NewsX (India): Trump 2.0: What’s Donald Trump’s Plan for the Future?

The Indian global broadcaster NewsX yesterday evening put out a live panel discussion on the inaugurations addressing several key issues facing the new administration how to cut the unsupportable the 1.3 trillion dollar budgetary deficit of 2024.

On the right of the screen are images from the inauguration speeches On the left is the panel discussion

Trump’s inaugural address was virtually the same at what he was saying at every electoral campaign stop for more than a year.

He was elected thanks to his stand on two issues: 1) closing the U.S. borders and deporting the millions of illegals who have come in during the years of the Biden administration and 2) not only reducing inflation but rolling back prices thanks to cheap energy resulting from his policy of ‘drill baby drill.’ These issues are both domestic in nature and along with them the rest of his speech was almost entirely focused on domestic matters. These included rolling back the many social engineering experiments inflicted on the American public during the years of Democratic Party control in the new millennium such as promotion of LGBTQ rights, transgender rights, Green Deal restrictions on what companies can manufacture and consumers can buy, and state censorship to enforce political correctness.

His only direct mention of foreign relations was his restatement of his determination to take back the Panama Canal. Greenland was no mentioned by name, but we may consider it as having been addressed when he referred admiringly to America’s ‘manifest destiny’ of territorial expansion, as well as when he stated his intent to restore the name of the highest mountain in North America, situated in Alaska, to its 1917 designation as Mount McKinley in honor of the 25^th president of the United States. For those seeking a brush-up on history, Wikipedia informs us that: ‘He presided over victory in the Spanish-American War of 1898, gained control of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines.’

Trump stated in his speech that he wants his legacy to be as a Man of Peace and as a Unifier. However, it is hard to reconcile this ambition with his also insisting on American exceptionalism, which underpins the hubris that has driven the country into one disastrous foreign conflict after another over the past 30 years.

It is an open question what it will take short of some existential catastrophe for the country and its leaders to accept the status of one among several members of the board of directors of global politics.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Donald Trumps Antrittsrede: „Wir werden der Neid jeder Nation sein … Wir werden unser Land noch außergewöhnlicher machen“

Trumps Antrittsrede war praktisch identisch mit dem, was er mehr als ein Jahr lang bei jedem Wahlkampfauftritt gesagt hat.

Er wurde aufgrund seiner Haltung zu zwei Themen gewählt: 1) Schließung der US-Grenzen und Abschiebung der Millionen von Illegalen, die in den Jahren der Biden-Regierung ins Land gekommen sind, und 2) nicht nur Senkung der Inflation, sondern auch Senkung der Preise dank billiger Energie, die aus seiner Politik des „Drill Baby Drill“ resultiert. Diese Themen sind beide innenpolitischer Natur und zusammen mit ihnen konzentrierte sich der Rest seiner Rede fast ausschließlich auf innenpolitische Angelegenheiten. Dazu gehörte die Rücknahme der vielen Social-Engineering-Experimente, die der amerikanischen Öffentlichkeit in den Jahren der Kontrolle durch die Demokratische Partei im neuen Jahrtausend aufgezwungen wurden, wie die Förderung von LGBTQ-Rechten, Transgender-Rechten, Green-Deal-Beschränkungen für die Produktion von Unternehmen und den Kauf durch Verbraucher sowie staatliche Zensur zur Durchsetzung politischer Korrektheit.

Seine einzige direkte Erwähnung der Außenbeziehungen war seine erneute Bekräftigung seiner Entschlossenheit, den Panamakanal zurückzuerobern. Grönland wurde nicht namentlich erwähnt, aber wir können davon ausgehen, dass es angesprochen wurde, als er sich bewundernd auf Amerikas „offenkundige Bestimmung“ (‘manifest destiny’) zur territorialen Expansion bezog und als er seine Absicht bekundete, den Namen des höchsten Berges Nordamerikas in Alaska wieder in Mount McKinley zu ändern, wie er 1917 zu Ehren des 25. Präsidenten der Vereinigten Staaten benannt worden war. Für diejenigen, die ihr Geschichtswissen auffrischen möchten, informiert Wikipedia: „Er führte den Vorsitz beim Sieg im Spanisch-Amerikanischen Krieg von 1898 und erlangte die Kontrolle über Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam und die Philippinen.“

Trump erklärte in seiner Rede, dass er als Mann des Friedens und als Einiger in die Geschichte eingehen möchte. Es ist jedoch schwierig, diesen Ehrgeiz mit seinem Beharren auf dem amerikanischen Exzeptionalismus in Einklang zu bringen, der die Hybris untermauert, die das Land in den letzten 30 Jahren in einen verheerenden außenpolitischen Konflikt nach dem anderen getrieben hat.

Es ist eine offene Frage, was es außer einer existenziellen Katastrophe braucht, damit das Land und seine Führungspersonen den Status eines von mehreren Mitgliedern im Vorstand der Weltpolitik akzeptieren.

Host Dmitry Kiselyov opened last evening’s ‘News of the Week’ program on Rossiya 1 with the remark that the newly signed Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Cooperation with Iran is not a mutual defense pact and then put up on the screen the text of Article 3 point 3 which reads as follows:

In case one of the Parties to this Agreement is subjected to aggression, the other Party to this Agreement must not provide any military or other assistance to the aggressor which would facilitate prolongation of the aggression and will assist settlement of the dispute on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations and other applicable norms of international law.

Goodness! It would be hard to imagine a weaker expression of strategic alignment in the security dimension.

Indeed, the following point 4 in Article 3 tells us that they will not undermine the stability of one another.

The Parties to the Agreement do not allow use of their territories for the purpose of supporting separatist movements and other actions threatening the stability and territorial integrity of the other Party to the Agreement, as well as hostile actions with respect to each other.

Strange friends, these!

It is tempting to say that the inclusion of these points is a message to Washington that there is no Axis of Evil here, that Iran remains a free agent and is available to sign a Strategic Cooperation Agreement with Washington as well if they can negotiate with Trump an end to the ongoing confrontation over Iran’s nonexistent nuclear arms program. India is a strategic partner of both Washington and Moscow, so why shouldn’t Iran have the same possibility.

The treaty has 47 articles and comes to 31 typed pages, within which are additional articles that touch upon military cooperation as well as several remarkable articles that define Iran as a Good Guy on all the issues that the West looks to as proof that a given state upholds law and order and seeks to stamp out transnational criminality and terror.

Let us go through the most interesting of these with close attention.

*****

Let us begin the survey of the military provisions with Article 4, which tells us that the ‘intelligence and security services of the Contracting Parties will exchange information and experience.’

Point 1 of Article 5 states that the responsible authorities of the Parties will prepare and implement appropriate agreements for developing military cooperation within the framework of a Working Group on military cooperation. Point 2 tells us that ‘military cooperation between the Contracting Parties takes in a wide spectrum of issues, including exchange of military and expert delegations, port calls of naval vessels, preparation of military staff, exchange of students and instructors, exhibitions, holding joint sporting competitions, cultural and other activities, joint naval rescue operations, as well as combating piracy and armed battle at sea.’

Only when we get to Point 3 of Article 5 do we approach anything really interesting to the rest of the world:

The Parties will closely cooperate in carrying out joint military exercises on the territory of both Parties and beyond their borders taking into account applicable generally recognized norms of international law.

Moving on, Article 6 is worthy of mention to those who know how to decipher Russian military jargon: ‘The Contracting Parties will cooperate in the ‘military-technical sphere.’

Hmm…As we learned at the outset of the Special Military Operation, ‘military-technical’ means, in plain English, tanks, drones, missiles, i.e. all kinds of hardware.

With that the Treaty concludes its, shall we say, sketchy section on military cooperation.

The next section, however, is very, very detailed and I submit that it is a direct message to Washington, to the European Union that Iran and Russia are really Good Guys as actors on the international stage.

Article 7 in particular looks like it was drafted by Freedom House in Washington, D.C.

Point 1

The Parties will cooperate on bilateral and multilateral basis in countering international terrorism and other threats and challenges, in particular extremism, transnational organized crime, human trafficking and hostage taking, illegal migration, illegal financial flows, money laundering, financing terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, illegal flows of goods, money and financial instruments, historical and cultural valuables,arms, narcotics, psychotropic substances and their precursors. They will exchange timely information and experience in the sphere of border control.

Point 2

The Parties will coordinate their positions and advance joint efforts in combating the aforementioned challenges and threats at appropriate international platforms, as well as cooperate within Interpol.

Article 10 closes out the bid of both countries to present themselves as upholders of international order:

The Parties will closely cooperate on questions of arms, disarmament, nonproliferation and ensuring international security within the framework of respective international treaties and international organizations in which they both participate, and they will regularly carry out consultations on these issues.

It is only when we come to Article 12 that we find provisions which can be described as a push-back to the West:

The Parties will assist in keeping the peace and security in the Caspian region, Central Asia, the TransCaucasus, the Near East; they will cooperate with the objective of preventing interference in these regions and the destabilizing presence there of third party states; they will exchange views on the situation in other regions of the world.

After this, beginning with Article 17, the Treaty turns to what the Iranian and Russian presidents told us at the signing ceremony was the main reason for concluding it; to raise the commercial and cultural exchanges between the two countries to a worthy level.

Article 18 reads as follows:

The Contracting Parties shall facilitate development of commercial-economic and industrial cooperation, the creation of mutual economic advantages including joint investments, financing infrastructure, simplifying the mechanisms of trade and business, cooperation in the banking sphere, promotion and and exchange of goods, labor, services, information and intellectual activity, including exclusive property rights over them.

Especially worthy of mention is Article 19, which deals with the question of unilateral sanctions that may be imposed on one or another of the Contracting Parties by a third state using extraterritorial powers, meaning secondary as well as primary sanctions.

We read the following in Point 3 of this Article:

The Contracting Parties will not join in applying unilateral compulsory measures or in supporting such measures by third parties if such measures affect or are addressed directly or indirectly against one of the Contracting Parties, against natural or legal persons of such a Contracting Party or concerns property that comes under the jurisdiction of such third party, goods from a Contracting Party, and-or a piece of work, service, information, results of intellectual activity, including exclusive rights to Intellectual Property offered by suppliers of the other Contracting Party.

I believe that the inclusion of this article supports the interpretation of the Treaty as a whole to constitute a bid for the USA to lift its sanctions on Iran. In this case, Iran would be duty bound not to join US sanctions against Russia when negotiating its deal with Washington.

In the immediately following articles we see mention of the various technical issues that apparently have held the two countries back till now. These include procedures and infrastructure for settling accounts, incompatible state standards, logistical bottlenecks, complicated customs procedures at the borders, and insufficient direct investment in each other’s economies as well as in joint ventures.

Article 20, Point 2 tells us:

The Parties shall develop their cooperation for the purpose of creating modern payment infrastructure independent of third countries, transition to carrying out mutual settlements in national currencies, strengthening direct inter-bank cooperation and dissemination of national financial products.

Article 20, Point 3 speaks about developing joint ventures in areas of mutual interest. The following point 5 remarks on their ‘readiness to develop mutually profitable cooperation in gold exploration, gold processing and diamond and jewelry fields.’

Article 21 describes cooperation in transportation, with its Point 4 identifying the North-South Corridor, which has long been cited as a key joint infrastructure project with broad regional and intercontinental resonance.

Article 22 says the Parties will expand their cooperation in the oil and gas domain. Its sub-point 2.2 mentions their developing ‘swap operations.’ There is no clarification of what that means, but a safe guess is that it furthers the idea of Russia supplying gas and oil to northern Iran, which is natural resource poor, in exchange for Iran exporting to world markets on Russia’s behalf equivalent quantities from its southern gas and oil fields. As for those fields, plans for joint development are mentioned in sub-point 2.3. The further sub-point 2.6 tells us that the two countries will coordinate the policies they advocate within OPEC.

Article 23 speaks of expanding cooperation in the peaceful use of atomic energy, meaning power generating plants, of which Russia has already built one in Iran and is planning more.

Further articles expand the future cooperation to all imaginable fields including health, medical education, cooperation to fight infectious diseases, education, science and technology, university student exchanges, culture, arts and tourism, youth exchanges, and sports. Note that all of these articles are just declarative of intentions, not detailed in any way.

Article 23 speaks of expanding cooperation in the peaceful use of atomic energy, meaning power generating plants, of which Russia has already built one in Iran and is planning more.

Article 24 looks to expand cooperation in agriculture and fishing, while Article 25 speaks of cooperation in simplifying customs procedures and Article 27 foresees cooperation on state standards, namely mutual recognition of standards and on certificates of conformity.

We may safely conclude that in their commercial and people-to-people relations the two parties are virtually starting from zero.

© Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Russland-Iran-Vertrag über umfassende strategische Zusammenarbeit: ein Signal an Washington, ja; aber von wem und worüber?

Gastgeber Dmitry Kiselyov eröffnete die Sendung „Neuigkeiten der Woche“ auf Rossiya 1 am vergangenen Abend mit der Bemerkung, dass der neu unterzeichnete Vertrag über umfassende strategische Zusammenarbeit mit dem Iran kein gegenseitiger Verteidigungspakt sei, und zeigte dann auf dem Bildschirm den Text von Artikel 3 Punkt 3, der wie folgt lautet:

Falls eine der Vertragsparteien angegriffen wird, darf die andere Vertragspartei dem Angreifer keine militärische oder sonstige Hilfe leisten, die eine Verlängerung des Angriffs ermöglichen würde, und wird zur Beilegung des Streits auf der Grundlage der Charta der Vereinten Nationen und anderer anwendbarer Normen des Völkerrechts beitragen.

Meine Güte! Eine schwächere Formulierung für eine strategische Ausrichtung in der Sicherheitsdimension ist kaum vorstellbar.

Tatsächlich besagt der folgende Punkt 4 in Artikel 3, dass sie die Stabilität des jeweils anderen nicht untergraben werden.

Die Vertragsparteien gestatten nicht, dass ihr Hoheitsgebiet zur Unterstützung separatistischer Bewegungen und anderer Aktionen, die die Stabilität und territoriale Integrität der anderen Vertragspartei bedrohen, sowie für feindselige Handlungen gegeneinander genutzt wird.

Seltsame Freunde sind das!

Man ist versucht zu sagen, dass die Aufnahme dieser Punkte eine Botschaft an Washington ist, dass es hier keine Achse des Bösen gibt, dass der Iran ein freier Akteur bleibt und bereit ist, auch mit Washington ein Abkommen über strategische Zusammenarbeit zu unterzeichnen, wenn sie mit Trump ein Ende der anhaltenden Konfrontation über das nicht existierende Atomwaffenprogramm des Iran aushandeln können. Indien ist ein strategischer Partner sowohl Washingtons als auch Moskaus, warum sollte der Iran also nicht die gleiche Möglichkeit haben?

Der Vertrag umfasst 47 Artikel und erstreckt sich über 31 getippte Seiten, in denen zusätzliche Artikel enthalten sind, die die militärische Zusammenarbeit betreffen, sowie mehrere bemerkenswerte Artikel, die den Iran in allen Fragen, die der Westen als Beweis dafür ansieht, dass ein bestimmter Staat Recht und Ordnung aufrechterhält und versucht, grenzüberschreitende Kriminalität und Terror auszumerzen, als „Good Guy“ definieren.

Lassen Sie uns die interessantesten davon mit großer Aufmerksamkeit durchgehen.

*****

Beginnen wir die Untersuchung der militärischen Bestimmungen mit Artikel 4, der besagt, dass die „Nachrichtendienste und Sicherheitsdienste der Vertragsparteien Informationen und Erfahrungen austauschen werden“.

In Artikel 5 Absatz 1 heißt es, dass die zuständigen Behörden der Vertragsparteien geeignete Vereinbarungen zur Entwicklung der militärischen Zusammenarbeit im Rahmen einer Arbeitsgruppe für militärische Zusammenarbeit vorbereiten und umsetzen werden. Punkt 2 besagt, dass „die militärische Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Vertragsparteien ein breites Spektrum von Themen umfasst, darunter den Austausch von Militär- und Expertendelegationen, den Besuch von Marineschiffen in Häfen, die Vorbereitung von Militärpersonal, den Austausch von Studenten und Ausbildern, Ausstellungen, die Durchführung gemeinsamer Sportwettkämpfe, kulturelle und andere Aktivitäten, gemeinsame Rettungseinsätze der Marine sowie die Bekämpfung von Piraterie und bewaffneten Gefechten auf See.“

Erst bei Punkt 3 von Artikel 5 kommen wir zu etwas, das für den Rest der Welt wirklich interessant ist:

Die Parteien werden bei der Durchführung gemeinsamer Militärübungen auf dem Territorium beider Parteien und über ihre Grenzen hinaus eng zusammenarbeiten und dabei die allgemein anerkannten Normen des Völkerrechts berücksichtigen.

Weiter ist Artikel 6 für diejenigen erwähnenswert, die wissen, wie man den russischen Militärjargon entschlüsselt: „Die Vertragsparteien werden im militärisch-technischen Bereich zusammenarbeiten.“

Hmm … Wie wir zu Beginn der militärischen Spezialoperation gelernt haben, bedeutet ‚militärisch-technisch‘ im Klartext Panzer, Drohnen, Raketen, d.h. alle Arten von Hardware.

