Transcript submitted by a reader

NewsX – Porteous: 0:12
Hello and welcome. I am Thomas Porteous, and you’re watching the World Report. Let’s take a look at the headlines this hour. Hamas releases a new video of a Israeli hostage who was captured in the October 7 attacks. In the three and a half minute video, she appeals in Hebrew for the Israeli government to secure her release. Russia promises retaliation after Ukraine fires US-supplied missiles at the Belgorod region. Russia claims that they shot down eight ATACMS missiles in the border region. Officials in Ukraine have not yet responded to the accusation.

1:01
Thousands take to the streets in the South Korean capital Seoul to rally both for and against the arrest of impeached President Yoon Suk-yul. The arrest warrant for Yoon is set to expire at midnight on Monday. Donald Trump says no American can be happy that flags will be at half-mast when he is inaugurated later this month. Joe Biden orders US flags to be lowered for a customary 30 days on a federal [venue] in honor of late Jimmy Carter, who will be buried in a state funeral next week.

1:43
Tensions rise as Russia claims to have downed eight US-supplied ATACMS missiles fired by Ukraine into Belgorod. The Russian Ministry of Defense vowed retaliation, accusing Kiev of provoking further conflicts. Meanwhile, Moscow has demanded the United nations condemn Ukraine following an alleged drone attack in eastern Ukraine. The attack, which Russia says killed journalist Alexander Martiyanow and injured several others, occurred in the Donetsk region. Ukraine has yet to comment on either incident.

2:17
Today I am joined by Glenn Grant, ex-advisor to Ukraine’s defence minister; Gilbert Doctorow, Russian affairs expert; Professor Madhav Nalapat; and Professor Patrick Lancaster, war journalist. I want to come to you, Glenn Grant, I want to ask what is Kiev’s position on this alleged missile attack that they launched into Russian territory and how is this incident being framed by Ukrainian media?

Grant:
I’m sorry, but I don’t think it is being framed by Ukrainian media at all. I mean, this is a missile attack in the middle of a war. There are plenty of them. And you may have noticed that– you didn’t actually speak it. You may not have noticed that there’s actually another counterattack started in the Kursk area. So there would have been plenty of missile attacks going on all over the front line to try and hold down troops and to take people’s minds off actually what is happening.

3:18
In terms of the journalists being killed, this is only the 18th journalist being killed in this war compared to 150 in Syria. People don’t go out deliberately to target journalists, but war journalists, war correspondents are right up in the front line and they are going to get killed just the same as everybody else. It’s probably the most risky profession after being a soldier in the world.

NewsX: 3:45
This war obviously, there’s speculation about this war coming to an end soon. Do you see that happening? … Glenn Grant, sorry.

Grant:
Yeah, so Russia is not going to stop at the moment. Putin thinks he’s winning. He’s going to keep going and I don’t think that anything that Trump or anybody else is going to say at the moment is going to stop him.

NewsX:
Thank you very much Glenn Glant for joining us. I want to move on to Professor Madhav Nalapath. What [are] the potential consequences of Russia’s retaliation?

Nalapat:
Well, I think Zelensky will be hoping that the consequences will be such as to draw the United States directly into a conflict, thereby presenting a conundrum for incoming President Trump. I think not just Zelensky, but a lot of people within the Biden administration as well have been busily laying all kinds of land mines for Donald Trump to step on. I think they are proving to be very bad losers, not in words the way Trump was, but in practice.

5:06
So frankly, I think Zelensky is hoping that Putin will expand the war significantly and in a way create as large a zone of conflict that the United States has willy-nilly to be dragged in it and Trump will find it difficult to stop it. I don’t think that’s going to happen. I think Putin is taking a very measured stance and I think he realizes that this is a very provocative attack. There will be a very hard-hitting attack on Ukraine; there can be no doubt about that. Possibly it involves some some newer missile and other systems that the Russians have been developing. You know last time around they tested the Orshchnik; this time around they may test something else. But the reality is, I don’t think Putin is going to be drawn into a larger war. He’s not going to fall into Zelensky’s trap. And as for you know– he wants, he’s got a limited purpose in Ukraine and he’s secured about 80% of that purpose.

