin a Trump hace un día, de poner a disposición de Estados Unidos sus recursos en tierras raras y otros elementos críticos para la producción electrónica moderna y futura. Mencionó tanto la vasta extensión de Rusia hasta el Lejano Oriente, donde se encuentran estos depósitos en varios lugares, como explotar conjuntamente los elementos que se encuentran en las cuatro provincias, los oblasts que Rusia ha arrebatado a Ucrania.

Y también dijo que las posesiones de Rusia de todos estos minerales y metales es, como él dijo, de un orden de magnitud mayor que la de Ucrania y eso es creíble.

Napolitano: 23:19
Bien, bien, muy interesante. Dr. Doctorow, muchas gracias. Como siempre, ha sido una conversación fascinante con usted. Y como siempre, se lo agradecemos profundamente. Y como siempre, esperamos verle la semana que viene.

Doctorow:
Muchas gracias.

Napolitano:
Muchas gracias. Y más tarde, a la una de la tarde, el profesor Glenn Deason; a las dos, Phil Giraldi; a las tres, mi querido amigo, el congresista Thomas Massey; a las cuatro, medianoche en Moscú, Pepe Escobar; y a las cuatro y media, el siempre digno de esperar coronel Douglas McGregor,

23:58
El juez Napolitano para «Juzgando la libertad».

Today’s discussion with Judge Napolitano focused on the European warmonger leaders and what explains their behavior, on how they think they can maneuver Donald Trump to provide the back-stop to their planned peacekeeping force in post-war Ukraine. 

Do the hostile statements about Russia by European leaders reflect the thinking of their own populations?

Why would these leaders expect Trump to include them in the negotiations?

What leverage do President Macron and Prime Minister Starmer have with Donald Trump?

Where is this headed?

Kaja Kallas: the cleverest and also most dangerous High Representative of the European Commission for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HRECFASP) since the post’s creation

Ursula von der Leyen must be delighted that she chose Estonian prime minister Kaja Kallas to be her Vice President / High Representative of the European Commission for Foreign Affairs, etc.  Especially now when relations with the USA are fractious and it is very easy to make a misstep that will ruin your career.

Kallas said yesterday that she will soon be on her way to Washington to meet with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other officials to talk about the end of the war in Ukraine and Europe’s role in the settlement. This is an unenviable task.  Donald Trump may be polite with the president of France and with the prime minister of Great Britain. But his utter disdain for the EU is well known and Kallas will likely be exposed to various indignities upon arrival in Washington, while von der Leyen sits comfortably in Brussels.

However, Kallas may find a way to shine nonetheless, because she is a sly one.

Kaya Kallas is one of a handful of ‘big people who talk to us’ shown on the BBC promotional clip for its interview program ‘Hard Talk’ hosted by Stephen Sackur.  In the promo, Sackur asks her whether she ever considered resigning due to a scandal following the revelation that her husband had been violating the prohibition on doing business with Russia, which she claimed to know nothing about. Kallas demurely smiled and said that ‘yes’ she had considered it. Full stop.

Just how sly she can be was demonstrated very nicely a day ago when she commented on the now strained relationship with the United States and concerns that Washington will not honor its Article 5 obligations under the NATO treaty to come to Europe’s defense. She reminded her audience that Article 5 had been invoked only once in history and then to aid the USA after the September 11^th terrorist attacks. She said that Estonia had done its duty and that 12 Estonians died in the effort, which she considered a big sacrifice given the country’s tiny population. The logic is that Washington should not leave Europe in the lurch today.

Do the math. Twelve deaths come to 0.0000085 of the Estonian population. Cleverness aside, I would say that her math skills are on a par with those of the dumbbell outgoing German Minister of Foreign Affairs Annalena Baerbock, famous for her 360-degree turn of policy.  

In calling Kaja Kallas the cleverest person ever to hold the position of High Representative (HR), I am doing her no favors. Her predecessors from the creation of the post were a succession of dolts or mentally unstable under-performers. Kallas is the first HR to come from a very tiny European state. Her predecessors were from the heavy lifters: UK (pre-Brexit), Italy and Spain. Her predecessors were also all socialists of one variety or another. Kallas stands on the far right of center.

Kallas has been a leading personality in Estonia’s Reform Party, which is generally described by mainstream media as “liberal.” Its social policies allow us to more precisely call it ‘neo-Liberal,’ meaning in fact conservative, with a strong anti-Russian platform from the beginning.