Damit schließt der Vertrag seinen, sagen wir, lückenhaften Abschnitt über militärische Zusammenarbeit.

Der nächste Abschnitt ist jedoch sehr, sehr detailliert und ich behaupte, dass er eine direkte Botschaft an Washington und die Europäische Union ist, dass der Iran und Russland wirklich gute Akteure auf der internationalen Bühne sind.

Insbesondere Artikel 7 sieht aus, als wäre er von Freedom House in Washington, D.C. verfasst worden.

Punkt 1

Die Parteien werden auf bilateraler und multilateraler Ebene bei der Bekämpfung des internationalen Terrorismus und anderer Bedrohungen und Herausforderungen zusammenarbeiten, insbesondere in Bezug auf Extremismus, grenzüberschreitende organisierte Kriminalität, Menschenhandel und Geiselnahme, illegale Migration, illegale Finanzströme, Geldwäsche, Terrorismusfinanzierung, Verbreitung von Massenvernichtungswaffen, illegale Ströme von Waren, Geld und Finanzinstrumenten, historische und kulturelle Wertgegenstände, Waffen, Betäubungsmittel, psychotrope Substanzen und ihre Vorläufer. Sie werden aktuelle Informationen und Erfahrungen im Bereich der Grenzkontrolle austauschen.

Punkt 2

Die Parteien werden ihre Positionen koordinieren und gemeinsame Anstrengungen zur Bekämpfung der oben genannten Herausforderungen und Bedrohungen auf geeigneten internationalen Plattformen vorantreiben sowie im Rahmen von Interpol zusammenarbeiten.

Artikel 10 schließt das Angebot beider Länder ab, sich als Verfechter der internationalen Ordnung zu präsentieren:

Die Parteien werden in Fragen der Rüstung, Abrüstung, Nichtverbreitung und Gewährleistung der internationalen Sicherheit im Rahmen der jeweiligen internationalen Verträge und internationalen Organisationen, an denen sie beide beteiligt sind, eng zusammenarbeiten und regelmäßig Konsultationen zu diesen Themen durchführen.

Erst in Artikel 12 finden sich Bestimmungen, die als Rückschritt gegenüber dem Westen bezeichnet werden können:

Die Parteien werden dazu beitragen, den Frieden und die Sicherheit in der Kaspischen Region, in Zentralasien, im Transkaukasus und im Nahen Osten zu wahren; sie werden mit dem Ziel zusammenarbeiten, eine Einmischung in diese Regionen und die destabilisierende Präsenz von Drittstaaten dort zu verhindern; sie werden einen Meinungsaustausch über die Lage in anderen Regionen der Welt führen.

Danach befasst sich der Vertrag, beginnend mit Artikel 17, mit dem, was uns die Präsidenten des Iran und Russlands bei der Unterzeichnungszeremonie als Hauptgrund für den Abschluss des Vertrags genannt haben: den kommerziellen und kulturellen Austausch zwischen den beiden Ländern auf ein angemessenes Niveau zu heben.

Artikel 18 lautet wie folgt:

Die Vertragsparteien erleichtern die Entwicklung der handelswirtschaftlichen und industriellen Zusammenarbeit, die Schaffung gegenseitiger wirtschaftlicher Vorteile, einschließlich gemeinsamer Investitionen, die Finanzierung der Infrastruktur, die Vereinfachung der Handels- und Geschäftsmechanismen, die Zusammenarbeit im Bankensektor, die Förderung und den Austausch von Waren, Arbeitskräften, Dienstleistungen, Informationen und geistiger Tätigkeit, einschließlich der ausschließlichen Eigentumsrechte an diesen.

Besonders erwähnenswert ist Artikel 19, der sich mit der Frage einseitiger Sanktionen befasst, die ein Drittstaat unter Ausnutzung extraterritorialer Befugnisse gegen eine der Vertragsparteien verhängen kann, d.h. sekundäre sowie primäre Sanktionen.

In Punkt 3 dieses Artikels heißt es:

Die Vertragsparteien beteiligen sich nicht an der Anwendung einseitiger Zwangsmaßnahmen oder an der Unterstützung solcher Maßnahmen durch Dritte, wenn diese Maßnahmen eine der Vertragsparteien, natürliche oder juristische Personen einer solchen Vertragspartei oder Vermögenswerte, die der Gerichtsbarkeit eines solchen Dritten unterliegen, Waren einer Vertragspartei und/oder ein Werk, eine Dienstleistung, eine Information oder Ergebnisse geistiger Tätigkeit, einschließlich ausschließlicher Rechte an geistigem Eigentum, die von Lieferanten der anderen Vertragspartei angeboten werden.

Ich glaube, dass die Aufnahme dieses Artikels die Auslegung des Vertrags als Ganzes unterstützt, um ein Angebot an die USA zu unterbreiten, ihre Sanktionen gegen den Iran aufzuheben. In diesem Fall wäre der Iran verpflichtet, sich bei den Verhandlungen über sein Abkommen mit Washington nicht den US-Sanktionen gegen Russland anzuschließen.

In den unmittelbar folgenden Artikeln werden die verschiedenen technischen Probleme erwähnt, die die beiden Länder bisher offenbar aufgehalten haben. Dazu gehören Verfahren und Infrastruktur für die Begleichung von Rechnungen, inkompatible staatliche Standards, logistische Engpässe, komplizierte Zollverfahren an den Grenzen und unzureichende Direktinvestitionen in die Wirtschaft des jeweils anderen Landes sowie in Joint Ventures.

Artikel 20, Punkt 2 besagt:

Die Parteien sollen ihre Zusammenarbeit ausbauen, um eine moderne Zahlungsinfrastruktur zu schaffen, die unabhängig von Drittländern ist, um den Übergang zur gegenseitigen Verrechnung in nationalen Währungen zu vollziehen, um die direkte Zusammenarbeit zwischen Banken zu stärken und um nationale Finanzprodukte zu verbreiten.

Artikel 20, Punkt 3, befasst sich mit der Entwicklung von Joint Ventures in Bereichen von beiderseitigem Interesse. Der folgende Punkt 5 erwähnt ihre „Bereitschaft, eine für beide Seiten gewinnbringende Zusammenarbeit in den Bereichen Goldexploration, Goldverarbeitung sowie Diamanten und Schmuck zu entwickeln“.

Artikel 21 beschreibt die Zusammenarbeit im Verkehrswesen, wobei in Punkt 4 der Nord-Süd-Korridor genannt wird, der seit langem als wichtiges gemeinsames Infrastrukturprojekt mit breiter regionaler und interkontinentaler Resonanz gilt.

Artikel 22 besagt, dass die Parteien ihre Zusammenarbeit im Öl- und Gasbereich ausbauen werden. Unterpunkt 2.2 erwähnt die Entwicklung von „Swap-Operationen“. Es gibt keine Klarstellung, was das bedeutet, aber man kann davon ausgehen, dass dies die Idee fördert, dass Russland den an natürlichen Ressourcen armen Norden des Iran mit Gas und Öl versorgt, im Gegenzug dafür, dass der Iran im Auftrag Russlands entsprechende Mengen aus seinen südlichen Gas- und Ölfeldern auf die Weltmärkte exportiert. Was diese Felder betrifft, so werden Pläne für eine gemeinsame Erschließung in Unterpunkt 2.3 erwähnt. Der weitere Unterpunkt 2.6 besagt, dass die beiden Länder die von ihnen vertretenen politischen Maßnahmen innerhalb der OPEC koordinieren werden.

Artikel 23 spricht von einer Ausweitung der Zusammenarbeit bei der friedlichen Nutzung der Atomenergie, d.h. bei der Stromerzeugung, wovon Russland bereits ein Kraftwerk im Iran gebaut hat und weitere plant.

Weitere Artikel erweitern die zukünftige Zusammenarbeit auf alle denkbaren Bereiche, darunter Gesundheit, medizinische Ausbildung, Zusammenarbeit bei der Bekämpfung von Infektionskrankheiten, Bildung, Wissenschaft und Technologie, Austausch von Universitätsstudenten, Kultur, Kunst und Tourismus, Jugendaustausch und Sport. Beachten Sie, dass all diese Artikel nur Absichtserklärungen und in keiner Weise detailliert sind.

Artikel 24 sieht eine Ausweitung der Zusammenarbeit in der Landwirtschaft und Fischerei vor, während Artikel 25 von einer Zusammenarbeit bei der Vereinfachung von Zollverfahren spricht und Artikel 27 eine Zusammenarbeit bei staatlichen Standards, insbesondere bei der gegenseitigen Anerkennung von Standards und Konformitätsbescheinigungen, vorsieht. Wir können mit Sicherheit davon ausgehen, dass die beiden Parteien in ihren Handels- und zwischenmenschlichen Beziehungen praktisch bei Nul

The headline breaking news on Russian television as from this afternoon was the signing by the Iranian and Russian presidents of the long-awaited treaty on strategic cooperation held in festive rooms of the Kremlin.  The live television transmission including a limited Q&A with journalists from both countries lasted 40 minutes. Excerpts were featured on all news broadcasts.

Vladimir Putin and President of Iran Masoud Pezeshkian who is in Moscow on a state visit both spoke briefly at the ceremony. The body language was unmistakable: both appeared to be well satisfied with the document in their hands.  Why? About the content of the treaty, we learned almost nothing today. In particular, we heard nothing about what its provisions may be in the sphere of military cooperation, which should have been the critical element justifying the conclusion of a treaty right now given the fragile situation in the neighborhood of Iran resulting from Israel’s rampage these past months. 

By widespread agreement of experts, Israel’s crushing blows to Hamas, to Hezbollah and to the various Iranian proxy forces in Syria should have brought Russia and Iran together to ensure that Teheran has the military hardware to protect itself against possible air and missile attack by Israel with American support, should Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, or his successor, finally proceed with plans to erase Iran from the map in the Middle East. That is the weak side of the Iranian military. As for offensive weaponry, they are doing quite nicely on their own, including an apparently well executed hypersonic missile that has proven its worth by penetrating Israel’s Iron Dome and other air defenses effectively.

However, in neither the Russian nor the Iranian delegations was there any military presence. And the only remarks on Russian television regarding the 20-year treaty were addressed to its commercial and cultural dimensions. President Putin himself focused on the prospects for developing bilateral trade from its paltry 4.5 billion dollars current level to something more appropriate to the respective populations, noting that Iran now numbers 85 million inhabitants.  As we know, present bilateral Russian trade with Turkey, another regional power with similar population now is reported to be 60 billion dollars.

Specifically, there was mention of the joint infrastructure projects that are likely to be the backbone of the new age of cooperation, starting with the long discussed North South Corridor that will open new logistical possibilities of transcontinental scale and will cut sharply costs and time in transit. There was also talk of further expansion of the existing cooperation in Rosatom’s construction of nuclear power plants in Iran, going beyond the one plant now operating to multiple small-scale reactors at various locations. And there was some vague discussion of building pipelines to carry Russian natural gas to Iran. Putin said that the start could be modest, at a level of 2 billion cubic meters per year, but rising eventually to as much as 50-55 billion, though it is hard to imagine the logic for Iranian imports on that scale.

In answer to a question from a journalist on how these key projects are proceeding, Putin acknowledged that there were many small issues to resolve, such as pricing for energy, means of payment and administrative matters, which we may take to understand as bureaucracy on the Iranian side. However, he said that progress is being made and the problems are being overcome. The new treaty will provide a framework. It will for example facilitate expanding the air links connecting Russian and Iranian cities, the transition to visa free travel for tourist groups and to electronic visa issuance for private travelers.

So far, the only news and analysis program on Russian television that reported on the treaty signing was The Great Game. They did not touch on the issue of military cooperation. But they did address another very topical question:  why did the signing come exactly now, just three days before Donald Trump’s inauguration given the many delays in concluding this treaty, which was most recently expected to be signed in Kazan during the BRICS summit? That was when Pezeshkian was in Russia for his first visit as president. Was the present timing meant to be a signal to the new American administration?

The answer to that question given by Great Game experts was ‘no.’ There simply had been many technical issues to resolve before conclusion of a treaty raising expectation of a great increase in trade would make any sense. We were left to assume that the ‘technical issues’ centered on banking relations and how the growing commerce and direct investments in each other’s economy would be financed. It would appear from this discussion that the parties reached agreement on methods to avoid entirely any resort to SWIFT and that all their trade will be carried on in ‘national currencies,’ which so far as a practical matter has meant that 98% of the trade is being carried out in Russian rubles.  There also appears to be a working solution in place for the Mir payment system and equivalent Iranian payment system for credit card transactions by tourists and other visitors in each country.  If so, this represents a big step beyond what was shown off in Kazan a few months ago. Moreover, it was announced today that VTB, the giant commercial bank (former Soviet era Foreign Trade Bank) run by close Putin ally Andrey Kostin, will soon open its first branch in Teheran renewing banking ties that ended in 1981.

As soon as some kind of answer emerges to the conundrum over Russian-Iranian military relations I will post that information here.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Postscript, 18 January: I believe the stripped down text of the cooperation treaty is the result of uncertainty in the direction of Iran’s present leadership, and to the degree of its enduring interest in finding an accommodation with the West that ends the sanctions. That very uncertainty, read unreliability for Russia explains why the Kremlin finally concluded the long awaited comprehensive cooperation agreement without a military component worthy of the name. They signed it to get it off the agenda and to move on.
The clear message yesterday was that Russian-Iran trade relations are so low because Iran has bureaucratic and other obstacles preventing its expansion. Perhaps corruption and the involvement of the Revolutionary Guards in big business transactions are factors.
The Financial Times has an article today on the supposedly agreed military cooperation between the two countries. No sources are mentioned, which is logical because the article is fabricated out of thin air.

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Iran-Russland-Vertrag über umfassende strategische Zusammenarbeit endlich unterzeichnet!

Die Schlagzeile, die heute Nachmittag im russischen Fernsehen die Eilmeldungen anführte, war die Unterzeichnung des lang erwarteten Vertrags über strategische Zusammenarbeit durch die Präsidenten des Iran und Russlands in den festlichen Räumen des Kremls. Die Live-Fernsehübertragung, die auch eine begrenzte Fragerunde mit Journalisten aus beiden Ländern beinhaltete, dauerte 40 Minuten. Auszüge daraus wurden in allen Nachrichtensendungen gezeigt.

Wladimir Putin und der iranische Präsident Masud Pezeschkian, der sich zu einem Staatsbesuch in Moskau aufhielt, hielten beide kurze Reden bei der Zeremonie. Die Körpersprache war unmissverständlich: Beide schienen mit dem Dokument in ihren Händen sehr zufrieden zu sein. Warum? Über den Inhalt des Vertrags haben wir heute fast nichts erfahren. Insbesondere haben wir nichts über die Bestimmungen im Bereich der militärischen Zusammenarbeit gehört, die angesichts der fragilen Lage in der Nachbarschaft des Iran, die durch das israelische Wüten in den letzten Monaten entstanden ist, das entscheidende Element für den Abschluss eines Vertrags zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt hätten sein sollen.

Nach weit verbreiteter Meinung von Experten hätten Israels vernichtende Schläge gegen die Hamas, die Hisbollah und die verschiedenen iranischen Stellvertretertruppen in Syrien Russland und den Iran zusammenbringen sollen, um sicherzustellen, dass Teheran über die militärische Ausrüstung verfügt, um sich gegen mögliche Luft- und Raketenangriffe Israels mit amerikanischer Unterstützung zu schützen, falls Donald Trump und Benjamin Netanjahu oder sein Nachfolger schließlich ihre Pläne umsetzen, den Iran von der Landkarte des Nahen Ostens zu tilgen. Das ist die schwache Seite des iranischen Militärs. Was die Angriffswaffen betrifft, so sind sie selbst schon allein recht gut aufgestellt, einschließlich einer offenbar gut ausgeführten Hyperschall-Rakete, die sich durch das Durchdringen von Israels „Iron Dome“ und anderer Luftverteidigungssysteme als wirksam erwiesen hat.

Allerdings war weder in der russischen noch in der iranischen Delegation eine militärische Präsenz zu verzeichnen. Und die einzigen Bemerkungen im russischen Fernsehen zum 20-jährigen Vertrag betrafen seine kommerziellen und kulturellen Dimensionen. Präsident Putin selbst konzentrierte sich auf die Aussichten für die Entwicklung des bilateralen Handels von seinem derzeitigen mageren Niveau von 4,5 Milliarden Dollar auf ein Niveau, das den jeweiligen Bevölkerungszahlen angemessener ist, und wies darauf hin, dass der Iran inzwischen 85 Millionen Einwohner zählt. Wie wir wissen, beläuft sich der derzeitige bilaterale Handel Russlands mit der Türkei, einer anderen Regionalmacht mit ähnlicher Bevölkerungszahl, Berichten zufolge auf 60 Milliarden Dollar.