6:10
I agree with Glenn that he’s going to continue and it will secure 100% of that purpose, and further he would like to ensure that Ukraine never become part of any hostile alliance; that would be a given. So I think yes he is going to continue the war until these conditions are met: he gets the whole of territory that he wanted in the beginning of the war, and he makes sure that Ukraine is not in a position to join any military alliance after the war. Thank you

NewsX: 6:43
Professor Nalapat, I wanted to ask what are the potential international consequences of Russia retaliation? How might it impact NATO’s involvement?

Nalapat:
Look, I don’t think the people running NATO are going to be unwise enough to get directly involved. So far they have done a very very good job of ensuring that the whole war is kept sub-critical. So they don’t have to go in and may I point out to you that over the last one year, public opinion has soured on the Ukraine war and frankly soured on Zelensky. That’s happening also in Ukraine. So I don’t think there’s any appetite among Western voters to go in for a war with Russia. Not at all. The reality of situation is, people like George Soros, I’m sorry to say, I mean judging by many of his actions, people like Joe Biden are still stuck in the old cold war with the Soviet Union, forgetting it’s now the Russian Federation. And as a consequence, they’re giving China a free pass in the actual cold war taking place, which is Cold War 2.0 between the democracies and China.

NewsX: 8:05
Thank you very much. Patrick Lancaster, I wanted to move on to you next. Obviously, you have been on the ground in the conflict. I want to ask what kind of damage one of these ATCMS missiles [does]?

Lancaster:
Yeah, hi, glad to be on again. Those type of missiles do a lot of damage, and the fact of the permission being given to fire them deep into Russian territory of course inflamed the situation. But the situation on the ground in the war zone is now very complicated, as we know, with Russia taking a lot of territory almost every day, taking control from Ukrainian forces. And a lot of these civilians are waiting in these territories and actually welcoming Russian forces. So as far as the side from Ukraine, it’s pretty difficult for them, because the population of these territories that Russia is taking control of is actually in most times supporting the Russian forces. But the daily events here on the ground are very hard for not only the civilian population but journalists as well and first responders.

9:38
Just in the last 24 hours there has been unfortunately six journalists injured and one journalist killed just in the last 24 hours, by Ukrainian drone attacks. Because what Ukraine is doing with these drones is targeting civilian vehicles. And many journalists have been injured and killed over the last years and months, and many civilians. I myself have seen many civilians killed by these target attacks on civilian vehicles by Ukrainian forces. We’re not talking about just personal cars, but also city buses and things like that. It’s not a chance of an accident at this point. These drone operators of the Ukrainian forces are seeing the live footage from the cameras on the drone and choosing to target these civilian vehicles and civilian–

NewsX: 10:35
Gilbert Doctorow, I wanted to bring you in there. What is your response? Have you heard anything about Ukrainian civilian attacks on, yeah, Ukrainian civilian attacks?

Gilbert Doctowow, PhD:
Well, that is one of the most important features in Russian news. And the Ukrainians have used the ATACMS missiles primarily against residential buildings. This is what is called terror. When you strike, intentionally target civilians either by these kamikaze drones, as the previous panelist just described, or if you’re using larger missiles to attack residential buildings, then you are practicing terror. And there’s a reason for terror. Terror is what you do when you cannot fight on the ground, fair and square, with your troops and have any chance of winning.

11:34
The Ukrainians are not just loosing territory, they’re losing men. They’re losing men on the battlefield every day, whether it’s a thousand or two thousand, that depends on which front you’re looking at. And they are rolling back. That is most important. It’s not just the capture of territory, but the Ukrainian forces are retreating without having any place to build a secure protection for themselves. So this will keep on going to the Dnieper River.