Since the late 1990s, within the European Parliament the Reform Party has been a member of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for EUROPE (ALDE) that was put together and long led by Belgium’s Thatcherite prime minister Guy Verhofstadt. For more than a decade, ALDE promoted sanctions against Russia based on the U.S.’s Magnitsky Law (2012).  ALDE later merged with Macron’s Renew Europe parliamentarians.

During her premiership in Estonia, 2021-2024, Kallas was one of the loudest anti-Russian voices in the EU. When the Ukraine war started, she repeatedly called for Kiev’s victory, Russia’s defeat. Just a few months ago, when the approaching Russian victory on the battlefield was being acknowledged even by Western mainstream media, Kallas declared that the mission was still ‘to bring Russia to its knees.’  This, from a country counting a bit less than 1.4 million citizens of whom a substantial minority are Russian-speakers.

Allow me to list here the dullards who preceded Kallas to the very important post of Europe’s chief diplomat, the ‘go-to’ person in answer to Henry Kissinger’s question of whom to phone to hear Europe’s voice on a given question.

First in line was the upper crust Englishwoman Baroness Margaret Ashton, 2009 – 2014, whose main government service had been in the House of Lords and who had no experience relevant to international affairs and diplomacy. She was an empty vessel, as all could see.

Then came the Italian Federica Mogherini, 2014-2019, who made up for Ashton’s failings in experience and also in looks. A very handsome lady, Mogherini was experienced in electoral politics as a member of the Italian parliament and also served (less than a year) as Minister of Foreign Affairs just prior to her nomination to the HR position in Brussels.  Unfortunately, Mogherini was not able to cope with the stress of office and clearly suffered a nervous breakdown before our eyes. Her face before cameras was distorted. She was suffering.  Then, miraculously, once relieved of her duties in Brussels and come home to Italy to a university teaching position, she at once regained her poise and good looks. But during her time in office, the EU was poorly served.

Finally, we come to Josep Borrell, 2019-2024, the Spaniard, who had served in high positions in EU Institutions, including as president of the Parliament from 2004-2009. Just before his nomination as HR, he was the Foreign Minister in the government of Sanchez. Regrettably, the outcome of Borrell’s long service in top positions was arrogance, shall we say ‘hubris.’  His place in history is assured by his remark to reporters that “Europe is a garden and outside its walls there is the jungle.”  Unfortunately for Borrell such patently neo-colonialist views have not served Europe well with the rising Global South.

                                                                      ****

The times are a-changing. It will take all the cleverness of Kaya Kallas to hold onto her recently acquired top spot in European diplomacy. At a minimum she will have to eat her words and make nice to Russia and to Donald Trump’s America.  Will her boss, von der Leyen, do better?

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Postscript, 26 February, pm: The first of the indignities I forecast has been realized. As Euronews now tells us, ‘Kaja Kallas meeting with Marco Rubio cancelled due to scheduling issues’

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Kaja Kallas: die klügste und auch gefährlichste Hohe Vertreterin der Europäischen Kommission für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik (HRECFASP) seit der Schaffung des Postens

Ursula von der Leyen muss hocherfreut sein, dass sie die estnische Premierministerin Kaja Kallas zu ihrer Vizepräsidentin/Hohen Vertreterin der Europäischen Kommission für Außenpolitik usw. gewählt hat. Besonders jetzt, wo die Beziehungen zu den USA angespannt sind und man sehr leicht einen Fehltritt begehen kann, der die Karriere ruiniert.

Kallas sagte gestern, dass sie sich bald auf den Weg nach Washington machen wird, um sich mit dem US-Außenminister Marco Rubio und anderen Beamten zu treffen, um über das Ende des Krieges in der Ukraine und die Rolle Europas bei der Beilegung zu sprechen. Dies ist keine beneidenswerte Aufgabe. Donald Trump mag sich gegenüber dem französischen Präsidenten und dem britischen Premierminister höflich verhalten. Seine völlige Verachtung für die EU ist jedoch allgemein bekannt und Kallas wird bei ihrer Ankunft in Washington wahrscheinlich verschiedenen Demütigungen ausgesetzt sein, während von der Leyen es sich in Brüssel gemütlich macht.

Kallas könnte jedoch trotzdem einen Weg finden, zu glänzen, denn sie ist eine gewiefte Person.

Kaya Kallas ist eine von wenigen „großen Leuten, die mit uns reden“, die in dem BBC-Werbeclip für die Interview-Sendung „Hard Talk“ mit Moderator Stephen Sackur zu sehen ist. In der Promo fragt Sackur sie, ob sie jemals daran gedacht habe, aufgrund eines Skandals zurückzutreten, nachdem bekannt wurde, dass ihr Ehemann gegen das Verbot verstoßen hatte, Geschäfte mit Russland zu machen, von denen sie angeblich nichts wusste. Kallas lächelte zurückhaltend und sagte, dass sie „ja“ darüber nachgedacht habe. Punkt.