Insbesondere wurden die gemeinsamen Infrastrukturprojekte erwähnt, die wahrscheinlich das Rückgrat des neuen Zeitalters der Zusammenarbeit bilden werden, angefangen mit dem seit langem diskutierten Nord-Süd-Korridor, der neue logistische Möglichkeiten auf transkontinentaler Ebene eröffnen und die Kosten und die Transportzeit erheblich senken wird. Es wurde auch über eine weitere Ausweitung der bestehenden Zusammenarbeit beim Bau von Kernkraftwerken im Iran durch Rosatom gesprochen, die über das derzeit in Betrieb befindliche Kernkraftwerk hinausgeht und mehrere kleine Reaktoren an verschiedenen Standorten umfasst. Und es gab einige vage Diskussionen über den Bau von Pipelines, um russisches Erdgas in den Iran zu transportieren. Putin sagte, dass der Anfang bescheiden sein könnte, mit einer Menge von 2 Milliarden Kubikmetern pro Jahr, die aber schließlich auf 50 bis 55 Milliarden ansteigen könnte, obwohl es schwer vorstellbar ist, dass der Iran in diesem Umfang importiert.

Auf die Frage eines Journalisten, wie diese Schlüsselprojekte vorankämen, räumte Putin ein, dass es viele kleine Probleme zu lösen gebe, wie z.B. die Preisgestaltung für Energie, Zahlungsmittel und Verwaltungsangelegenheiten, was wir als Bürokratie auf iranischer Seite verstehen können. Er sagte jedoch, dass Fortschritte erzielt und die Probleme überwunden würden. Der neue Vertrag wird einen Rahmen bieten. Er wird beispielsweise den Ausbau der Flugverbindungen zwischen russischen und iranischen Städten, den Übergang zum visumfreien Reisen für Touristengruppen und zur elektronischen Ausstellung von Visa für Privatreisende erleichtern.

Bisher war „Das Große Spiel“ die einzige Nachrichten- und Analysesendung im russischen Fernsehen, die über die Unterzeichnung des Vertrags berichtet hat. Das Thema der militärischen Zusammenarbeit wurde nicht angesprochen. Aber es wurde eine andere sehr aktuelle Frage angesprochen: Warum kam die Unterzeichnung genau jetzt, nur drei Tage vor Donald Trumps Amtseinführung, angesichts der vielen Verzögerungen beim Abschluss dieses Vertrags, der zuletzt in Kasan während des BRICS-Gipfels unterzeichnet werden sollte? Zu diesem Zeitpunkt war Pezeshkian zu seinem ersten Besuch als Präsident in Russland. Sollte der Zeitpunkt ein Signal an die neue amerikanische Regierung sein?

Die Antwort von Experten beim Großen Spiel auf diese Frage lautete „nein“. Es gab einfach viele technische Probleme zu lösen, bevor ein Vertrag mit der Erwartung für eine starke Zunahme des Handels abgeschlossen werden konnte. Wir mussten davon ausgehen, dass sich die „technischen Probleme“ auf die Bankbeziehungen konzentrierten und darauf, wie der wachsende Handel und die Direktinvestitionen in die Wirtschaft des jeweils anderen finanziert werden sollten. Aus dieser Diskussion geht hervor, dass sich die Parteien auf Methoden geeinigt haben, um die Nutzung von SWIFT vollständig zu vermeiden, und dass ihr gesamter Handel in „nationalen Währungen“ abgewickelt wird, was in der Praxis bedeutet, dass 98 % des Handels in russischen Rubeln abgewickelt werden. Es scheint auch eine funktionierende Lösung für das Mir-Zahlungssystem und das entsprechende iranische Zahlungssystem für Kreditkartentransaktionen von Touristen und anderen Besuchern in jedem Land zu geben. Wenn dem so ist, wäre dies ein großer Schritt nach vorne im Vergleich zu dem, was vor einigen Monaten in Kasan präsentiert wurde. Darüber hinaus wurde heute bekannt gegeben, dass VTB, die riesige Geschäftsbank (die ehemalige Außenhandelsbank der Sowjet-Ära), die von dem engen Verbündeten Putins, Andrey Kostin, geleitet wird, bald ihre erste Filiale in Teheran eröffnen wird, um die 1981 abgebrochenen Bankbeziehungen wieder aufzunehmen.

Sobald sich eine Art Antwort auf das Rätsel um die russisch-iranischen Militärbeziehungen abzeichnet, werde ich diese Informationen hier veröffentlichen.

Nachtrag, 18. Januar: Ich glaube, dass der abgespeckte Text des Kooperationsvertrags das Ergebnis der Unsicherheit über die Richtung der derzeitigen iranischen Führung und über das Ausmaß ihres anhaltenden Interesses an einer Einigung mit dem Westen ist, die die Sanktionen beenden würde. Genau diese Unsicherheit, d.h. Unzuverlässigkeit gegenüber Russland, erklärt, warum der Kreml das lang erwartete umfassende Kooperationsabkommen schließlich ohne eine militärische Komponente, die diesen Namen verdient, abgeschlossen hat. Sie haben es unterzeichnet, um es von der Tagesordnung zu nehmen und weiterzumachen.

Die klare Botschaft gestern war, dass die Handelsbeziehungen zwischen Russland und dem Iran so gering sind, weil der Iran durch bürokratische und andere Hindernisse an einer Ausweitung gehindert wird. Möglicherweise spielen Korruption und die Beteiligung der Revolutionsgarden an großen Geschäftstransaktionen eine Rolle.

Die Financial Times hat heute einen Artikel über die angeblich vereinbarte militärische Zusammenarbeit zwischen den beiden Ländern veröffentlicht. Es werden keine Quellen genannt, was logisch ist, da der Artikel aus der Luft gegriffen ist.

I commend to this community yesterday’s interview with Colonel Larry Wilkerson on ‘Judging Freedom’:

One reason for this suggestion is that you may see the complete alignment in my and the good colonel’s thinking over the final responsibility of Washington for all of the atrocities that Israel has been committing these past 15 months in Gaza and more broadly in its neighborhood. In other words, we have no doubt that Washington is the head that wags the Israeli dog, however much John Mearsheimer and a host of other analysts insist that the Israeli Lobby is the force shaping American foreign policy.

However, the main reason for my recommending this program is because Judge Napolitano has put up on screen short videos of the forcible removal of two dissident journalists – Sam Husseini and Max Blumenthal – from Secretary of State Tony Blinken’s farewell press conference, both of them denouncing Blinken for his awful role as enabler of the Israeli genocide in Gaza. 

Max Blumenthal is surely well known to many followers of alternative media in the United States and possibly also in Europe. Sam Husseini is less likely to be a familiar name.  I know him going back seven years when he was an active Washington-based journalist who was at the same time an events promoter. In that capacity, he did what he could to bring in attendees to a presentation in The National Press Club of my newly published book entitled Does the United States Have a Future? a book which, I might add, has still more relevance today than it did in 2017. Indeed, readers of this essay may also wish to take a look at a video of that book presentation and hear the introduction to the event delivered by my good friend Ray McGovern who arranged the video recording of the presentation.

I have an ulterior motive for mentioning Ray here, because he later exercised the same right of peaceful protest as Max and Sam at a conference in CIA headquarters when a new director was being presented to staff and former employees. Ray interrupted the proceedings to denounce that individual’s involvement in unlawful torture practices being carried out by the Agency or by its proxies.  Ray was viciously attacked by several beefy CIA security men, who were not so tender as the ones at State who manhandled Sam and prodded Max. Ray was thrown to the floor and nearly had his shoulder broken.

We, journalists are not known to be particularly courageous when facing possible physical violence at the hands of the upholders of public order.  But those who do exercise the right, rather the obligation to peacefully protest the grossly illegal behavior of government officials deserve our highest respect.

This is the courage of our convictions that I had in mind in my recent discussions of collective responsibility for crimes against humanity in our own age, when protest really counts.

I write to you from Brussels, the capital of Europe. Sadly, I can think of no exemplars of civil disobedience on this side of the Atlantic. Perhaps readers will come forward with names and dates.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Von der Macht des Wortes zur Macht des zivilen Ungehorsams: Blinkens Abschiedspressekonferenz wird von mutigen protestierenden Journalisten unterbrochen

Ich empfehle dieser Gemeinschaft das gestrige Interview mit Colonel Larry Wilkerson über „Judging Freedom“:

Ein Grund für diesen Vorschlag ist, dass Sie vielleicht die vollständige Übereinstimmung in meinen und den Gedanken des guten Colonels über die letztliche Verantwortung Washingtons für alle Gräueltaten sehen, die Israel in den letzten 15 Monaten in Gaza und darüber hinaus in seiner Nachbarschaft begangen hat. Mit anderen Worten, wir haben keinen Zweifel daran, dass Washington der Kopf ist, der den israelischen Hund lenkt, so sehr John Mearsheimer und eine Reihe anderer Analysten auch darauf bestehen, dass die israelische Lobby die treibende Kraft hinter der amerikanischen Außenpolitik sei.

Der Hauptgrund, warum ich dieses Programm empfehle, ist jedoch, dass Judge Napolitano kurze Videos von der gewaltsamen Entfernung zweier regimekritischer Journalisten – Sam Husseini und Max Blumenthal – von der Abschiedspressekonferenz von Außenminister Tony Blinken auf den Bildschirm gebracht hat. Beide prangerten Blinken für seine schreckliche Rolle als Wegbereiter des israelischen Völkermords in Gaza an.

Max Blumenthal ist sicherlich vielen Anhängern alternativer Medien in den Vereinigten Staaten und möglicherweise auch in Europa ein Begriff. Sam Husseini ist wahrscheinlich weniger bekannt. Ich kenne ihn seit sieben Jahren, als er ein aktiver Journalist in Washington war, der gleichzeitig als Event-Promoter tätig war. In dieser Funktion tat er sein Möglichstes, um Teilnehmer für eine Präsentation meines neu veröffentlichten Buches mit dem Titel „Does the United States Have a Future?“ im National Press Club zu gewinnen. Ein Buch, das, wie ich hinzufügen möchte, heute noch relevanter ist als 2017. Tatsächlich möchten die Leser dieses Aufsatzes vielleicht auch einen Blick auf ein Video dieser Buchpräsentation werfen und die Einführung in die Veranstaltung hören, die mein guter Freund Ray McGovern gehalten hat, der die Videoaufzeichnung der Präsentation arrangiert hat.

Ich habe einen Hintergedanken, wenn ich Ray hier erwähne, denn er übte später auf einer Konferenz im CIA-Hauptquartier dasselbe Recht auf friedlichen Protest aus wie Max und Sam, als den Mitarbeitern und ehemaligen Mitarbeitern ein neuer Direktor vorgestellt wurde. Ray unterbrach die Veranstaltung, um die Beteiligung dieser Person an rechtswidrigen Folterpraktiken anzuprangern, die von der Agentur oder ihren Vertretern durchgeführt wurden. Ray wurde von mehreren kräftigen CIA-Sicherheitsleuten brutal angegriffen, die nicht so zimperlich waren wie die Sicherheitsleute im Außenministerium, die Sam misshandelten und Max anstießen. Ray wurde zu Boden geworfen und hätte sich fast die Schulter gebrochen.

Wir Journalisten sind nicht gerade dafür bekannt, besonders mutig zu sein, wenn wir mit möglicher körperlicher Gewalt durch die Ordnungskräfte konfrontiert werden. Aber diejenigen, die ihr Recht, ja ihre Pflicht wahrnehmen, friedlich gegen das grob rechtswidrige Verhalten von Regierungsbeamten zu protestieren, verdienen unseren höchsten Respekt.

Diesen Mut, für seine Überzeugungen einzustehen, hatte ich bei meinen jüngsten Diskussionen über die kollektive Verantwortung für Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit in unserer Zeit im Sinn, in der Protest wirklich zählt.

Ich schreibe Ihnen aus Brüssel, der Hauptstadt Europas. Leider fallen mir auf dieser Seite des Atlantiks keine Beispiele für zivilen Ungehorsam ein. Vielleicht können die Leser Namen und Daten nennen.

Transcript submitted by a reader

PressTV: 0:00
Well, for further insight on that story, we’re now joined by independent international affairs analyst [Dr.] Gilbert Doctorow, who is joining us from Brussels. We’ll also be joined by more guests in this segment as well. Mr. Doctorow, welcome to the program. Let’s jump right in and please give us your thoughts on the ceasefire agreement and its implementation.

Gilbert Doctorow PhD:
I’d like to revise the wording on what is being resolved. This is not the Israeli genocide in Gaza, it is the American genocide in Gaza. And for anyone who doubted that question, the way that this seemingly signed agreement, ready-to-be-signed agreement has been negotiated was very illustrative of how power is exercised by the States. This agreement, if it goes through, will do so precisely because of the intervention of Donald Trump.

1:01
The Biden administration has been incapable or I should say uninterested in finding a solution that might in some way ruffle the feathers of Mr. Netanyahu and Israel. Mr. Trump used his brutal businessman’s approach to the question, sent his emissary to see Netanyahu on Saturday, overruling the objections of the Israeli Prime Minister that we don’t do business on Saturday, on the Shabbat. And he forced through by very tough language, on Netanyahu, a change in position, making possible the agreement, which is yet to be finalized, but very likely will be finalized.

1:48
I called this out because it tells you, it answers the question that many here in the alternative media in the States have been debating for a half year or more, whether Israel is the tail that wags the dog, or whether the United States is wagging Israel as its tail. I have come out before saying that it is the United States that calls the shots, and what happened now in negotiations that are mediated by Qatar proves that point.

PressTV: 2:23
Let’s also bring in academic and political commentator Mohsen Saleh, who’s joining us from the Lebanese capital Beirut, Mr. Saleh. Great to have you with us as well.

First of all, give us your initial response to the Gaza ceasefire. We saw images of jubilation around Muslim countries celebrating this achievement in the steadfastness of the Palestinian resistance. Talk to us about that as well. And also if you would like to add anything to what I guess in Brussels, Mr. Doctor would just said, highlighting that this was not just an Israeli genocide against Palestinians, but it was an American genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

Mr. Sala, are you with us? All right, I believe we do not have that connection just yet. Let’s cross over to Ahmed Al-Najjar, a correspondent who’s with us on hand in Khan Yunis in southern Gaza.

Ahmed, welcome to the program. Let’s talk about what has happened since the announcement of the ceasefire between Hamas and the Israeli regime. You can also tell us about the reactions there. And also we’ve seen the Israeli genocide continues despite the announcement of this truce and they continue to indiscriminately kill Palestinians in Gaza.

Al-Najjar: 3:58
A few hours ago we were here in Khan Yunis City next to [Nasser] hospital, broadcasting the celebrations of the people, the last moments of the people anticipating the moment the agreement, the announcement of the agreement that a ceasefire has been reached and we will get into effect within the few, next three days.

4:19
The people here, the celebrations erupted all over the Khan Yunis City and all over the Gaza Strip, in the streets, in displacement camps. However, the people are still in a state of uncertainty whether they are going to make it to the ceasefire actually getting to effect. All the celebrations that erupted here expressed their happiness and approval that finally after more than 15 months, their suffering will come to an end — the suffering of displacement, the suffering of starvation, the suffering of deprivation will all come to an end. And the suffering of the constant fears of being bombarded and being massacred in one of Israel’s attacks will finally be ended.

5:08
However, here we are right a few hours after that agreement and the situation here pretty much like any day of the past 467 days: the families are still struggling to find the basic humanitarian needs they need. The children are still carrying buckets to fill up their water, and they are waiting in queues in front of the community kitchen to get something to satisfy their hunger. And they are certainly still not safe, with the Israelis intensifying their attacks. Over the past few hours since the announcement of the ceasefire agreement, at least 30 Palestinians were killed with several attacks all over the Gaza Strip, but particularly focusing on the Gaza City, on the north. A surge of attacks that targeted multiple residential buildings all over Gaza City, pounding them as if this genocide was starting all over again for the people there. We’re talking about more than 20 Palestinians massacred in a residential block within a Sheikh Radwan neighborhood that has [been] pounded with several fire builds just over the night hours.

6:26
Families have been buried under the rubble, and at least 20 Palestinians so far have been confirmed to be killed. We’re talking about another attack that took place within the middle area of the Gaza Strip, within a Daraj neighborhood. Another residential building was targeted, killing at least 15 Palestinians, leaving them under the rubble. The Gaza City is in a state of complete cutoff of humanitarian needs or any means of survival. We’re talking about medical facilities, self-defense facilities who have been subjected for more than 100 days [to an] onslaught by the Israeli occupation that completely blocked these services from operating within Gaza City or northern Gaza.

7:12
However, the aggression still persists here in southern Gaza, where the families are seeking shelter in the western parts of Khan Yunis Cty in Al-Mawasi [which] the occupation has designated to be safe and humanitarian. And even after the announcement of the agreement to reach a ceasefire, the people are still subjected to the continuous pounding by Israeli artilleries and naval boats within the western coastline of Al-Mawasi and also within the eastern parts of Khan Yuni city and Rafah city.

7:45
The heavy artillery shellings can be heard all over the city and in Ghizan Rushwan in particular, an overnight attack. It is also an area designated within the safe humanitarian zone, but another residential building belonging to Allahan family was targeted over the night, killing at least two members of the families and injuring several others. So this is the situation here. The people here are hoping that this time, this announcement would bring them an end to their suffering. However, they are still subjected and what they are certain about [is] that they are far beyond being safe, as Israel still pushes ahead with more attacks and more killings of the Palestinians here, wherever they are.