NewsX: 12:00
So what do you say to the reports that came out of the Kursk region today of large amounts of Russian troops and even some North Korean troops being killed there?

Doctorow;
That is possible. I would take with a grain of salt any announcements coming from Kiev. They have been unapologetic propagandists from the get-go. And so it is today. All of their numbers are unbelievable. The regrettable thing is that the American intelligence agencies are carrying this phony, false information from Kiev and giving it to the American leadership, to Mr. Biden and those around him. And so American policy is being based on falsehoods which are coming from Kiev. And that is sad, if not tragic.

NewsX: 12:47
Thank you very much for joining us, all our guests today. We will now look at some more news updates from across the world.

NewsX (India) World Report: Russia’s Retaliation Threat

Having spent some time as commentator on television news in various countries, starting with a year of stardom on Russian domestic talk show broadcasts on all national channels in 2016, I am not surprised at how the welcome mat at any one studio, in any given country can be withdrawn at any time under instructions from producers who get their cues from political bosses.

In my recent experience, this is especially true of Indian broadcasting, where the mood of Prime Minister Modi swings to and fro. His seemingly pro-Russian moments as the biggest importer of sanctioned Russian oil alternate with decidedly pro-American moments relating to arms procurement and geopolitical alignment in East Asia. Meanwhile, the vast domestic audience in India seems to be disposed to accept the Washington narrative on international affairs generally and on the Russia-Ukraine war in particular. I say this upon perusing viewer comments posted on my various youtube interviews produced by the country’s leading English language international broadcaster, WION.  The many thumbs up signs were offset by a virtual shower of rotten tomatoes from marginally English fluent viewers who accused the station of being a ‘Putin outlet.’

In fact, the largest audience I have had on any television station worldwide was recorded with WION, where a 10- minute featured interview about the likelihood of the Ukraine war escalating to a nuclear exchange released three months ago received half a million ‘hits.’  By comparison, my high-water mark with the most authoritative US-based political interview channel, ‘Judging Freedom,’ is 150,000 hits, while the norm ranges between 50,000 and 90,000.

 Regrettably after I reached the 500,000 hits record of popularity on WION, their invitations to appear on air dropped off.  That new policy came from on high, because their lead program host had reached out to me on LinkedIn, asking to join my Contact list, so I was doing well at the working level.

In the months since, another Indian broadcaster, News X, produced within the communications corporation ITV (India), has stepped into the breach. I offer in the link below my latest appearance on their news wrap-up of yesterday. Their format typically has been to invite a couple of outside experts to comment on a news item of the day while reserving the greatest amount of time for their own in-house analyst, who tends to repeat the Kiev propaganda line.  Yesterday’s program, however, allotted time exclusively to outside analysts, two Indians, and two Westerners, myself included, and the results were far more nuanced. As you see from the very modest number of hits, NewsX is just beginning to build its subscriber base. I wish them well.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA2-ZbBiPYw

The discussion of Russia’s possible retaliation for the latest Ukrainian use of ATACMS missiles to strike residential buildings in the Belgorod region of the Russian Federation begins at minute 1.50 and ends at 12.50   Note that Vladimir Putin’s public comment issued shortly after the ATACMS strike made it clear that an escalatory move from Russia now is highly unlikely. He strongly hinted that the small number of Oreshnik hypersonic missiles presently in Russia’s arsenal is being reserved for use against strategic targets if needed, but that this is not the case today.

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

NewsX (Indien) Weltbericht: Russlands Vergeltungsdrohungen

Nachdem ich einige Zeit als Kommentator in Fernsehnachrichten in verschiedenen Ländern verbracht habe, angefangen mit einem Jahr als Star in russischen Talkshows auf allen nationalen Kanälen im Jahr 2016, bin ich nicht überrascht, dass man in jedem Studio in jedem Land jederzeit auf Anweisung von Produzenten, die ihre Anweisungen von politischen Vorgesetzten erhalten, wieder vor die Tür gesetzt werden kann.