Wie schlau sie sein kann, zeigte sich sehr schön vor einem Tag, als sie sich zum angespannten Verhältnis mit den Vereinigten Staaten und Bedenken äußerte, dass Washington seine Verpflichtungen gemäß Artikel 5 des NATO-Vertrags, Europa zu verteidigen, nicht einhalten werde. Sie erinnerte ihr Publikum daran, dass Artikel 5 in der Geschichte nur einmal in Kraft gesetzt wurde, und zwar um den USA nach den Terroranschlägen vom 11.September zu Hilfe zu kommen. Sie sagte, dass Estland seine Pflicht erfüllt habe und dass 12 Esten bei diesem Einsatz ihr Leben verloren hätten, was sie angesichts der geringen Bevölkerungszahl des Landes als großes Opfer ansah. Die Logik dahinter ist, dass Washington Europa heute nicht im Stich lassen sollte.

Rechnen Sie es sich aus. Zwölf Tote entsprechen 0,0000085 der estnischen Bevölkerung. Abgesehen von ihrer Klugheit würde ich sagen, dass ihre mathematischen Fähigkeiten denen der dümmlichen, scheidenden deutschen Außenministerin Annalena Baerbock entsprechen, die für ihre 360-Grad-Wende in der Politik bekannt ist.

Wenn ich Kaja Kallas als die klügste Person bezeichne, die jemals das Amt des Hohen Vertreters (HV) innehatte, tue ich ihr damit keinen Gefallen. Ihre Vorgänger seit der Schaffung des Postens waren eine Reihe von Dummköpfen oder geistig instabilen Leistungsträgern. Kallas ist die erste HV, die aus einem sehr kleinen europäischen Staat stammt. Ihre Vorgänger kamen aus den Schwergewichten: Großbritannien (vor dem Brexit), Italien und Spanien. Ihre Vorgänger waren auch alle Sozialisten der einen oder anderen Art. Kallas steht weit rechts von der Mitte.

Kallas war eine führende Persönlichkeit in der estnischen Reformpartei, die von den Mainstream-Medien allgemein als „liberal“ bezeichnet wird. Ihre Sozialpolitik erlaubt es uns, sie genauer als „neoliberal“ zu bezeichnen, was in der Tat konservativ bedeutet, mit einer von Anfang an stark antirussischen Plattform.

Seit Ende der 1990er Jahre ist die Reformpartei im Europäischen Parlament Mitglied der Allianz der Liberalen und Demokraten für Europa (ALDE), die vom belgischen Premierminister und Thatcher-Anhänger Guy Verhofstadt gegründet wurde und lange Zeit von ihm geführt wurde. Mehr als ein Jahrzehnt lang setzte sich ALDE für Sanktionen gegen Russland auf der Grundlage des Magnitsky-Gesetzes der USA (2012) ein. ALDE schloss sich später mit den Abgeordneten von Macrons Renew Europe zusammen.

Während ihrer Amtszeit als Ministerpräsidentin in Estland, 2021–2024, war Kallas eine der lautesten antirussischen Stimmen in der EU. Als der Ukrainekrieg begann, forderte sie wiederholt den Sieg Kiews und die Niederlage Russlands. Noch vor wenigen Monaten, als selbst die westlichen Mainstream-Medien den bevorstehenden russischen Sieg auf dem Schlachtfeld anerkannten, erklärte Kallas, dass die Mission immer noch darin bestehe, „Russland in die Knie zu zwingen“. Dies aus einem Land, das etwas weniger als 1,4 Millionen Bürger zählt, von denen eine beträchtliche Minderheit russischsprachig ist.

Erlauben Sie mir, hier die Dummköpfe aufzulisten, die vor Kallas auf dem sehr wichtigen Posten des Chefdiplomaten Europas sassen, der „Ansprechpartner“ für die Antwort auf Henry Kissingers Frage, wen man anrufen sollte, um die Stimme Europas zu einer bestimmten Frage zu hören.

An erster Stelle stand die englische Adelige Baroness Margaret Ashton, 2009–2014, deren Hauptdienst in der Regierung im House of Lords lag und die keine Erfahrung in internationalen Angelegenheiten und Diplomatie hatte. Sie war ein leeres Gefäß, wie alle sehen konnten.