8:36
Right, stay with us please, Ahmed. We’re going to bring in hopefully Mohsen Saleh from the Lebanese capital, Beirut. Mr. Saleh, are you with us right now?

Mohsen Saleh:
Yes, I do.

PressTV:
Yes. All right, welcome to the program, Mr. Saleh. Let’s jump right in. I want to get your perspective on the announcement of this ceasefire. Senior Hamas official has welcomed the agreement in Gaza, calling it a result of the resilience and resistance of the Palestinian fighters and their firm stance against Israel. Break that down for us, and also give us your thoughts on the the images of jubilation that we’re seeing in various Muslim countries at the news of this ceasefire.

Saleh: 9:25
Well, to add, just to go into the subject, to add the blood and patience, blood and patience of the Palestinians and the toleration of the conspiracies of the Americans and some of the Arabs and some of the Palestinians even in the West Bank in the Authority, Gaza factions of resistance achieved one of the greatest victories in the history of the Palestinian question. Now they can say that Palestine is moving towards achieving liberation and going into freedom.

10:06
Palestinians will not bow down for the Israelis and the Americans and all the killing machines of the West. They tried to kick out the Palestinians from the north and from Gaza in order to displace them and put them in Sinai or other places in Jordan or any place. They recorded that. They said that they raised their voice, that Palestine is ours.

With the support and the approval of the resistance, axis of resistance, they have achieved and written one of the greatest chapters and it’s shining chapter with blood, patience, and toleration, and continuation of their resistance in the North and in the South, in any place, in the West Bank. Now Palestine, in my opinion, I would say Palestine is one of the states, regardless of the acknowledgement of the West and the United States. Now Palestine is in the history, not Israel. Israel now is defeated. Netanyahu could not achieve his agenda and could not break Hamas.

11:21
Hamas and other factions of the resistance, Jihad and others, they recorded and they said we are here and they continued to say that we are here and they until yesterday they have made a lot of pressure on the Israelis to withdraw. Now in Israel they say that we are defeated. We could not achieve the breaking of Hezbollah or the Hamas resistance in Lebanon or in the–

To all these people who are trying to propagate that the axis of resistance is defeated, is weakened, I would say the axis of resistance is one of the greatest powers in the region, and they continue in spite of the recess– now it’s a recess, it’s not a ceasefire, it’s not a truce, it’s a recess– in order to go back into war with this unless this degeneration of the Israeli society or construction of the West fall down. And it will fall down.

12:28
The cabinet will fall down, socially will fall down, economy will fall down. Trump is not– in my analysis, Trump is not for the sake of Israel, for the sake of capitalism and now Israel failed to improve its situation in order to do anything with the resistance. So Trump will — may — abandon or at least give up some of its … well, aspirations or temptations in order to to hegemonize the region.

13:03
Now the region by the resistance I guess will continue. And the peoples, what we need is good media, social media, in order to record what have been achieved through Gaza and Lebanon and Yemen as well, and Iraq. Regardless of what has happened in Syria, now the axis of resistance is trying to recollect its power as well as the others. Well our enemies are not in a good shape.

13:37
Our shape probably [is] better in terms of sociology, in terms of psychology, in terms of whatever you want to say. But at least culturally we are saying that the factions of resistance have made a great job, and they have recorded one of its victories in spite of pain, pain, pain and resist. Blood have achieved also another victory against this … well, miraculous, well, technological, but the miraculous of the blood of the Palestinians and the Lebanese have achieved and fulfilled its promises for the peoples of Lebanon and the region and Palestine, I guess more than what has happened in the minds of the technology of the West and the Americans.

PressTV: 14:27
Right. I’m going to stay with you, Mr. Saleh, for the next question. We know that the Palestinian resistance stated it will only agree to the release of Israeli captives if the agreement includes the release of Palestinian prisoners. This condition, it was imperative. It also represented a significant political and military victory for the resistance as well, which was showcasing how adamant they were in imposing their demands. So what can you tell us about how that condition and achieving and grasping that condition actually reflects on the strength and the position of the resistance in the negotiations.

15:16
Mr. Saleh, that was for you.

15:22
All right, I believe we lost that connection.

Saleh:
–was not in a good manner.

PressTV: 15:30
Can you hear me now Mr Saleh?

15:33
Okay, we do not have that connection right now. I’m going to allow my colleagues to sort that out. We’re going to go back to Mr. Gilbert Doctorow. Mr. Doctorow, about the the Gaza ceasefire, the UN chief, Antoni Guterres, he said that it’s imperative that this Gaza ceasefire leads to the removal of aid obstacles, which is one of the fundamental issues right now, the famine, the starvation, the humanitarian catastrophe that has resulted [from] the 15-month genocidal onslaught against Palestinians in Gaza. That has to be one of the key points, the key highlights here, is that enough aid has to get in. And just the ending of the killing and the murdering and slaughtering of Palestinians is not enough. There’s the reconstruction of Gaza and ultimately this all has to lead to the real solution. And that would be the liberation of Palestinians and self-determination for the Palestinians.

Doctorow: 16:32
Well, I agree with you. This has to be the focal point. I appreciate the remarks of the preceding speaker in defending the axis of resistance. However, let’s remember that two million Palestinians in Gaza have had their lives destroyed. Yes, maybe only 46,000 are officially dead. Perhaps it’s really 100,000 have been killed. But the rest, the two million people who are living in Gaza have had their lives destroyed. The wealth that has accumulated over generations, all of their livelihoods, all of this has been swept away.

17:11
So it has been a devastation for the Palestinian people in Gaza, and that cannot be ignored. One of the benefits that may come out of this agreement for peace, or for truce anyway, is the removal of the Netanyahu government. I think there is a reasonable chance that the most refractory, the most violent members of the Netanyahu cabinet, like Kvir and Smokrige will resign, that the Netanyahu government will fall. And the man may be taken away in chains to pursue court proceedings against him, which would be entirely appropriate, even if they won’t be trying him for the reasons that he should face justice, namely the genocide.

17:52
However, I think the remarks of the previous speaker celebrating the victory of the axis of resistance, I think this is premature. The reality is, almost among all expert opinion in the West anyway, is that the various resistance organizations, whether it’s Hamas, Hezbollah, or the groups, have been devastated by the Israeli forces.

18:22
Israel has established a temporary victory in the military sense in its immediate neighborhood. The same experts are saying that this victory cannot be long sustained, that there are too many conflicts in the territory that Israel is laying claim to, not least of which with Turkiye, which suggests that eight months, 10 months down the road, the whole thing will unwind and Israel will be facing an existential threat that is beyond its own abilities to master. So the end game is not arrived. We have a possibility of a truce, which is very much needed. We have a possibility of its becoming a permanent cessation of hostilities in Gaza, which will be wonderful.

19:08
And for this, I come back to the point. We have to thank Mr. Trump’s daring and brutal approach to Netanyahu, which contrasts sharply with the kind of relationship, the supportive relationship, the unquestioning relationship of America towards Israel in the last year and a half.

PressTV: 19:36
Right, let’s go back to Mr. Mohsen Saleh, who’s with us from the Lebanese capital Beirut. Mr. Saleh, I addressed a question to you before we went back to our guest in Brussels, and that was the demand by the Palestinian resistance that it will only agree to the release of Israeli captives if the agreement includes the release of Palestinian prisoners as well. What can you say, how do you view the adamancy of the stance of the Palestinian resistance that is reflected in the ceasefire negotiations coming from a strong standing point that this will only happen if Palestinian prisoners are released as well?

Saleh: 20:19
Well, as you know, the resistance relied on its power in the north part of Gaza and in the southern part. It also relied on its patience and the peoples. They have nothing to lose. They have to ask for these captives, for these detainees, the Palestinian detainees in the prisons of the Israelis. I guess it’s not that fair, but I guess they have achieved what they have asked for from the outset of this battle, that if the Israelis will free the prisoners, the Palestinian detainees, so the Palestinian Hamas and others, they have no problem in freeing or in leaving these hostages, the Israeli hostages.

They have achieved and if the Israelis went to this ceasefire in last May, I guess they would have saved a lot of genocidal– well, people in Palestine and they have saved themselves. But I guess in spite of all their stubbornness they could not achieve anything. And now the Palestinians, Hamas exactly, will dictate the future of Gaza. And they will free more Palestinians from the Israeli prisoners, and also the aides on the borders from Rafah.

21:56
They have achieved a lot, I guess, in terms of [relieving] the situation of Gaza in order to continue its battle in freeing Gaza and the people in Gaza and also in the West Bank. We are talking here about common destination between Gaza and West Bank and also the whole question of Palestine. Now the Israelis cannot ignore that they have committed a lot of crimes, they have to be brought into the court in terms of the International Criminal Court. And Netanyahu will– and Gallant and others will– be brought into justice and probably will be imprisoned in terms of their atrocities and their massacres against the Palestinians. The Palestinians now, actually, they have achieved a lot for the future of the issue of Palestine and the Palestinians.

23:02
So the Palestinians cannot rely on the authorities of the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah. They have to rely on the resistance from not from now on from the beginning but now from now on they can’t say that our representative is the Palestinian Authority. On the contrary, Hamas, because Hamas is asking also for prisoners from Fatah and from the the Popular Front and other factions. So Hamas is not monopolizing the whole issue.

PressTV: 23:39
Let’s get a quick word in from our correspondent Ahmed Al-Najjar who is with us from Khan Yunis in southern Gaza. Ahmed, we’ve been hearing from our guests about the resistance strength and the achievements that it has maintained during this genocidal onslaught for over 15 months now. Until the final day of the Israeli-American genocide there, until these ceasefires implemented, the occupying forces continue to suffer losses, with their soldiers falling at the hands of the resistance fighters. What does this say about the effectiveness of the resistance in Gaza?

Al-Najjar: 24:19
On the contrary to what Israel hoped to achieve by this genocidal campaign on Gaza and by the continuing deprivation and blockade on the local population here of turning the families and turning the people here against the resistance, making them feel that the resistance is responsible for their suffering.

The chants that we’ve been hearing here by the people who celebrated the announcement of the ceasefire agreements, all are advocating the resistance, and all are praising the noble aspects of retaliation and the noble aspects of the continued operations of the Palestinian resistance all over the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians are expressing their pride of the resistance. [They have] still, in Beit Hanun in northern Gaza, been inflicting significant losses on the Israeli occupation there and also in Rafah for more than eight months now. The resistance is still present there, despite the Israelis announcement of dismantling resistance, despite the Israelis trying to show it as belittled and being away from the scene here in the Gaza Strip. But the reality here tells a complete different story.

25:41
The Palestinians are just waiting for the moment the ceasefire will get into effect to get what the resistance has promised for them. For the past rounds of negotiations, resistance announced multiple times that anything but the rightful and the worthy rights of the Palestinian people, they deserve a reward that are worthy of their pain and suffering over the past 15 months.

26:08
And what we have now is that the Israeli occupation is forced to accept the terms of the Palestinian resistance here, in terms of the return of the Palestinians who have been displaced through northern Gaza or to their town here in Khan Yunis or in Rafah. And also the freedom of Palestinian detainees who for tens of years have been forgotten in Israeli jails, and also the return of those who were kidnapped during this genocide.

26:35
Yesterday we spoke to several families who expressed their happiness that they’ve been hearing that this agreement, upon this agreement, their relatives, their family members who have been kidnapped by the Israeli occupation, there is a great chance for them to return within the upcoming days after the ceasefire get into effect.

PressTV: 27:04
Okay, we’re going to say goodbye to our correspondent, Ahmed Al-Najjar, who’s joining us from Khan Yunis in southern Gaza.

We are keeping a close eye on all the latest developments and details coming from the announcement of the ceasefire between Palestinian resistance movement Hamas and the occupying Israeli regime which will most likely trigger the start of the end of this genocidal massacre and genocide of war starting from Sunday.

27:31
We still have on hand Mr. Gilbert Doctorow, independent international affairs analyst, who’s with us from Brussels. Mr. Doctorow, the Hamas official, Khalil al-Hayya, Hamas official in Gaza, the top Hamas man there, he emphasized that the Palestinian people will never forgive nor forget those who participated in Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. This goes along the lines of what you mentioned earlier, that this was not just an Israeli genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza, but this was a US genocide against Palestinians there.

So in the long run, when we’re talking about accountability, apart from the Israeli regime, should those countries like the United States that aided and abetted and funded this genocidal massacre, should they also be held accountable when that day comes?

Doctorow: 28:23
I believe that’s essential. The United States has spread chaos and violence across the world, practicing the old Roman Empire principle of divide and conquer in order to maintain its global hegemony. No one, absolutely no one among American authorities has paid a price for this very damaging, this hostile policy towards the world at large for the sake of its own profitability and control of global affairs. It is time that the United States be held accountable and officers who are responsible directly for the crimes committed through the hands of Israel in Palestine be brought to justice.

29:15
I have in mind President Biden and all of his advisors who have been so involved in the details of these atrocities committed by Israel. That means Blinken, that means Sullivan, and the other close assistants to the president. They should be named, they should be indicted, and they should face court proceedings, which at a minimum will make it impossible for them to travel outside the United States. That is essential. There’s time for the United States to face the courts, for the officials to understand that being the global hegemon has not protected them against their complicity, their enabling crimes against humanity.

PressTV:
Okay, we’re going to leave it there. Independent international affairs analyst Gilbert Doctorow joining us from Brussels. And also thanks to academic and political commentator Mohseh Salah, joining us earlier from the Lebanese capital, Beirut.

30:15
We’re going to go for a short break but we’ll be back.

Transcript submitted by a reader

Nima R. Alkhorshid: 0:06
Hi everybody. Today is Thursday, January 16th and our friend Gilbert Doctorow is back with us. Welcome back, Gilbert.

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
Good to be with you.

Alkhorshid:
Let’s get started with the ceasefire in the Middle East and the Trump’s policy. Who’s going to get the credit for the ceasefire? Is it the Biden administration or the coming Trump administration?

Doctorow:
In mainstream media, it’s clear it’s the Biden administration. In alternative media, people know better. And I think there’s been a lot of discussion of the intervention by Trump’s emissary, who’s a businessman, a Jewish businessman, because everyone said about Trump and his nominees, he has so many Zionists among them, and there are Israeli hawks and the rest of it.

0:59
And they got the wrong end of the stick. When you see what happened in the last week, it’s clear that we really don’t know how Trump is going to behave in office, but let’s look at the bright upside. There was a reason for that optimism, based on what we saw this last week, where according to off-record accounts, his emissary called Netanyahu, he said, “I’m coming tomorrow to speak to you.” And Netanyahu said, “But it’s Shabbat.” And he said, “So what?” So– and then he came, and he read the riot act to Netanyahu, something which was unfathomable to those people who said that he was in the hands of– Trump was in the hands, in the pocket of the Zionists. Not true.

1:54
What Trump said about himself, let us hope, is a more accurate description. He’s a friend of Israel, not a friend of Netanyahu, and with a man who understands perfectly, that Israel is in self-destruction following the policies of Netanyahu. So this gives us reason to hope that Mr. Trump will be a lot better in his second term than he was in his first.

And I have another reason. I have to admit, I didn’t listen to it very long yesterday, but I did catch some of the discussions for the clearing of Rubio in the Senate, the Senate committee, which had hearings on him. So I heard him speak. And I’ve heard from some colleagues, again, leading people in the American alternative media who were speaking about Rubio, so he’s kind of a small person. He’s no match for Lavrov. He has no experience.

2:59
But what I heard during these hearings was completely different. He looked to me like a fantastic choice by Trump. He’s at a different world from the Tillerson or the Pompeo who Trump inflicted on himself and on the country in his first term in office. Why do I say that?

First of all, he was extremely well prepared for all the questions, and his answers were appropriate. He didn’t say more than he had to, to shut up the critics. He didn’t tip his hand. He said things that they would like to hear, but which really do not bear on how he’s going to behave in office. The main thing is not just that he’s a very clever man and very well read and very well briefed to speak concisely without a moment’s hesitation answering these difficult questions, but he’s one of theirs.

4:02
He’s a senator. And all the senators have these IOU chips in their vest pocket. He’s done favors for them, they’ve done favors for him and they’re speaking the same language. So in that sense, to get through difficult issues and difficult policies for approval of the Senate, there couldn’t have been a better choice than Rubio. And I’m quite pleased to see that at least this questionable character, all his views about Iran, oh, but you know, he spoke about Iran.

He had been, obviously, rehearsed this, because what he said was very, very intelligent. We always say there was a distinction between the people and the government. He did it in a very sophisticated manner, speaking about the millennia of Persian culture, about the people of Iran, worthy of our respect, etc. etc. And unfortunately they’re stuck with these ayatollahs.

5:08
But it left you with the understanding that this man is not going to bomb the hell out of Iran. Because that’s not going to achieve anything other than destroy people whom he’s otherwise praised for their civilization. So this was a sophisticated answer, much more sophisticated than anybody I formerly heard in the entourage of Trump use. Excellent. Moreover, it was clear again from the hearing that the issues that are most important to Trump are not going to be handled by Rubio.