Nach meiner jüngsten Erfahrung gilt dies insbesondere für den indischen Rundfunk, wo die Stimmung von Premierminister Modi ständig schwankt. Seine scheinbar pro-russischen Momente als größter Importeur von sanktioniertem russischem Öl wechseln sich ab mit ausgesprochen pro-amerikanischen Momenten in Bezug auf die Rüstungsbeschaffung und die geopolitische Ausrichtung in Ostasien. Unterdessen scheint das große Publikum in Indien bereit zu sein, die Darstellung Washingtons zu internationalen Angelegenheiten im Allgemeinen und zum Russland-Ukraine-Krieg im Besonderen zu akzeptieren. Ich sage dies, nachdem ich die Zuschauerkommentare zu meinen verschiedenen YouTube-Interviews gelesen habe, die vom führenden englischsprachigen internationalen Sender des Landes, WION, produziert wurden. Den vielen Daumen-hoch-Zeichen stand ein regelrechter Hagel von faulen Tomaten von Zuschauern gegenüber, die nur wenig Englisch sprechen und den Sender als „Putin-Sprachrohr“ beschuldigten.

Tatsächlich wurde das größte Publikum, das ich je bei einem Fernsehsender weltweit hatte, bei WION verzeichnet, wo ein vor drei Monaten ausgestrahltes 10-minütiges Interview über die Wahrscheinlichkeit einer Eskalation des Ukraine-Krieges zu einem nuklearen Schlagabtausch eine halbe Million Aufrufe erzielte. Zum Vergleich: Mein Rekord beim angesehensten US-amerikanischen Sender für politische Interviews, „Judging Freedom“, liegt bei 150.000 Aufrufen, während die Norm zwischen 50.000 und 90.000 liegt.

Leider gingen die Einladungen, bei WION aufzutreten, zurück, nachdem ich den Rekord von 500.000 Aufrufen erreicht hatte. Diese neue Politik kam von oben, denn der leitende Moderator des Programms hatte mich über LinkedIn kontaktiert und mich gebeten, mich in seine Kontaktliste aufnehmen zu dürfen, sodass ich auf Arbeitsebene gut zurechtkam.

In den Monaten danach ist ein anderer indischer Sender, News X, der zum Kommunikationsunternehmen ITV (Indien) gehört, in die Bresche gesprungen. Über den untenstehenden Link können Sie sich meinen jüngsten Auftritt in der gestrigen Nachrichtensendung ansehen. Normalerweise lädt der Sender ein paar externe Experten ein, die einen Beitrag des Tages kommentieren, während der größte Teil der Sendezeit dem eigenen Analysten vorbehalten ist, der in der Regel die Kiewer Propaganda wiederholt. In der gestrigen Sendung wurde die Zeit jedoch ausschließlich externen Analysten, zwei Indern und zwei Westlern, zu denen auch ich gehöre, eingeräumt, und die Ergebnisse waren weitaus nuancierter. Wie Sie an der sehr bescheidenen Anzahl der Aufrufe sehen können, beginnt NewsX gerade erst, seinen Abonnentenstamm aufzubauen. Ich wünsche ihnen alles Gute.

Siehe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA2-ZbBiPYw

Die Diskussion über mögliche Vergeltungsmaßnahmen Russlands für den jüngsten Einsatz von ATACMS-Raketen durch die Ukraine, mit denen Wohngebäude in der Region Belgorod in der Russischen Föderation getroffen wurden, beginnt bei Minute 1:50 und endet bei Minute 12:50. Beachten Sie, dass Wladimir Putins öffentlicher Kommentar, der kurz nach dem ATACMS-Angriff abgegeben wurde, deutlich machte, dass eine Eskalation von russischer Seite derzeit höchst unwahrscheinlich ist. Er deutete stark an, dass die geringe Anzahl von Oreshnik-Hyperschallraketen, die sich derzeit im russischen Arsenal befindet, für den Einsatz gegen strategische Ziele reserviert ist, falls nötig, dass dies aber heute nicht der Fall ist.