Dann kam die Italienerin Federica Mogherini, 2014–2019, die Ashtons Mängel in Bezug auf Erfahrung und Aussehen ausglich. Mogherini war eine sehr gutaussehende Frau, die als Mitglied des italienischen Parlaments Erfahrung in der Wahlpolitik hatte und kurz vor ihrer Ernennung zum Hohen Vertreter in Brüssel (weniger als ein Jahr) als Außenministerin tätig war. Leider war Mogherini dem Stress des Amtes nicht gewachsen und erlitt vor unseren Augen einen Nervenzusammenbruch. Ihr Gesicht vor den Kameras war verzerrt. Sie litt. Dann, wie durch ein Wunder, nachdem sie von ihren Pflichten in Brüssel entbunden worden war und nach Italien zurückgekehrt war, um eine Lehrtätigkeit an der Universität aufzunehmen, gewann sie sofort ihre Ausgeglichenheit und ihr gutes Aussehen zurück. Aber während ihrer Amtszeit hatte sie der EU schlecht gedient.

Schließlich kommen wir zu Josep Borrell, 2019-2024, dem Spanier, der in hohen Positionen in EU-Institutionen tätig war, unter anderem von 2004 bis 2009 als Präsident des Parlaments. Kurz vor seiner Ernennung zum Hohen Vertreter war er Außenminister in der Regierung von Sanchez. Bedauerlicherweise hat Borrells langjähriger Dienst in Spitzenpositionen zu Arroganz geführt, nennen wir es „Hybris“. Sein Platz in der Geschichte ist ihm durch seine Bemerkung gegenüber Reportern sicher, dass „Europa ein Garten ist und außerhalb seiner Mauern der Dschungel liegt“. Leider haben solche offenkundig neokolonialistischen Ansichten Europa im Hinblick auf den aufstrebenden globalen Süden nicht gutgetan.

                                                                      ****

Die Zeiten ändern sich. Kaya Kallas wird all ihren Scharfsinn brauchen, um ihren kürzlich erworbenen Spitzenplatz in der europäischen Diplomatie zu halten. Zumindest wird sie ihre Worte zurücknehmen und sich mit Russland und Donald Trumps Amerika gut stellen müssen. Wird ihre Chefin, von der Leyen, es besser machen?

Translation below into Spanish (Chod Zom)

Kaja Kallas: el Alto Representante de la Comisión Europea para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad más inteligente y también más peligroso desde la creación del cargo

Ursula von der Leyen debe estar encantada de haber elegido a la primera ministra estonia Kaja Kallas para ser su vicepresidente / alto representante de la Comisión Europea para Asuntos Exteriores, etc. Sobre todo ahora, cuando las relaciones con Estados Unidos son difíciles y es muy fácil dar un paso en falso que arruine tu carrera.

Kallas dijo ayer que pronto estará de camino a Washington para reunirse con el Secretario de Estado estadounidense Marco Rubio y otros funcionarios para hablar del fin de la guerra en Ucrania y del papel de Europa en el acuerdo. Se trata de una tarea poco envidiable.  Donald Trump puede ser cortés con el presidente de Francia y con el primer ministro de Gran Bretaña. Pero su absoluto desdén por la UE es bien conocido y Kallas probablemente se verá expuesto a diversas indignidades a su llegada a Washington, mientras von der Leyen está sentada cómodamente en Bruselas.

Sin embargo, es posible que Kallas encuentre la manera de brillar, porque es astuta.

Kaya Kallas es una de las pocas «personas importantes que hablan con nosotros» que aparecen en el clip promocional de la BBC para su programa de entrevistas «Hard Talk», presentado por Stephen Sackur.  En la promo, Sackur le pregunta si alguna vez se planteó dimitir por el escándalo que supuso la revelación de que su marido había violado la prohibición de hacer negocios con Rusia, de lo que ella afirmó no saber nada. Kallas sonrió recatadamente y dijo que «sí» se lo había planteado. Y punto.

Lo astuta que puede llegar a ser quedó muy bien demostrado hace un día, cuando habló de las tensas relaciones con Estados Unidos y la preocupación de que Washington no cumpliera sus obligaciones en virtud del artículo 5 del Tratado de la OTAN de acudir en defensa de Europa. Recordó que el Artículo 5 sólo se había invocado una vez en la historia, para ayudar a Estados Unidos tras los atentados terroristas del 11 de septiembre. Dijo que Estonia había cumplido con su deber y que 12 estonios habían muerto en la operación, lo que consideraba un gran sacrificio dada la escasa población del país. Lo lógico es que Washington no deje hoy a Europa en la estacada.