5:45
He has designated emissaries who will be carrying out his work. Now how long Kellogg will last as an emissary is another question. But in each case, if you take the emissary, who this businessman from New York, a realtor of course, whom he sent to Jerusalem to deal with Netanyahu. It’s a very clever person, very capable man. Nonetheless, for purposes of pure diplomacy, traditional diplomacy, Rubio is the best candidate because of the, again, the suave, sophisticated nature of dealing with people that comes from being on the floor of the Senate for years.

6:30
So these little indications that have come up in the last week, I’m sure we’ll see more as the hearings of other nominees go forward. They give me a lot more confidence that Trump two will not be a repeat of Trump one, which was, as we all know, very disappointing.

Alkhorshid: 6:51
When you look at the people who are going to work with Donald Trump in his administration, you see young people who are prepared to be shaped by the Trump strategy. And you don’t see Rex Tillerson, Mike Pompeo, those people who were seeing themselves above Donald Trump, who were seeing themselves as policymakers. I see these people as [those] who want to work with Donald Trump, who want to get in line with what Donald Trump wants to do. Do you see the same sort of manner in the new administration?

Doctorow: 7:32
Well, I can’t claim to have done investigation of these people. I’m going to listen to the hearings as they go along, but in general I agree with what you just said. These are people who have their own views, of course. They didn’t come in, they weren’t chosen as blanks, They already had some reputation or positions. But I think they are willing to bend to the decisions of the commander in chief, which, as you say, someone like Tillerson, who had been himself CEO of one of the largest corporations and certainly had a lot of grandeur about him and expectation that that he would be served rather than serving. I think that is not what we’re seeing today in Trump. He has a lot more of a team than he had then.

Alkhorshid: 8:27
Do you think that the ceasefire in Gaza would influence the situation in Ukraine and the way that the Trump administration would manage any sort of talks with Russia, or it doesn’t have– it’s an isolated event that doesn’t have any sort of influence on Ukraine?

Doctorow:
Well, the situations are different. And I’d say the problem with this very quick seeming success– it’s not over yet. Netanyahu is still dragging his feet on signing off and getting his government to approve it so that it can proceed on Sunday– but it’s set expectations which are unfortunate, because going into the Ukraine situation nothing of the sort is possible. The commanding hand is that of Putin, who is not dependent on the States for supplies on the contrary, who has won his victories against all that the United States could throw at him.

9:34
Therefore, the ability of anyone sent by Washington to impose something on Putin is nonexistent. The notion also that the United States could stand by as a counselor, as the two hostile sides resolve the problem between themselves, that also is completely inapplicable to the Russia-Ukraine situation. The Russians have said plainly that the government in Kiev is illegitimate, and there’s no one to talk to there.

10:11
Until there is an election in Ukraine, there is no one to talk to, and this will not wait until there’s an election. So the Russians have made it plain that they expect the solution of the Ukraine problem to be between themselves and their army, their own army. It’ll solve it on the ground. And then any discussion will be only with the United States. No United Kingdom, no EU, no China, no Turkey, nobody else.

10:42
It will be a one-to-one summit between two, let’s call it properly, two superpowers. Now that many neutral observers have properly identified the Russian armed forces as the second strongest in the world after the United States. So we have two superpowers. And superpowers never had the little guys in at the negotiating table. It was always bilateral talks.

And that’s what we can expect whenever the Russians and the Americans are ready for it, which may not be next week, it may not be this spring, it could be in the summer, after the Russians score their decisive victory over what remains of the Ukrainian army.

Alkhorshid: 11:33
When it comes to the reality on the battleground, because which is the main … indicative for those people who want to talk about Ukraine, here comes the situation in Pokrovsk. And how do you see the main line of the battlefield right now, which is so important for the Trump administration?

Doctorow:
I want to emphasize, I never pretend to be a military expert, but I do take counsel, some of them appear on your program, from people who are genuine military experts. And I read a assiduously the “Financial Times”, or the “New York Times”, but particularly “Financial Times”, who are Russia haters.

12:20
And when I see on their front pages, day after day, accounts of Russian military advances and the acknowledgement– they don’t use the word brilliant, strategically brilliant as I would, to describe what the Russians are now doing. But when you read between the lines, it comes out of the latest reports that the Russians are not going into urban warfare to take Pokrovsk street by street. They’re actually going to strangle Pokrovsk by surrounding it and cutting it off from its supplies, which is what they’re presently doing, while making a direct line northwest of Pokrovsk to Dnipropetrovsk, which is on the Dnieper River, it is the third-largest city in Ukraine. It is where some of the biggest oligarchs, including the one who installed the present Kiev regime in power, it’s where they have their home base. Well, that’s a matter of perhaps irrelevancy.

13:25
But the main point is that it is another important settlement, urban settlement, which is not properly defended and which they probably can take without too much effort. So the net result of that is to cut off the Ukrainian front lines from all supplies. If that happens, and it will happen, in ‘perhaps the next one, two, three weeks, then the defense lines of Ukraine genuinely will crumble. And there may be mass desertions, or they simply will run for their lives in a disorderly retreat. In any case, the possibility of a capitulation coming out of this is very high.

14:15
We had all been speaking about the fight for Pokrovsk as if it were a repeat of the several other months-long struggles that were very expensive in men on both sides, the route that this war has seen over the course of nearly three years. No, no, this will be more likely, as I said, cutting them off from their supplies, which are coming from the West and the North, and forcing them to exit the city as fast as their legs can carry them.

Dnieperpratrovsk 14:49
When Zelensky sees what has happened in the Middle East, how Donald Trump forced Netanyahu to accept, to go after a ceasefire in Gaza, what comes to his mind in your opinion? What’s going on there in Ukraine?

Doctorow:
Well, he’s not going to say what goes on his mind, because then he’ll be lynched. He’s probably making sure that that exit route he’s planned is properly prepared, because he may be using it very soon. Don’t expect anything truthful come out of him. That would not be in character. But of course he must be alarmed, as you’re suggesting.

Alkhorshid:
So he’s trying to do each and every thing at his disposal to, I don’t know, with Europeans, with other leaders in order to help him in order to continue this conflict in Ukraine. And after all, do you see the draft age– they’re talking about from 27 to 18– being implemented by the Ukrainian government?

Doctorow: 16:03
I don’t think his government will last if they begin to implement it. There is such popular resistance to this. What we’re talking about now is the demographic destruction of Ukraine. I’m just in very simple terms.

25, maybe you’ve got a kid, you’ve had a child or two. At 18, you’ve got nothing. Therefore, if the 18 year olds and the 20 year olds are slaughtered, then there’ll be a demographic hollow for one generation, at least in Ukraine. We know what this means for all of Eastern Europe that came out of communism. They all had these demographic holes that came out of the extreme poverty in the period of adjustment, readjustment or transformation of their economies.

16:52
And here you would have it on a big scale in Ukraine. So the Ukrainian nation would be … “destroyed” is an extreme way of putting it, but severely damaged for at least a generation, maybe two generations. Therefore the public appreciates that they’re not stupid and they will resist to the last the sending of their boys, robbing the cradle, to be cannon fodder.

Alkhorshid: 17:25
If you remember last time that Donald Trump was asked if he wants to meet with Putin, he said, “Putin wants to meet with me.” It seems to me that he’s so cautious about the internal policy of the United States, he knows how they’re going to attack him in the mainstream media.

Do you think that if he announces that he’s going to meet with Putin in the near future, let’s say in February, is he going to get some sort of attack from the mainstream media? And how strong would that be? Because it’s so decisive, it’s so important, when it comes to the outcome of that meeting.

Doctorow:
We know about the resistance, growing resistance in Germany led by the Alternative for Deutschland to the policies, the anti-Russian policies, the slavish following of Americans’ orders, that the German governments– put that in plural, from the period of Merkel through the Scholz, and likely to continue if the Christian Democrats take over with Merz. We know about resistance to this and the growing opposition to this in Germany.

18:47
I think people are not aware, in fact I wasn’t well aware until a few days ago, that there are also thinking people in France, where the situation of the government is also very volatile. The government, this newly-installed government by Macron, may not last more than a few weeks, however much he tries. And all of that didn’t seem terribly relevant to the issues that you and I are discussing right now, because the French resistance, opposition to Macron government has all been a rather petty [glitch] outsider. [To] the Frenchman, it’s not petty, but from the outside looking in, for the global balance of power and whatever, the French are fighting over two years of retirement age change and whether or not the gasoline taxes are imposed. These are rather small domestic issues.

19:42
However, there is obviously some undercurrent in France, people who are following what we’re talking about. And they have their own hero, certain Emmanuel Todd, who’s I think, close to my age, maybe a little bit younger, but who has been writing about Russia and the Soviet Union, going back to the Soviet Union, how it would collapse before anybody else was saying that. He’s come out with a book a year ago on how the United States lost the war in Ukraine just a year ago. He recently was interviewed by Figaro, the leading conservative newspaper in France, and he was explaining that the biggest problem that Donald Trump has now is how to manage the defeat in Ukraine, which is exactly what you asked me about. For that very reason, I agree with Emmanuel Todd.

It is a tough one, and you just said it will be attacked. Wouldn’t it be reasonable then if he postponed this meeting with Putin till he gets something under his belt, of macho nature, that spares him attacks for being weak in defending American interests. And that’s where these latest rather extravagant statements he’s made about Panama Canal or about Greenland come in. If he can achieve something there– and I think he can achieve something in Greenland; I think Greenland is low-hanging fruit– then everyone will shut up when it comes to giving up Ukraine, because strategic value of Ukraine to the United States is nil. It’s only valuable if you are an ideologist and want to talk in Cold War terms.

21:31
But if you’re a realist and understand that Russia is no threat to Poland, there’s no threat to the Baltics, there’s no threat to the United States, then you really don’t care what happens to those poor people in Ukraine who are so stupid as to fight against Russia. And you are delighted at all of the mineral wealth and strategic advantages that the United States can take by doing a deal with the Greenlanders. Leave Denmark out of the equation, since their premier already gave up the fight and said it’s up to the 56,000 Greenlanders to decide whether they want to go to the United States. Well, he can buy them off. Surely he can buy them off.

And this would be a very important win for Mr. Trump, which I say would put an end to any concerns about his being in Mr. Putin’s pocket, although that very issue also is unlikely to be revived, because the people who promoted that to the newspapers and to the broader public, these intelligence bosses, they are about to be purged as Trump takes over. Therefore, he will be insulated against that kind of backstabbing from within federal bodies. And he will have the comfort of this glow of American patriots for their territories that they now possess.

Alkhorshid: 23:11
You mentioned the situation in Germany. We have AfD and the left-wing party, Sahra Wagenknecht, if I’m not pronouncing it right. How do you see these two parties and how influential are they and which one is, in your opinion, has the better strategy for the future of Germany?

Doctorow:
I thought that Sarah Wagenknecht was eloquent speaker. She said many things that I liked. She also said one or two things that I didn’t like going back two years. When there was, as you may recall, she joined with a feminist leader in Germany. They both spoke at the Brandenburg gates and were calling for a ceasefire. This was not too long into the war in Ukraine. But she opened her remarks, and she opened the petition that she asked people to sign, and many hundreds of thousands of people did sign in that petition. It opened with remark that Russia was the aggressor.

24:23
Well, I discussed this with people at the European Parliament because I happened to be a participant in the roundtable at that time in the European Parliament building. And they said, “Well, you can’t say anything without opening this way. You have to do your genuflection to the powers that be, who want to hear only that Russia is the aggressor. She did it.”

I didn’t like that at all. In the case of Weidel, Alice Weidel, the co-chairman and now the Bundes-Chancellor nominee of the Alternative for Germany. She is not genuflecting before the powers that be. On the contrary. She is not stupid. She’s a very intelligent woman, and she and Elon Musk had an interview, this was eight days ago, whatever, in which– I was disappointed with it, because she said almost nothing about international affairs.

25:33
It was all directed to the questions of the domestic German, particularly economic and social questions, which she took wonderful positions on in favor of a better balance in energy, that is to say, downscaling all the green policies that came in with Merkel and had been amplified when the Greens became a member of the traffic-light coalition under Scholz, giving, restoring nuclear power, strict curbs on immigration, and on financial and other social benefits to illegal settlers in Germany. Lowering the regulatory burdens on German industry,

A lot of very good recommendations, common sense, very close to the so-called populist positions of Trump. Pragmatism as opposed to ideology, all sounds good, but not a word about the issues that interest your audience and me, which is what does she have to say about the war in Ukraine and what about Russia. There was only a little hint when she said something about resuming gas supplies from Russia. But the reason for this, as I’ve had time to reconsider my first thoughts about the interview, they were very cautious, she and Musk.

27:11
They wanted to produce an impression on the German electorate and the American public that the Alternative for Deutschland are not the heirs of Hitler. They are civilized, democratic-minded people who are friendly and whom you can admire for their pragmatic, common-sense approach to economic and social issues.

Well, that’s good, as far as it goes. However, when I’ve looked at what Weidel has said in front of the German Parliament since, what she has said in various locations, either to the journalists or to a public auditorium, there’s a lot more to it. I wouldn’t say it’s anti-American, but it is “get out”. We are an occupied country, and we’ve had enough of it. And we will not slavishly follow what you tell us about relations with Russia. And we will restore the Nord Stream. And well, that is of course music, to my ears, and I think to the ears of a lot of the viewers of this and other alternative-media programs. She came across as the only one who was saying in a full-throated way that the Americans are the problem, not the solution.

28:53
I note that Wagenknecht, Sahra Wagenknecht has come out also a bit more full-throated and a bit less cautious in her most recent public statements. And it’s surely an influence coming from Weidel and the Alternative for Deutschland. So this was a discovery, and I’m hopeful that she will have some success. The last polls, of course, showed she trails Merz, this awful Christian Democrat leader who wants to send Taurus missiles against Russia. She trails him by 10 points.

She had about 20 points in popular polling and the CDU Merz had 30 points just below. We’ll see how this closes in the next six weeks. But I’m pleased to say that Elon Musk, who did not create a very positive impression in that interview, has put his money on the right horse. She is very capable. I heard this was not– but even in the “Financial Times”, in a little biographical sketch of her a couple of days ago, remarked that she has a PhD, that she has had some time working in financial institutions.

30:16
And she is not the slovenly, stupid, Baerbock that Scholz was foolish enough to bring into his cabinet as minister of foreign affairs. No, this woman is highly intelligent, and I think her head is in the right place. So maybe if not this round of elections in the next, she will help bring Germany around to common sense and to a peaceful Europe-wide– meaning extending to the Urals– foreign policy.

Alkhorshid: 30:58
If you were to mention the main impacts of the war in Ukraine, not only the situation on the battlefield, but the way that the United States and together with Europeans were trying to damage Russia during more than two years. We were approaching three years of the conflict in Ukraine.

And is that going to change the Russia’s grand strategy in a long run? How is that going to influence the Russian society, the Russian politicians, because it’s not just the war in Ukraine, it’s not about the battle, the way that they have cut off the Nord Stream pipeline, the way that they tried to put tremendous sanctions on Russia. It wasn’t just a military act. How do you find the impact, the influence, the whole strategy, the whole policies of NATO against Russia? And how is that going to influence Russia’s strategy?

Doctorow: 32:10
Well, if you want to speak about the population, the man in the street, I think the man in the street was never so Anglophile, so much a lover of the West as the intellectuals, the intelligentsia in Russia has been. They have, many of the intelligentsia, have reluctantly had to face the facts that you just were describing, that the West is trying to destroy their country. And so they have somewhat reluctantly signed on to Mr. Putin’s policies with respect to the war in Ukraine. However– and of course, we know that the most outrageous Russian quislings, Russian betrayers for Western interests, left the country soon after the start of the special military operation.

33:10
Having said that, it is undeniable that there are two minds in Russia about the West and about the country’s orientation. I won’t name names, and I won’t name countries, but let’s just say, for example, that a large part of the Russian diplomatic core is Zapetniki, our Western nurse, people who regret deeply the damage that this war has caused to their relations with the West and the rest of the world. Well, I should say the West, they’re not so interested in the rest of the world. These people can’t be chased out. They are part of Russia.

So the situation is not simple. It is complicated. And these are factors that Mr. Putin has to deal with when he’s appealing to all Russians and not just to some Russians and serving their interests. The hatred that has come out most recently in statements by, it was a former secretary of defense, or what they call the, well, I’ll just leave it, the defense minister in Britain, speaking about the need to close Russia, the whole of Russia, all 145 million Russians behind a high wall, a prison.

34:37
That kind of hatred for the country, which expresses very well the British view of Russia since before the Crimean War, that is something that even the most determined cosmopolite among Russians cannot ignore. So the other side, well, where do they go? Well, they’re going to the East, as we all know. And Russia was never naturally aligned with China.

If you will speak to the man in the street going back 20 years, of course, they were not enthusiasts for drawing closely into an embrace with China. However, China has moved, become such a visible factor in everyday life in Russia today. Like 40 or 50 percent of the cars sold in Russia are made in China, and they’re not too bad. Really, they’re not too bad.

35:39
So the popular view of China and things Chinese has of course in this three-year period, changed in a much more positive way. Going back before this war, really there was resistance, I think, to the embrace with China. Not any more. Moreover, it’s not just China, it’s the whole of East Asia. There yesterday was a lot of television coverage of the visit of the Russian government headed by Miss Houston to Vietnam. And Russia has good relations. And of course a lot of Russian tourism now was directed to Southeast Asia.