Transcript submitted by a reader

Nima R. Alkhorshid: 0:06
Hi everybody, today is Friday, January 3rd, 2025, and our friend Gilbert Doctorow is back with us. Welcome back, Gilbert.

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
Good to be with you and happy new year.

Alkhorshid:
Happy new year. Let’s get started with what’s going on right now between Russia and the United States. The Russian representative to the UN said that they’re receiving mixed messages from Washington. What does it mean and what do they understand from Washington right now?

Doctorow:
Well, to my understanding, the Kremlin does not take seriously the belligerent remarks coming from General Kellogg and from the other nominated persons around Trump, nominated to positions in the military and foreign relations. These have been out of line, not supportive of the message that Donald Trump was delivering before the election, which was one of finding a peace solution and one that was rather sympathetic, I would say, to the Russian situation. Instead, there has been this belligerency, how they will pound Russia if Russia does not come to the negotiating table under the dictates from Washington.

1:37
That’s what Mr. Trump’s assistants have been saying. Trump himself has been usually quiet, although when he, a week ago, 10 days ago, came out saying that he believed that Biden’s decision to permit the use of American missiles to strike deep into Russia was a foolish and dangerous decision. That already alerted Russia to the fact that Mr. Trump was a man they probably could do business with.

And accordingly, they have put to the side the negative remarks of his assistants and advisors, and they are hopeful that a meeting with Trump can be arranged, a direct meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. They see, in any case, as the Soviet Union always felt, the natural talking partner in global affairs for Russia is a country of its own scale, and that is the United States, and not these pygmy countries that make up Western Europe, who as they now fully realize are simply servants of Washington. They don’t want to negotiate with the servants, they want to negotiate with the master.

Alkhorshid: 3:05
But the situation, I think at the end of the day, there has to be some sort of understanding of the situation in Ukraine, is the situation in Ukraine and the way that the Biden administration is trying to send more aid, more weapons, and right now with the situation that Ukraine has with the European Union, are they really in a better position in Ukraine?

Doctorow:
Well, the position of Ukraine is worsening day by day. And then you have Mr. Zelensky coming out and bravely saying that the final cutoff of gas deliveries via the Ukrainian pipelines to Europe was a major defeat that he had inflicted on Russia. Well, that is– maybe he can enjoy that small comfort. But the reality on the ground is of course, very depressing for any Ukrainian patriots; they are losing badly on the ground. And that’s not that there’s no fighting spirit on the Ukrainian side; there is.

4:18
And they are making small counterattacks here and there along this 1200-kilometer-long line of confrontation. Nonetheless, their small counterattacks are being beaten down by the Russians, and the Russians are advancing daily kilometers here and there on the front. The most important thing is not to consider just their advancing, or what this means for the Ukrainian defenses. They are not giving the Ukrainians time as they fall back to construct defensive earthen works or concrete bunkers or whatever. So the Ukrainians are moving backwards without any defense.

Therefore, this onward march of the Russians westward is likely to continue, and therefore the Russians have had absolutely no interest in talking about a ceasefire. They will not give the Ukrainians a chance to recover, to most importantly, to find shelter from which they can hold their positions. I think– so the war is going very badly for the Ukrainians and any bright spots that Mr. Zelensky tries to present to the Western press are really beside the point.

Alkhorshid: 5:41
It seems that the Russians were approached by Emmanuel Macron and France. They’re talking about negotiating without Ukraine being part of those negotiations. First of all, is Russia interested to negotiate with France, as we saw? Because France was part of that negotiations in Minsk II, and they didn’t respect that.