Haz las cuentas. Doce muertes equivalen al 0,0000085 de la población estonia. Dejando a un lado la astucia, yo diría que sus habilidades matemáticas están a la altura de las de la tonta ministra saliente de Asuntos Exteriores alemana Annalena Baerbock, famosa por su giro de política de 360 grados.

Al calificar a Kaja Kallas como la persona más inteligente que jamás haya ocupado el cargo de Alto Representante (AR), no le estoy haciendo ningún favor. Sus predecesores desde la creación del cargo fueron una sucesión de idiotas o de personas mentalmente inestables y de bajo rendimiento. Kallas es el primer AR procedente de un Estado europeo muy pequeño. Sus predecesores eran de los pesos pesados: Reino Unido (antes del Brexit), Italia y España. Sus predecesores también eran todos socialistas de una variedad u otra. Kallas se sitúa en el extremo derecho del centro.

Kallas ha sido una personalidad destacada del Partido Reformista de Estonia, que los medios de comunicación dominantes suelen describir como «liberal». Sus políticas sociales permiten calificarlo con más precisión de «neoliberal», es decir, conservador, con una fuerte plataforma antirrusa desde el principio.

Desde finales de la década de 1990, el Partido Reformista es miembro de la Alianza de Liberales y Demócratas por Europa (ALDE), creada y dirigida durante mucho tiempo por el primer ministro belga thatcherista Guy Verhofstadt. Durante más de una década, ALDE promovió sanciones contra Rusia basadas en la Ley Magnitsky de Estados Unidos (2012). Más tarde, ALDE se fusionó con los parlamentarios de Renovar Europa de Macron.

Durante su mandato en Estonia (2021-2024), Kallas fue una de las voces antirrusas más sonoras de la UE. Cuando comenzó la guerra en Ucrania, pidió repetidamente la victoria de Kiev y la derrota de Rusia. Hace sólo unos meses, cuando la inminente victoria rusa en el campo de batalla era reconocida incluso por los principales medios de comunicación occidentales, Kallas declaró que la misión seguía siendo «poner a Rusia de rodillas». Esto, desde un país que cuenta con algo menos de 1,4 millones de ciudadanos, de los cuales una minoría sustancial son rusoparlantes.

Permítanme mencionar a los imbéciles que precedieron a Kallas en el importantísimo puesto de jefe de la diplomacia europea, la persona «a la que acudir» en respuesta a la pregunta de Henry Kissinger: «¿A quién llamar para escuchar la voz de Europa sobre una cuestión determinada?»

La primera en la línea de sucesión fue la baronesa Margaret Ashton, de la alta burguesía inglesa, de 2009 a 2014, cuyo principal servicio gubernamental había sido en la Cámara de los Lores y que carecía de experiencia relevante en asuntos internacionales y diplomacia. Era un recipiente vacío, como todos pudieron comprobar.

Luego llegó la italiana Federica Mogherini, 2014-2019, que suplió las carencias de Ashton en experiencia y también en aspecto. Una señora muy guapa, Mogherini tenía experiencia en política electoral como diputada del Parlamento italiano y también fue (menos de un año) ministra de Asuntos Exteriores justo antes de su nombramiento para el cargo de AR en Bruselas.

Desgraciadamente, Mogherini no pudo hacer frente al estrés del cargo y sufrió claramente un ataque de nervios ante nuestros ojos. Su rostro ante las cámaras estaba distorsionado. Estaba sufriendo.  Luego, milagrosamente, una vez relevada de sus funciones en Bruselas y vuelta a Italia a un puesto de profesora universitaria, recuperó enseguida su aplomo y su buen aspecto. Pero durante su mandato, la UE estuvo mal servida.

Por último, llegamos a Josep Borrell, 2019-2024, el español que había ocupado altos cargos en las instituciones de la UE, incluido el de presidente del Parlamento entre 2004 y 2009. Justo antes de su nombramiento como AR, fue ministro de Asuntos Exteriores en el Gobierno de Sánchez. Lamentablemente, el resultado del largo servicio de Borrell en altos cargos fue la arrogancia, digamos «hibris». Su lugar en la historia está asegurado por su comentario a los periodistas de que «Europa es un jardín y fuera de sus muros está la jungla». Desgraciadamente para Borrell, estas opiniones claramente neocolonialistas no han servido bien a Europa con el ascenso del Sur Global.

                                                                      ****

Los tiempos cambian. Kaya Kallas necesitará toda su astucia para mantener su recién adquirido primer puesto en la diplomacia europea. Como mínimo, tendrá que tragarse sus palabras y mostrarse amable con Rusia y con los Estados Unidos de Donald Trump.  ¿Lo hará mejor su jefa, von der Leyen?

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025