36:20
So they’re making their accommodation with a part of the world that was not naturally a magnet for them, but considering the very shabby or hostile treatment that they’ve experienced from so much of the West, England in particular, they have had to make an adjustment. And the war is behind this, of course.

Alkhorshid: 36:44
And one of the main factors in Europe is the United Kingdom. Are they going to, let’s put it this way, do they have any sort of leverage on Donald Trump?

Doctorow:
Well, I think reverse is true. Starmer has not been invited to the inauguration. I think that’s an answer to your question. He and Ursula von der Leyen can share a beer someplace, but they will not be sharing it in Washington DC.

Alkhorshid: 37:22
Because we know that how the United Kingdom is against Russia. I don’t know the reason. Many people are giving us a lot of reasons that the United Kingdom is right now. But we know that in the war in Ukraine with the situation that NATO is dealing with right now, United Kingdom is the most radical country or government in Europe who supports the continuation of the conflict in Ukraine. Is that going to, you mean if they change their prime minister to, let’s assume, a Starmer goes away and someone else who’s better than Starmer, is that going to change the– I’m talking about the United Kingdom as a country, does it have any sort of influence in Europe that may cause some sort of pressure on Donald Trump?

Doctorow: 38:24
Well, their influence within Europe of course declined ever since Brexit, So I think the fact that they are outside the Union diminishes greatly the possible influence they will have in the sense that you intend.

We went from one Russia hater from Boris Johnson to another Russia hater in Keir Starmer. I don’t think that they represent the whole of British politics and certainly not the whole of the British nation. However, these feelings go back a long way. And one of the two talk shows that I follow very closely in Russia is called “The Great Game”. And the great game is the British-Russian rivalry in the 19th century for control of Central Asia, and even for control of India, because the Russians had their eyes on India and the British knew it very well. Of course, the great game was played out in Afghanistan and other stans, but it is well in the recollection of the British, just as the Light Brigade in the Crimean Wars, part of legend and part of the literature that every young Brit receives in secondary school.

39:45
So this antipathy or adversarial relationship with Russia was there. And of course, it is exacerbated by the contempt the British could feel for Russia in the 1990s when it was flat on its back. And of course the resentment that it has ever come back. These are factors that are not going to go away soon.

Alkhorshid: 40:16
Yeah, just to wrap up this session, Gilbert, do you see France, the changes that are happening in France would help the policies that we know from the Trump administration would be putting an end to the conflict in Ukraine. How do you see France’s role in the policies, in the main policies of Europe in the near future?

Doctorow:
Well, I think that France’s policies in Europe are on hold. Mr. Macron– doesn’t stop him from running before every microphone that he can see to make wonderful statements that vary from day to day on the outlook for European policies and for France’s contribution to them. He talks a lot, but I don’t think that France is in a position to influence Europe yet.

41:13
They have to do away with Macron government. And then we shall see. As I said before, France’s first concerns are regrettably domestic. I say regrettably because they cannot, they’re not in a position to contribute to the resolution of these very big Europe-wide problems on the orientation of the EU, the structure of the EU, the bureaucratization of the EU, and simply speaking, the authoritarian ways of the European Commission achieve Von der Leyen. Macron himself, as I’ve written, going back to his first election was put in place by the CIA.

I don’t depart from that judgment, that he has been a willing servant of the worst elements in American foreign policy community. Until we see him off, I don’t see any possibility for France to play a constructive role either in the EU or in relations to Russia. But he will go. I don’t believe he can hold on very long. It took– much will depend on the outcome of the, of the general election.

42:28
Much will depend on the growing formation of a group around Orban and Fico and the incoming, head of state in Austria. They are about to change–

Alkhorshid:
Romania.

Doctorow:
And well, Romania is a bit more problematic to– we don’t know to what extent the United States and the CIA will continue to influence the procedures in the election, presidential election. But in Austria, it’s already a foregone conclusion that a populist so-called far-right party candidate will assume power. That will make three already in central Europe who are against the will of Brussels. That is serious, quite serious.

Alkhorshid: 43:25
Yeah. It seems that there are some similarities between Germany and France in terms of far, they call it far, I don’t agree with “far right” and “far left”, but let’s put the way that they’re talking about. Far right and far left in France and far right and far left in Germany. As you know, the party of Macron came to the third position in the latest poll in France, but these two, as we call it, the far right and far left, which are the two winners of the election in France, what are they representing? Is the same way as in Germany or is it different?

Doctorow: 44:16
Well, [it’s] a bit difficult talking about the far left. It is fractured also, with the very far left, essentially communist, at the far end that spectrum. And more moderate, if it makes sense to call it moderate, some social democratic position also on the left. On the right, you’ve got Le Pen’s Rassemblement National, the group that essentially was founded by her now deceased father. Her position, it is sovereignty. That is the main issue.

45:00
Right-left is not descriptive of slavish collectivism of the European Union member countries that have voluntarily surrendered their sovereignty. France never sat comfortably with that. Least of all was it comfortable with the surrender of national defense sovereignty in the framework of NATO, which is why they had an out and in. They left under De Gaulle; they came back finally under Sarkozy. But they still are a bit nervous about that.

They want their sovereignty back. The Germans have not used those words till now. The question of German sovereignty, the reality that Germany has been occupied country since World War II, that was never part of public discourse. It was off limits. The Alternative for Deutschland has brought it back in.

46:00
Well, I shouldn’t say it was never. The Dillinga had this as a subtext. It had the “Ami Go Home”, Americans clear out, the popular songs. But it didn’t drive it home as a central issue. And I think that the Alternative for Germany is doing just that.

It is central to that, to Weidel policies when she feels it’s safe to talk, which is what she’s doing around the country as she’s making her campaign to become chancellor. But it was something that she avoided taking up in the interview with Elon Musk for obvious reasons, not to touch off all the alarm bells among the EU censors who are watching that interview very closely.

Alkhorshid:
Thank you so much, Gelbert, for being with us today. Great pleasure as always.

Doctorow:
Well, I thank you for having me.

Alkhorshid:
Bye-bye.

Doctorow: 47:07
Goodbye.

Today’s panel discussion of the Gaza Ceasefire was one of the most substantial and, I believe, interesting broadcasts that I have been honored to participate in on this channel.

I call attention to the lengthy commentary by a spokesman for the Axis of Resistance who insisted that the ceasefire represents a victory for Hamas and proves the resilience of the Palestinian people and their unity around Hamas.  He seems unconcerned that the one year and four month conflict has utterly destroyed the lives of the 2 million Gaza residents, quite apart from those who died outright.

As for the genocide, I am hopeful that viewers will consider my insistence that responsibility for the killings lies as much or more with the United States as it does with Israeli since the ceasefire could have come long ago had the Biden administration showed any interest in sparing the lives of civilians and intervened as forcefully as Donald Trump’s emissary appears to have done.

http://www.urmedium.net/c/presstv/132319

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Press TV, Iran: Waffenruhe in Gaza

Die heutige Podiumsdiskussion über die Waffenruhe in Gaza war eine der gehaltvollsten und, wie ich finde, interessantesten Sendungen, an denen ich auf diesem Kanal teilnehmen durfte.

Ich möchte auf den ausführlichen Kommentar eines Sprechers der „Achse des Widerstands“ hinweisen, der darauf bestand, dass der Waffenstillstand einen Sieg für die Hamas darstellt und die Widerstandsfähigkeit des palästinensischen Volkes und seine Einheit um die Hamas herum beweist. Er scheint sich keine Sorgen darüber zu machen, dass der ein Jahr und vier Monate andauernde Konflikt das Leben der 2 Millionen Einwohner des Gazastreifens völlig zerstört hat, ganz zu schweigen von denen, die direkt gestorben sind.

Was den Völkermord betrifft, so hoffe ich, dass die Zuschauer meine Behauptung, dass die Verantwortung für die Morde genauso oder mehr bei den Vereinigten Staaten als bei Israel liegt, in Betracht ziehen, da der Waffenstillstand schon vor langer Zeit hätte kommen können, wenn die Biden-Regierung auch nur das geringste Interesse daran gezeigt hätte, das Leben von Zivilisten zu schonen, und ebenso energisch interveniert hätte, wie es der Abgesandte von Donald Trump offenbar getan hat.

Today’s chat with host Nima Alkhorshid covered a lot of ground. We opened with what the apparently successful intervention by Donald Trump’s emissary in the Gaza cease-fire talks may tell us about the way that Trump’s pre-election promises of ushering in an age of peace will be realized.  Of course, this naturally led to discussion of how the challenge of taking control of Netanyahu, where the U.S had the whip hand if Biden ever wished to exercise it (which he didn’t) and the challenge of dealing with Putin, who holds the high cards in the Ukraine conflict.

Otherwise, we discussed how Trump’s incoming team differs from the arrogant prima donnas whom he assembled in his first term. For this it was useful to consider impressions from Marco Rubio’s Senate hearings yesterday.

I have little doubt that viewers will find here much food for thought, whether they agree with me or not.

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

„Dialogue Works“-Ausgabe vom 16. Januar: Russlands nächster Schritt, der Trump-Faktor erschüttert Washington

Im heutigen Chat mit Gastgeber Nima Alkhorshid wurde viel besprochen. Wir begannen mit der Frage, was uns die offenbar erfolgreiche Intervention von Donald Trumps Abgesandtem bei den Waffenstillstandsgesprächen im Gazastreifen darüber sagen kann, wie Trumps Wahlversprechen, ein Zeitalter des Friedens einzuleiten, verwirklicht werden können. Dies führte natürlich zu einer Diskussion darüber, wie die Herausforderung, die Kontrolle über Netanjahu zu übernehmen, wo die USA die Oberhand gehabt hätten, wenn Biden dies jemals hätte ausüben wollen (was er nicht tat), und die Herausforderung, mit Putin umzugehen, der im Ukraine-Konflikt die Trümpfe in der Hand hält, bewältigt werden kann.

Ansonsten haben wir darüber gesprochen, wie sich Trumps neues Team von den arroganten Primadonnen unterscheidet, die er in seiner ersten Amtszeit um sich versammelt hatte. Dazu war es nützlich, die Eindrücke von Marco Rubios gestriger Anhörungen im Senat zu berücksichtigen.

Ich habe wenig Zweifel, dass die Zuschauer hier viel Stoff zum Nachdenken finden werden, ob sie mir zustimmen oder nicht.

Transcript submitted by a reader

Napolitano: 0:32
Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for “Judging Freedom”. Today is Wednesday, January 15th, 2025. Professor Gilbert Doctorow joins us now. Professor Doctorow, always a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you for joining us. In your ability to read the tea leaves in the Kremlin, what do you think the Kremlin thinks about the end of the war in Ukraine? How close do they think Russia is to achieving its military goals?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 1:10
Well, the tea leaves are giving us various readings. I was surprised when the premier talk show that I follow quite closely, “Vladimir Solovyov” came back on air on Sunday.

And he and his panelists were jubilant, celebrating what Trump had said at Mar-a-Lago in his big press conference regarding Greenland, regarding Panama, and his other statements, because they– they rejoiced, because they saw that he had completely scrapped the democratic ideology, Democratic Party ideology, of foreign policy based on values and was speaking the language that they understand best, they and the Chinese, called realpolitik, that he had no embarrassment about saying what America wants in its own neighborhood.

They took this to mean, as well, that there will be a meeting with Trump, whether it comes in a few weeks or it comes in April or it comes in August. They expect there to be a summit, and they anticipate that Ukraine will not be on the agenda, because the Ukraine problem will be allowed to be solved by the Russians themselves. Instead, the subject for the summit will be a new security architecture for Europe and maybe more broadly for the world, based on the kind of Yalta II principle, which is real politik in practice, the good old days of spheres of influence, which Mr. Biden and the cold warriors had denied entirely when they proceeded up to Russia’s borders.

Napolitano: 2:54
How much longer do you think _they_ think this war will go on? I mean, at some point Russia will say, we’ve achieved our goals. That’s one less negotiating lever that General Kellogg will have. And as you say, this will be off the table by the time presidents Putin and Trump meet. But when do you think this will happen?

We are getting reports in the West, sorry for the triple question, this morning that the Ukrainian military is now utterly incapable of resisting the Russian military. Do you get the same reports?

Doctorow: 3:38
There’s a little bit more to it than that. It’s not just the Ukrainian weakness, it’s Russian strategic brilliance. The “Financial Times”, none other than the Russia-hating “Financial Times”, has had a number of articles on front page in the last few days explaining what the Russians are up to.

And to be precise about it, the idea that Russia would lose time and lose a lot of men in urban warfare, taking over the strategically valuable hub of Pokrovsk. This is what everybody’s been talking about. And this was in our mind when we were saying that the war could go on, well, it could go on for a while longer. It won’t. The Russians have now made a move around Pokrovsk in direction of Dnepropetrovsk, which is I think the third-largest city in Ukraine, and they are cutting off Pokrovsk from its supplies, so that the whole Ukrainian defense force sitting in Pokrovsk will probably be lucky to withdraw at night and get out of there. So the Russians may well take the city without storming it.

4:52
That gives you a sense. Once they move past Pokrovsk, they have a straight line to Dnieper. Therefore, what I’m saying is that the Russians may solve the capitulation question for the Ukrainians in a much shorter time than we had envisaged, by this strategic brilliance that they’re now demonstrating.

Now let’s consider something else. Today’s news, or yesterday’s news, was the remarks of Nikolai Patrushev, who was the secretary, as they call it, of the Russian National Security Council. He was removed from that position. He’s three years older than Putin, and he’s moved into a more, quieter place. But he remains a close advisor to Vladimir Putin. And he was interviewed by Moskovsky Komsomolets, This is a Soviet-era title for daily newspaper that still has a very large following and very good quality journalists. They interviewed him.

5:55
The key remark he made is that Ukraine may cease to exist during 2025. That is the answer to your question. I mentioned before the kind of jubilation over the fact that Trump shows himself to be a realist and recognize the rules that Russians like, but now we have the other side of the story. It’s a very clear message to Washington that the problem can be solved much more quickly in our favor than you imagine.

Napolitano:
Is that him on the frame, Chris, if you’ll put that back up, is that the gentleman of whom you speak?

Doctorow:
Yes, that is Mr. Patrushev. And he was saying that– he didn’t explain exactly what he meant by “cease to exist”. But he gave us a hint. He said, well, you know, these cities, several cities that really have, they’re Russian-oriented. And they, we could take them over.

And the first one he mentioned was precisely Dnepropetrovsk, which is where the Russian army is headed right now. And then he added to that Kharkov, which they’re also closing in on. That’s in the northeast, right on the Russian border, from which these assaults on Belgorod region and Kursk region have been staged. And then he said, “Oh, and by the way, Nikolaev and Odessa”, these are Russian cities where there’s resistance to the regime in Kiev that was installed by an illegal coup d’etat.

7:26
Well, if you look at the map, what he’s saying is, it’s not his own personal opinion alone. What he was describing, the cities he named, are very widely discussed among Russian patriots as what they want the war to end with, which is the whole Black Sea littoral of Ukraine. That would give them a direct line of supply to the Russian-populated eastern part of Moldova, and that’s called Transnistria. This has been in the news recently because of the cutoff of gas through Ukraine to that area.

8:06
In any case, the Russians have peacekeepers there. They would like to have a secure line to it. And if they take over Nikolai and Odessa, then it’s part of their territory. And the last thing I’ll say about Mr. Patrushev, and he said another country may disappear this year, a country called Moldova. It may just disappear, pure and simple, which means the Russians gobble it up, or it may disappear into another state, which is what the Russians really would prefer, the other state being Romania, which– it always was part of Romania, except until Mr. Stalin had different ideas. So it’s quite conceivable that Moldova will in fact depart to Romania, and the Russians will get what they want.

Napolitano: 8:49
Right, a couple of follow-up questions. Is it more likely than not that what this gentleman says reveals the thinking of Vladimir Putin?

Doctorow:
Mr. Putin can juggle a number of balls in the air at the same time. This is one of them. It’s not the only one. I think he’s also quite happy to believe that they can find a common language with Trump and work something out. But if failing that, this is where the Russians will go.

Napolitano:
All right. But when he says Ukraine– Chris, can you put the headline up again? I want to quote it to precisely– when he says Ukraine may cease to exist in 2025, does he mean all of Ukraine or just the Eastern, Russian part, which has been the subject of the special military operation?

Doctorow; 9:39
Well, I think we’re in a name game, because certainly something of the present- or the 1992-defined Ukraine will continue to exist. That’s clear. Russia has no intention of gobbling up Ukraine, for its own security reasons. But what would you call what’s left over after the Russians take what they want and other neighboring countries like Hungary and Romania take the bits and pieces that they want, will it still be called Ukraine? That’s an interesting question.

Napolitano:
I want to play a clip for you, both Secretary Blinken and National Security Advisor Sullivan have been giving these farewell, boost-up-our-own-legacy interviews in the past couple of weeks.

Secretary Blinken gave one that went on for about 90 minutes to the “New York Times”. And though it’s a print publication, it was a video interview. We’re not going to play all 90 minutes, but we do have a one-minute clip of Secretary Blinken in which, in my view, he says utterly outrageous things, almost as if he’s been on a cloud for the past three years. But I’d like your comments on it. Secretary Blinken from about six or seven days ago.