Doctorow:
Well, I don’t think that Moscow has any high regard for Macron, on the contrary. The political observers believe that he has lost his political power. And I think they anticipate that his government, not the government, but that he personally will fall, will be forced to resign, especially if the latest government fails the vote of no confidence. So on those grounds, whatever Mr. Macron would say would not be taken very seriously by Moscow. But the bigger issue is that this question of France or another country acting as– European country– acting as intermediary, is of no interest to the Russians, for the reason I said a moment ago. They will seek a solution to the war that is embedded in a solution to Europe’s security architecture.

7:09
The boundaries, where the Ukraine exists, what kind of Ukraine it will be, what will happen to the neo-Nazis — all of these issues are relatively minor and are not of interest to Moscow today. They will be regulated, resolved in accordance with the resolution of the big issue of Russia and NATO in Europe and what is the security architecture. And for that, there’s only one interloctor, only one talking partner, and that is Donald Trump in Washington. All of the NATO member states in Europe account for nothing in this. Decisions about NATO were taken in Washington, not in Paris or London or xxxxx.

Therefore, for Russians to get a solution, to negotiate a solution to what Europe’s architecture of security looks like, there is only one person to deal with, and that man is Donald Trump. And since he made plain in his first term and reiterated in his campaign speeches for this election, November 5th, that NATO does not seem very attractive organization for him, particularly when all the member states are not carrying their weight and are dependent on the United States to essentially defend them. Though I think that there is ground for talk and negotiation and compromise between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin with respect to the future of NATO.

Alkhorshid: 9:01
Do they see Keith Kellogg’s proposal as a bargaining process or they see someone that is totally disconnected with the reality?

Doctorow:
I think it’s the second. But nobody understands, and I put myself in when I say nobody, including myself, understands fully the logic of Trump’s appointing this collection of neocon personalities in which Kellogg is one of them, and Rubio is another. These high-level positions that he’s designated in this future administration, they are hardliners. And what is the sense of this? The sense that I tried to find some weeks ago is that he wanted to gather all of his enemies in one room and then dominate them or ensure that they could not break free of his control and denounce him in general. That’s one possibility.

10:04
Another was an insurance policy for himself. He’s left everyone slightly uncertain what policies he will pursue once he takes office, And that is for him the best protection against another assassination attempt. As when Mr.– when Tony Blinken can believe that by shipping all of these several billion dollars in arms and financial assistance to Ukraine now in the closing days of their administration, they are doing Donald Trump a favor by strengthening his negotiating position– if that’s what they think, then I think that Mr. Trump has been very successful in bamboozling the people who hate him into hoping for or believing in a possible continuation of their disastrous policies under Trump. If he had appointed only people like Tulsi Gabbard, then I think there would be extra contracts out for his murder.

Alkhorshid: 11:11
In your opinion, right now, Russia, when they look at Donald Trump and this administration, as you’ve mentioned, most of them are neocons and connected with the neocon ideology. Do they, you remember those days when Donald Trump was running for 2024 presidential election, just weeks ago, Do they have the same sort of idea about Donald Trump? They have the same sort of hope about him? Or it’s changing in the Russian mind, in the Russian media?

Doctorow:
The Russian media have for weeks been saying that whoever is elected in the United States makes no difference, that the deep state is running the show, and that we should not expect any miracles from Donald Trump. That was the basic policy line across all of the major media in Russia. This came, that was the first reaction to the very disappointing nominations that Trump made.

And also with looking back to the experience of so much hope that was invested in Trump before his first term in office by the Russian side, all to be disappointed bitterly in what followed when he appointed this whole series of very anti-Russian advisors and implementers. So for these various reasons, Russians were saying, “We will solve the problem of Ukraine by ourselves, thank you. We will crush the Ukrainian army and we will make a peace on our terms. End of discussion.” But in their heart of hearts, they knew that wouldn’t the end of discussion, because it didn’t address the reason why they went to war, which was NATO.