Blinken: 10:58
Where the line is drawn on the map, at this point, I don’t think is fundamentally going to change very much. The real question is, can we make sure that Ukraine is in a position to move forward strongly?

Interviewer:
You mean that the areas that Russia controls, you feel will have to be ceded?

Blinken: 11:12
Ceded is not the question. The question is, the line as a practical matter in the foreseeable future is unlikely to move very much. Ukraine’s claim on that territory will always be there. And the question is, will they find ways, with the support of others, to regain territory that’s been lost? I think the critical thing now going forward is this: if there is going to be a resolution or at least a near-term resolution, because it’s unlikely that Putin will give up on his ambitions, If there’s a ceasefire, then in Putin’s mind, the ceasefire is likely to give him time to rest, to refit, to re-attack at some point in the future. So what’s going to be critical to make sure that any ceasefire that comes about is actually enduring is to make sure that Ukraine has the capacity going forward to deter further aggression. And that can come in many forms.

12:07
It could come through NATO, and we put Ukraine on a path to NATO membership. It could come through security assurances, commitments, guarantees by different countries to make sure that Russia knows that if it reattacks, it’s going to have a big problem. That, I think, is going to be critical to making sure that any deal that’s negotiated actually endures and then allows Ukraine the space, the time to grow strong as a country.

Napolitano: 12:30
So here are my takeaways. And of course, I invite yours, Professor Doctorow, which is fine. We played this for you. Regain territory that has already been lost — he’s crazy. Ceasefire — he’s totally misread President Putin. Ukraine on a path to NATO — if he honestly believes that, he really has been in another world the past three years. Your take, sir.

Doctorow: 12:58
Well, I subscribe to the views that two other members of the “Judging Freedom” team have been saying in past weeks. I’m thinking now of Larry Johnson and Ray Macgovern. They’ve been saying that the head of the CIA, Burns, has been lying to the White House, telling them what they want to hear. And essentially, been passing along to the White House and to Congress, to federal entities that consult with the CIA. They’ve been passing along Kiev’s propaganda, all of it. Everything that you cited, they could have taken, they certainly did take, verbatim from Mr. Zelensky’s office.

13:42
Therefore, it’s not something absurd that Blinken has thought up or retained. No, no, it’s something he’s receiving in his daily briefings, clearly. And there’s the problem. It’s easy to say, yes, the deep state is behind this, this kind of delusional thinking. But I’d like to say one thing on behalf of the deep state.

The deep state is not a permanent condition. The deep state is in principle a staying power or a factor in consistency from one party in power to another over a long period of time. As a principle, the deep state is a moderator so that excessive swings in policy don’t take place. However, the deep state itself can be subject to purges. And Dick Cheney purged the American deep state.

14:36
Any balance of real Russian expertise was chased out of the CIA and out of other intelligence agencies, because their expertise was no longer needed, according to Dick Cheney. Instead, they need only experts in Islamic extremism and Arabic speakers. And so the Russian experts were sent home on retirement and they were not replaced.

Napolitano: 15:03
All right, I get that, but why do you think Blinken would say, other than pure propaganda purposes, “we put Ukraine on a path to NATO”? Ukraine is as far away from NATO as it is from the moon right now.

As I was saying, he’s preparing his lectures for Columbia. These are all self-justification. They’re false, they have no relation to reality, but they are his narrative, that is his identification, and he can’t walk away from it because people will pin it on him if he tries to. Therefore, he’s taking pride in these absurdities and he will be continuing to say that for a long time. That is not unusual among the political losers.

Napolitano: 15:47
All right. Here’s another absurdity. President Zelensky just a few moments ago, while we were on air, Professor Doctorow, to the Polish press agency, quote, “The sooner Ukraine becomes a member of the EU and NATO, the sooner we will all achieve geopolitical stability.” Now that must be propaganda. He surely, if he has any rational ability between his ears, cannot expect that that will happen.

Doctorow:
Well, the British have an expression to cover eventualities like this. They say in a kind of snide way, “You would say that, wouldn’t you”. Of course you said that.

Napolitamo:
Do you know, my father, God rest his soul, used to say that to me as a kid at the dinner table when I said things that sort of upset the prevailing conversation. Go ahead, please.

Doctorow: 16:50
Of course, he has been a salesman within Ukraine. And I wouldn’t say this, that these remarks by Zelensky had Washington or Berlin or London as the addressee. They were addressed to his own people. He’s trying to prove to them to continue the faith, because he is going to bring them into the Holy Land, meaning the EU and NATO.

Napolitano: 17:17
All right. Here’s a follow-up. This interview is going on as we speak, Professor Doctorow. This is President Zelensky:

“Donald Trump’s inauguration in five days. We count on active cooperation in the spirit of peace through strength. We count on maintaining sanctions imposed on Russia.”

Where is he getting that from?

Doctorow: 17:45
As I said, it’s self-justification to his own people, to explain why they should lower the mobilization age and steal from the cradle, as we could say. This is deeply opposed within the country. There are a lot of people who would like to lynch him for that. And so he’s trying to justify himself to this vast silent opposition to what he’s about to implement, this broad mobilization.

Napolitano: 18:13
Here’s– I was talking to you about the farewell interviews. Jake Sullivan did a series of them– And here’s a brief clip from National Security Advisor for five more days, Jake Sullivan, on Russian sanctions. Chris, cut number two.

Sullivan: 18:33
If we had sanctioned Russia’s oil 18 months ago, at a time when oil prices were high, gas prices were high, it would have meant a spike at the pump in a way that would have put pain on working people in the United States.

Today, oil prices are much lower. The oil market globally is very well supplied. And so we have an opportunity to hit Putin in his pocketbook without hitting the American people in theirs. What we’re giving the incoming team, the incoming administration is real leverage in a negotiation.

Napolitano: 19:06
I think the incoming administration wants Russia to be as prosperous as it wants the United States to be, and for that prosperity to be manifested through the free market. What do you say?

Doctorow:
Well, the remarks from Sullivan, they show his utter incapacity to think strategically. What he was describing was tactics to cover up a strategic move, and one is not sufficient to the other. He is ignoring completely the state of the war. The whole thing is about a war, And the war is reaching its climax and its culmination.

19:48
When these penalties, sanctions, had they been introduced 18 months ago, as he said, they could have caused Russia a lot of harm. They were not, for strictly domestic political reasons in the States, which overruled military considerations that would have had a bearing on the status of the war in Ukraine. So he’s imposing them at a point where they make no sense. They’re imposing them in the belief that the war will go on to 2027. It will not.

20:21
Going back to the question you asked me, the war will end in 2025. Therefore, the notion that these sanctions could impact Russia’s ability to conduct the war is utter folly. He has no strategic thinking.

Napolitano:
In response to what President Zelensky has been saying, again, as we speak, Professor Doctorow, the Polish Prime Minister Tusk said, quote, “The Polish presidency of the EU Council will break the deadlock.” He’s referring to the decision over Ukraine entering the EU.

“We will work together with Ukraine and our European partners to accelerate the accession process.” This interview is going on in Poland even as we speak.

21:13
Question: is the Kremlin opposed to Ukraine in both the EU and NATO, or just NATO, since the latter purports to be so weak, a military organization and the former purports to be administrative and financial?

Doctorow:
Well, I don’t think this is the uppermost in the minds of the Kremlin at this moment. They have more important things to do to end the war.

As to what will be left of Ukraine, that will have a decisive influence on who wants it. It’s a basket case that the Russians proceeding as they are now will leave what whatever rump Ukraine is as a basket case. That’s one issue. The other issue is: Mr. Tusk is assuming a unanimity of opinion within the EU, which is collapsing as we talk.

The likelihood of other countries joining the group of Fico in Slovakia and Orban in Hungary is rising with the day. I don’t know if indeed the Alternative for Deutschland will succeed in breaking the cordon sanitaire and in having a role in the coalition, not to mention possibly its own majority government in Germany. That’s improbable. But nonetheless, this is significant change in the thinking of the most important country in Europe, which is facilitated, which is magnified by Trump and his emissary in this case, which is his Twitter, X colleague. The changes that are going on since this interview with Weidel was held last week– which was featuring, promoting her to the German public and to the American public– that change is only beginning to be felt.

23:18
She has a 20 percent that is the Alternative for Deutschland, which is against the sanctions, which is for restoration of the Nord Stream 1 pipeline. They have 20 percent; the long-established centrist party of the Christian Democrats has 31 percent. We’ll see how this difference narrows in the coming six weeks.

Napolitano:
Right.

Doctorow:
But with American support, I think we will see a significant change in the German political language. So Tusk is just whistling in the dark.

Napolitano: 23:55
Professor Doctorow, thank you very much, my dear friend. Always wonderful, wonderful incitement from your very fertile brain. Much appreciated. We look forward to seeing you next week.

Doctorow:
Well, thanks so much. Bye-bye.

Napolitano:
Of course. Thank you. And coming up later today at noon, Aaron Mate; at 1 o’clock, Kivork Almasian with the latest on whatever is going on in Syria and between Hamas and Israel; at two o’clock, Pepe Escobar; at three o’clock. Phil Giraldi.

24:28
Judge Napolitano for “Judging Freedom”.

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Transkript eines Lesers

Napolitano: 0:32
Hallo zusammen. Hier ist Judge Andrew Napolitano mit „Judging Freedom“. Heute ist Mittwoch, der 15. Januar 2025. Professor Gilbert Doctorow ist jetzt bei uns. Professor Doctorow, es ist mir immer eine Freude, mein lieber Freund. Danke, dass Sie bei uns sind. Sie können ja im Kaffesatz des Kremls lesen. Was glauben Sie, denkt der Kreml über das Ende des Krieges in der Ukraine? Wie nah ist Russland ihrer Meinung nach daran, seine militärischen Ziele zu erreichen?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 1:10
Nun, der Kaffesatz gibt uns verschiedene Hinweise. Ich war überrascht, als die führende Talkshow, die ich ziemlich genau verfolge, „Vladimir Solovyov“, am Sonntag wieder auf Sendung ging.

Und er und seine Diskussionsteilnehmer waren begeistert und feierten, was Trump in Mar-a-Lago in seiner großen Pressekonferenz über Grönland, über Panama und seine anderen Äußerungen gesagt hatte. Sie freuten sich, weil sie sahen, dass er die demokratische Ideologie, die Ideologie der Demokratischen Partei, einer auf Werten basierenden Außenpolitik, vollständig über Bord geworfen hat und die Sprache sprach, die sie am besten verstehen, sie und die Chinesen, die Realpolitik genannt wird, dass er sich nicht schämte, zu sagen, was Amerika in seiner eigenen Nachbarschaft will.

Sie nahmen dies auch so auf, dass es ein Treffen mit Trump geben wird, ob in ein paar Wochen, im April oder im August. Sie erwarten ein Gipfeltreffen und gehen davon aus, dass die Ukraine nicht auf der Tagesordnung stehen wird, weil das Problem der Ukraine von den Russen selbst gelöst werden darf. Stattdessen wird das Thema des Gipfels eine neue Sicherheitsarchitektur für Europa und vielleicht sogar für die ganze Welt sein, basierend auf dem Prinzip von Jalta II, das Realpolitik in der Praxis ist, die guten alten Tage der Einflusssphären, die Herr Biden und die Kalten Krieger völlig verleugnet hatten, als sie an die Grenzen Russlands vorgerückt sind.

Napolitano: 2:54
Wie lange, glauben Sie, glauben die noch, dass dieser Krieg andauert? Ich meine, irgendwann wird Russland sagen, wir haben unsere Ziele erreicht. Das ist ein Verhandlungshebel weniger, den General Kellogg dann hat. Und wie Sie sagen, wird das vom Tisch sein, wenn sich die Präsidenten Putin und Trump treffen. Aber wann, glauben Sie, wird das passieren?

Wir erhalten heute Morgen Berichte aus dem Westen, entschuldigen Sie die dreifache Frage, dass das ukrainische Militär nun völlig unfähig ist, dem russischen Militär Widerstand zu leisten. Erhalten Sie die gleichen Berichte?

Doctorow: 3:38
Es steckt noch ein bisschen mehr dahinter. Es ist nicht nur die Schwäche der Ukrainer, es ist die strategische Brillanz der Russen. Die „Financial Times“, niemand anderes als die russlandhassende „Financial Times“, hat in den letzten Tagen eine Reihe von Artikeln auf der Titelseite veröffentlicht, in denen erklärt wird, was die Russen vorhaben.

Und um genau zu sein, die Idee, dass Russland Zeit verlieren und viele Männer in Häuserkämpfen verlieren würde, wenn es das strategisch wertvolle Zentrum Pokrowsk einnimmt. Darüber haben alle gesprochen. Und das hatten wir im Hinterkopf, als wir sagten, dass der Krieg noch eine Weile andauern könnte. Das wird aber nicht passieren. Die Russen haben sich nun um Pokrowsk herum in Richtung Dnepropetrowsk bewegt, der drittgrößten Stadt der Ukraine, und sie schneiden Pokrowsk von seinen Versorgungsquellen ab, sodass die gesamte ukrainische Verteidigungsstreitmacht, die in Pokrowsk stationiert ist, wahrscheinlich froh sein wird, sich nachts zurückziehen und von dort verschwinden zu können. Die Russen könnten die Stadt also durchaus einnehmen, ohne sie zu stürmen.

4:52
Das gibt Ihnen einen Eindruck. Sobald sie an Pokrowsk vorbeigekommen sind, haben sie eine gerade Linie zum Dnjepr. Was ich damit sagen will, ist, dass die Russen die Kapitulationsfrage für die Ukrainer durch diese strategische Brillanz, die sie jetzt demonstrieren, möglicherweise in viel kürzerer Zeit lösen können, als wir es uns vorgestellt hatten.

Betrachten wir nun etwas anderes. Die Nachrichten von heute oder von gestern waren die Äußerungen von Nikolai Patruschew, der der Sekretär, wie es heißt, des russischen Nationalen Sicherheitsrates war. Er wurde aus dieser Position entfernt. Er ist drei Jahre älter als Putin und hat einen ruhigeren Posten übernommen. Aber er bleibt ein enger Berater von Wladimir Putin. Und er wurde von Moskovsky Komsomolets interviewt, einer Tageszeitung, die noch immer eine sehr große Fangemeinde hat und sehr gute Journalisten beschäftigt. Sie haben ihn interviewt.

5:55
Die wichtigste Bemerkung, die er gemacht hat, ist, dass die Ukraine im Jahr 2025 aufhören könnte zu existieren. Das ist die Antwort auf Ihre Frage. Ich habe bereits die Art von Jubel darüber erwähnt, dass Trump sich als Realist erweist und die Regeln anerkennt, die den Russen gefallen. Aber jetzt haben wir die andere Seite der Geschichte. Es ist eine sehr klare Botschaft an Washington, dass das Problem viel schneller zu unseren Gunsten gelöst werden kann, als Sie sich vorstellen können.

Napolitano:
Ist das er auf dem Bild, Chris, wenn Sie das wieder hochladen, ist das der Herr, von dem Sie sprichen?

Doctorow:
Ja, das ist Herr Patruschew. Er hat nicht genau erklärt, was er mit „aufhören zu existieren“ meinte. Aber er gab uns einen Hinweis. Er sagte: „Nun, wissen Sie, diese Städte, mehrere Städte, die wirklich russisch orientiert sind, wir könnten sie übernehmen.

Und die erste Stadt, die er erwähnte, war genau Dnepropetrowsk, wohin die russische Armee gerade unterwegs ist. Und dann fügte er Charkiw hinzu, auf das sie sich ebenfalls zubewegen. Das liegt im Nordosten, direkt an der russischen Grenze, von wo aus diese Angriffe auf die Regionen Belgorod und Kursk durchgeführt wurden. Und dann sagte er: „Ach ja, und übrigens, Nikolaev und Odessa“, das sind russische Städte, in denen es Widerstand gegen das Regime in Kiew gibt, das durch einen illegalen Staatsstreich an die Macht gekommen ist.

7:26
Nun, wenn man sich die Karte ansieht, dann sagt er damit, dass es nicht nur seine persönliche Meinung ist. Was er beschrieb, die Städte, die er nannte, werden unter russischen Patrioten sehr häufig als das diskutiert, womit sie den Krieg beenden wollen, nämlich mit der gesamten Schwarzmeerküste der Ukraine. Das würde ihnen eine direkte Versorgungslinie zum russisch besiedelten östlichen Teil Moldawiens verschaffen, und das nennt sich Transnistrien. Das war kürzlich in den Nachrichten, weil die Gaszufuhr durch die Ukraine in dieses Gebiet unterbrochen wurde.

8:06
Auf jeden Fall haben die Russen dort Friedenstruppen. Sie hätten gerne eine sichere Verbindung dorthin. Und wenn sie Nikolai und Odessa übernehmen, dann ist es Teil ihres Territoriums. Und das Letzte, was ich über Herrn Patruschew sagen möchte, ist, dass er sagte, ein anderes Land könnte in diesem Jahr verschwinden, ein Land namens Moldawien. Es könnte einfach verschwinden, schlicht und einfach, was bedeutet, dass die Russen es verschlingen, oder es könnte in einem anderen Staat verschwinden, was die Russen wirklich bevorzugen würden, wobei der andere Staat Rumänien wäre, das – es war immer Teil Rumäniens, bis Herr Stalin andere Pläne hatte. Es ist also durchaus vorstellbar, dass Moldawien tatsächlich zu Rumänien übergeht und die Russen bekommen, was sie wollen.

Napolitano: 8:49
Richtig, ein paar Anschlussfragen. Ist es eher wahrscheinlich oder eher unwahrscheinlich, dass das, was dieser Herr sagt, die Denkweise von Wladimir Putin offenbart?

Doctorow:
Herr Putin kann mehrere Bälle gleichzeitig in der Luft jonglieren. Dies ist einer davon. Es ist nicht der einzige. Ich denke, er ist auch ziemlich froh zu glauben, dass sie eine gemeinsame Sprache mit Trump finden und etwas ausarbeiten können. Aber wenn dies scheitert, werden die Russen hier ansetzen.

Napolitano:
In Ordnung. Aber wenn er sagt, dass die Ukraine – Chris, können Sie die Überschrift noch einmal einblenden? Ich möchte sie genau zitieren – wenn er sagt, dass die Ukraine 2025 aufhören könnte zu existieren, meint er dann die gesamte Ukraine oder nur den östlichen, russischen Teil, der Gegenstand der speziellen Militäroperation war?

Doctorow; 9:39
Nun, ich denke, wir spielen hier mit Namen, denn sicherlich wird etwas von der heutigen oder der 1992 definierten Ukraine weiter bestehen bleiben. Das ist klar. Russland hat aus Gründen der eigenen Sicherheit nicht die Absicht, die Ukraine zu verschlingen. Aber wie würden Sie das nennen, was übrig bleibt, nachdem die Russen sich genommen haben, was sie wollen, und andere Nachbarländer wie Ungarn und Rumänien sich die Teile genommen haben, die sie wollen? Wird es dann immer noch Ukraine heißen? Das ist eine interessante Frage.

Napolitano:
Ich möchte Ihnen einen Clip vorspielen. Sowohl Außenminister Blinken als auch der Nationale Sicherheitsberater Sullivan haben in den letzten Wochen diese Abschieds- und Aufschwungsinterviews gegeben.

Außenminister Blinken gab der „New York Times“ ein Interview, das etwa 90 Minuten dauerte. Und obwohl es sich um eine Printpublikation handelt, war es ein Videointerview. Wir werden nicht die gesamten 90 Minuten abspielen, aber wir haben einen einminütigen Clip von Außenminister Blinken, in dem er meiner Meinung nach völlig unverschämte Dinge sagt, fast so, als hätte er die letzten drei Jahre auf einer Wolke verbracht. Aber ich würde gerne Ihre Meinung dazu hören. Außenminister Blinken von vor etwa sechs oder sieben Tagen.

Blinken: 10:58
Ich glaube nicht, dass sich an der Stelle, an der die Grenze auf der Karte gezogen wird, grundlegend viel ändern wird. Die eigentliche Frage ist, ob wir sicherstellen können, dass die Ukraine in der Lage ist, sich stark voranzubewegen.

Interviewer:
Sie meinen, dass die Gebiete, die Russland kontrolliert, Ihrer Meinung nach abgetreten werden müssen?

Blinken: 11:12
Abtreten ist nicht die Frage. Die Frage ist, dass sich die Grenze in absehbarer Zukunft in der Praxis wahrscheinlich nicht sehr stark verschieben wird. Der Anspruch der Ukraine auf dieses Gebiet wird immer bestehen bleiben. Und die Frage ist, ob sie mit Unterstützung anderer Wege finden werden, verlorenes Gebiet zurückzugewinnen. Ich denke, das Entscheidende für die Zukunft ist Folgendes: Wenn es eine Lösung geben wird oder zumindest eine kurzfristige Lösung, denn es ist unwahrscheinlich, dass Putin seine Ambitionen aufgeben wird, dann wird ein Waffenstillstand Putin in seinen Augen wahrscheinlich Zeit geben, sich auszuruhen, sich neu zu rüsten und irgendwann in der Zukunft erneut anzugreifen. Entscheidend für die Nachhaltigkeit eines Waffenstillstands ist daher, dass die Ukraine in der Lage ist, weitere Aggressionen abzuwehren. Dies kann auf unterschiedliche Weise geschehen.

12:07
Es könnte über die NATO kommen, und wir bringen die Ukraine auf den Weg zur NATO-Mitgliedschaft. Es könnte durch Sicherheitszusagen, Verpflichtungen und Garantien verschiedener Länder geschehen, um sicherzustellen, dass Russland weiß, dass es bei einem erneuten Angriff ein großes Problem bekommen wird. Das ist meiner Meinung nach entscheidend, um sicherzustellen, dass jede ausgehandelte Vereinbarung auch tatsächlich Bestand hat und der Ukraine dann den Raum und die Zeit gibt, als Land stark zu werden.

Napolitano: 12:30
Hier sind meine Schlussfolgerungen. Und natürlich bitte ich Sie um ihre, Professor Doctorow. Wir haben das für Sie abgespielt. Bereits verlorenes Gebiet zurückgewinnen – er ist verrückt. Waffenstillstand – er hat Präsident Putin völlig falsch eingeschätzt. Die Ukraine auf dem Weg in die NATO – wenn er das ehrlich glaubt, hat er in den letzten drei Jahren wirklich in einer anderen Welt gelebt. Ihre Meinung, Sir.

Doctorow: 12:58
Nun, ich schließe mich den Ansichten an, die zwei andere Mitglieder des „Judging Freedom“-Teams in den vergangenen Wochen geäußert haben. Ich denke jetzt an Larry Johnson und Ray Macgovern. Die haben gesagt, dass der Chef der CIA, Burns, das Weiße Haus belogen und denen gesagt hat, was sie hören wollen. Und im Wesentlichen haben sie die Informationen an das Weiße Haus und den Kongress sowie an Bundesbehörden, die sich mit der CIA beraten, weitergegeben. Sie haben die Propaganda Kiews weitergegeben, alles. Alles, was Sie zitiert haben, hätten sie wörtlich aus dem Büro von Herrn Selensky übernehmen können, und das haben sie auch getan.

13:42
Es ist also nichts Absurdes, was Blinken sich ausgedacht oder beibehalten hat. Nein, nein, es ist etwas, das er in seinen täglichen Briefings erhält, ganz klar. Und da liegt das Problem. Es ist leicht zu sagen, ja, der Schattenstaat steckt dahinter, diese Art von Wahnvorstellungen. Aber ich möchte eines im Namen des Schattenstaats sagen.

Der „tiefe Staat“ ist kein Dauerzustand. Der „tiefe Staat“ ist im Prinzip ein Faktor, der über einen langen Zeitraum hinweg von einer an der Macht befindlichen Partei zur nächsten bestehen bleibt. Im Prinzip ist der „tiefe Staat“ ein Moderator, der dafür sorgt, dass es nicht zu übermäßigen Schwankungen in der Politik kommt. Der „tiefe Staat“ selbst kann jedoch Säuberungen unterliegen. Und Dick Cheney hat seinerzeit den amerikanischen „tiefen Staat“ gesäubert.

14:36
Jegliches Gleichgewicht an echtem russischem Fachwissen wurde aus der CIA und aus anderen Geheimdiensten vertrieben, weil ihr Fachwissen laut Dick Cheney nicht mehr benötigt wurde. Stattdessen werden nur noch Experten für islamischen Extremismus und arabische Sprecher benötigt. Und so wurden die russischen Experten in den Ruhestand geschickt und nicht ersetzt.

Napolitano: 15:03
In Ordnung, das verstehe ich, aber warum, glauben Sie, würde Blinken, abgesehen von reinen Propagandazwecken, sagen: „Wir haben die Ukraine auf den Weg in die NATO gebracht“? Die Ukraine ist derzeit genauso weit von der NATO entfernt wie vom Mond.

Doctorow:
Wie gesagt, er bereitet seine Vorlesungen für Columbia vor. Das sind alles Selbstrechtfertigungen. Sie sind falsch, sie haben keinen Bezug zur Realität, aber sie sind seine Narrative, das ist seine Identifikation, und er kann sich nicht davon lösen, weil die Leute ihn dafür kritisieren werden, wenn er es versucht. Deshalb ist er stolz auf diese Absurditäten und er wird das noch lange Zeit sagen. Das ist bei politischen Verlierern nicht ungewöhnlich.

Napolitano: 15:47
In Ordnung. Hier ist eine weitere Absurdität. Präsident Zelensky hat vor wenigen Augenblicken, während wir auf Sendung waren, Professor Doctorow, gegenüber der polnischen Presseagentur gesagt: „Je früher die Ukraine Mitglied der EU und der NATO wird, desto eher werden wir alle geopolitische Stabilität erreichen.“ Das muss Propaganda sein. Wenn er auch nur einen Funken Verstand hat, kann er doch nicht erwarten, dass das passiert.

Doctorow:
Nun, die Briten haben einen Ausdruck, um Eventualitäten wie diese abzudecken. Sie sagen auf eine Art abfällige Weise: „Das müssten Sie sagen, nicht wahr? Natürlich haben Sie das gesagt.“

Napolitamo:
Wissen Sie, mein Vater, Gott hab ihn selig, sagte mir das immer als Kind am Esstisch, wenn ich Dinge sagte, die das vorherrschende Gespräch irgendwie störten. Fahren Sie bitte fort.

Doctorow: 16:50
Natürlich war er als Verkäufer in der Ukraine tätig. Und ich würde nicht sagen, dass diese Äußerungen von Selensky an Washington, Berlin oder London gerichtet waren. Sie waren an sein eigenes Volk gerichtet. Er versucht, ihnen zu beweisen, dass sie weiterhin Vertrauen haben sollen, denn er wird sie ins gelobte Land bringen, d.h. in die EU und die NATO.

Napolitano: 17:17
In Ordnung. Hier ist eine Fortsetzung. Dieses Interview läuft, während wir sprechen, Professor Doctorow. Hier ist Präsident Zelensky.

Zelensky:
„Donald Trumps Amtseinführung in fünf Tagen. Wir zählen auf aktive Zusammenarbeit im Geiste von Frieden durch Stärke. Wir zählen auf die Aufrechterhaltung der gegen Russland verhängten Sanktionen.“

Napolitano:
Woher nimmt er das?

Doctorow: 17:45
Wie gesagt, es ist eine Selbstrechtfertigung gegenüber seinem eigenen Volk, um zu erklären, warum sie das Mobilisierungsalter senken und die Menschen quasi von der Wiege an bestehlen sollten, wie man sagen könnte. Dies stößt im Land auf heftigen Widerstand. Es gibt viele Menschen, die ihn dafür lynchen würden. Und so versucht er, sich gegenüber dieser riesigen schweigenden Opposition für das zu rechtfertigen, was er umsetzen will, diese umfassende Mobilisierung.

Napolitano: 18:13
Ich habe mit Ihnen über die Abschiedsinterviews gesprochen. Jake Sullivan hat eine Reihe von ihnen geführt – und hier ist ein kurzer Ausschnitt von Jake Sullivan, der noch fünf Tage lang nationaler Sicherheitsberater ist, über die russischen Sanktionen. Chris, Schnitt Nummer zwei.

Sullivan: 18:33
Wenn wir vor 18 Monaten, als die Öl- und Gaspreise hoch waren, Sanktionen gegen das russische Öl verhängt hätten, hätte dies zu einem Anstieg an der Zapfsäule geführt, der für die arbeitende Bevölkerung in den Vereinigten Staaten schmerzhaft gewesen wäre.

Heute sind die Ölpreise viel niedriger. Der Ölmarkt ist weltweit sehr gut versorgt. Und so haben wir die Möglichkeit, Putin in seiner Geldbörse zu treffen, ohne das amerikanische Volk in seiner zu treffen. Was wir dem neuen Team, der neuen Regierung geben, ist ein echter Hebel in einer Verhandlung.

Napolitano: 19:06
Ich denke, die neue Regierung möchte, dass Russland genauso wohlhabend ist wie die Vereinigten Staaten, und dass sich dieser Wohlstand durch den freien Markt manifestiert. Was meinen Sie?

Doctorow:
Nun, die Bemerkungen von Sullivan zeigen seine völlige Unfähigkeit, strategisch zu denken. Was er beschrieben hat, waren Taktiken, um einen strategischen Schachzug zu vertuschen, und das eine reicht nicht für das andere. Er ignoriert den Kriegszustand völlig. Es geht um einen Krieg, und der Krieg erreicht seinen Höhepunkt.

19:48
Wenn diese Strafen, Sanktionen, wie er sagte, vor 18 Monaten eingeführt worden wären, hätten sie Russland großen Schaden zufügen können. Sie wurden aus rein innenpolitischen Gründen in den USA nicht verhängt, die militärische Überlegungen, die sich auf den Stand des Krieges in der Ukraine ausgewirkt hätten, außer Kraft setzten. Er setzt sie also zu einem Zeitpunkt durch, an dem sie keinen Sinn ergeben. Sie werden in dem Glauben durchgesetzt, dass der Krieg bis 2027 andauern wird. Das wird er nicht.

20:21
Um auf Ihre Frage zurückzukommen: Der Krieg wird 2025 enden. Daher ist die Vorstellung, dass diese Sanktionen die Fähigkeit Russlands, den Krieg zu führen, beeinträchtigen könnten, völliger Unsinn. Er hat kein strategisches Denken.

Napolitano:
Als Antwort auf die Äußerungen von Präsident Zelensky, Professor Doctorow, sagte der polnische Ministerpräsident Tusk, Zitat: „Die polnische EU-Ratspräsidentschaft wird den Stillstand überwinden.“ Er bezieht sich auf die Entscheidung über den Beitritt der Ukraine zur EU.

„Wir werden mit der Ukraine und unseren europäischen Partnern zusammenarbeiten, um den Beitrittsprozess zu beschleunigen.“ Dieses Interview findet in Polen statt, während wir hier sprechen.

21:13
Frage: Ist der Kreml gegen einen Beitritt der Ukraine sowohl in der EU als auch in der NATO oder nur in der NATO, die eine so schwache militärische Organisation ist, und die Ukraine vorgibt, eine administrative und finanzielle Organisation zu sein?

Doctorow:
Nun, ich glaube nicht, dass dies derzeit die oberste Priorität des Kremls ist. Sie haben wichtigere Dinge zu tun, um den Krieg zu beenden.

Was von der Ukraine übrig bleibt, wird einen entscheidenden Einfluss darauf haben, wer sie haben will. Es ist ein hoffnungsloser Fall, weil die Russen, wenn sie so weitermachen wie bisher, die Ukraine, die dann noch übrig ist, als hoffnungslosen Fall zurücklassen werden. Das ist das eine Problem. Das andere Problem ist: Herr Tusk geht von einer einstimmigen Meinung innerhalb der EU aus, die jedoch gerade zusammenbricht, während wir hier reden.

Die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass sich weitere Länder der Gruppe um Fico in der Slowakei und Orban in Ungarn anschließen, steigt mit jedem Tag. Ich weiß nicht, ob es der Alternative für Deutschland tatsächlich gelingen wird, den Cordon sanitaire zu durchbrechen und eine Rolle in der Koalition zu spielen, ganz zu schweigen von einer eigenen Mehrheitsregierung in Deutschland. Das ist unwahrscheinlich. Aber dennoch ist dies ein bedeutender Wandel im Denken des wichtigsten Landes in Europa, der durch Trump und seinen Abgesandten in diesem Fall, nämlich seinen Twitter-Account, erleichtert und verstärkt wird. Die Veränderungen, die seit dem Interview mit Weidel letzte Woche im Gange sind – in dem sie der deutschen und der amerikanischen Öffentlichkeit vorgestellt und beworben wurde – sind erst in Ansätzen zu spüren.

23:18
Sie hat 20 Prozent, das ist die Alternative für Deutschland, die gegen die Sanktionen ist und für die Wiederherstellung der Nord Stream 1-Pipeline. Sie haben 20 Prozent; die alteingesessene Zentrumspartei der Christdemokraten hat 31 Prozent. Wir werden sehen, wie sich dieser Unterschied in den kommenden sechs Wochen verringert.

Napolitano:
Richtig.

Doctorow:
Aber mit amerikanischer Unterstützung wird sich die politische Sprache in Deutschland meiner Meinung nach deutlich verändern. Tusk pfeift also nur im Dunkeln.

Napolitano: 23:55
Professor Doctorow, vielen Dank, mein lieber Freund. Immer wieder wunderbare, wunderbare Anregungen aus Ihrem sehr fruchtbaren Gehirn. Vielen Dank. Wir freuen uns darauf, Sie nächste Woche zu sehen.

Doctorow:

Nun, vielen Dank. Bye-bye.

Napolitano:

Vielen Dank. Und später heute Mittag hören Sie Aaron Mate; um 13 Uhr Kivork Almasian mit den neuesten Informationen zu den Geschehnissen in Syrien und zwischen der Hamas und Israel; um 14 Uhr Pepe Escobar; um 15 Uhr Phil Giraldi.

Judge Napolitano für „Judging Freedom“.