13:03
And if they would succeed in crushing Ukraine and making, imposing a peace that prohibited foreign military installations and personnel operating in Ukraine, that would still not end the existential threat that NATO poses to Russia by its other locations. There is a common border with Poland, by Kaliningrad. There is now this 1200-kilometer-long border with Finland, which has invited in all sorts of American installations and personnel. These threats will continue. There’s also the intentions of NATO and the United States to stir up trouble in Georgia, to stir up trouble in Armenia, to stir up trouble in Moldova.

14:10
So peaceful living will not be possible for Russia even if they succeed in utterly destroying the Ukrainian army. Destroying the Ukrainian army of course is a big deal, but it is not the end of the conflict with the United States-led race.

Alkhorshid:
When it comes to this security of Europe and those agreements that Russia was talking about on December 2021, and they were asking for some sort of security agreement. Right now, is that the same or they’re going to put some sort of, I’m not talking about Ukraine, I’m talking about Europe, or do they have some more considerations about Europe?

Doctorow: 15:03
Those terms were set down in December of 2021 dealing with one president who was a bitter, hardline Cold Warrior. Now, what will be on the negotiating table will be before Mr. Trump, who is somewhat unpredictable, but perhaps, perhaps meant what he said when he spoke so disparagingly about NATO. And perhaps, perhaps can scale down American participation in NATO to the degree where it just collapses for lack of military might. Without the United States participation, full steam, there’s nothing. All the European countries put together count for nothing militarily.

15:52
For any overseas mission, they all rely on them, and several of them, unfortunately, in the last 25 years, they have relied entirely on American air support, logistical support, not to mention weaponry. The armaments in Germany– to look only at the number count is to miss the point of the quality of the count. They are inferior to what Russia fields. They’re unable, NATO in Europe, without the United States, is unable to stand up to Russia. It can do so only by resorting to nuclear weapons, since there are after all France and Britain both are nuclear powers and aren’t dependent on America, the nuclear umbrella, they could pose a serious threat to Russia if they decided to replace the United States as the guarantor.

16:53
But that is improbable. The use of nuclear weapons is [to open] Pandora’s box, which would very quickly result in the destruction, the utter destruction of Europe. Therefore, that’s improbable as a scenario. So as I’m saying, if Trump simply cuts back on American support for NATO, doesn’t have to leave NATO. Leaving NATO is a very difficult trick to pull off because American law requires a Congress– congressional approval, which Trump will not get for this.

But he has his own very extensive powers as chief executive to either implement and execute appropriations that were made to NATO or obligations that were assumed with respect to NATO. He can simply default on his obligations and no one can say a word, and NATO will collapse like a house of cards. There is, therefore, room for Russians to hope that a deal can be struck with Donald Trump. It’s not essential to end this war. The war will end, Ukraine will end with a Ukrainian capitulation. That’s almost certain. But the confrontation and the risks of escalation into something horrible will remain so long as NATO enjoys its present status.

Alkhorshid: 18:25
If we consider the Biden administration, Victoria Nuland, Joe Biden, Anthony Blinken, and Jake Sullivan, These were those people who were totally connected with the situation in Ukraine. They have done a lot to bring this war to that region. And right now Joe Biden is not functioning, Victoria Nuland is gone.

Two other characters are Anthony Blinken and Jake Sullivan, still in power. Just removing these two figures from the conflict in Ukraine and replacing them by Waltz and Rubio. We know that Anthony Blinken and Jake Sullivan have a lot of connection with Zelensky and his administration. They’re totally connected. They have a lot of links. But replacing these two figures and by the Trump administration, is that going to bring some sort of change? Is that considerable in your opinion?

Doctorow: 19:30
That’s imponderable. Look, I go back to what I was saying a few moments ago. The appointment of these odious figures to be, to senior positions in the administration, can be what it looks like, which is not good, or it can be something that it doesn’t look like at all, which is following the rule of “keep your enemies close to your chest”.

Alkhorshid: 19:59
Yeah.

Doctorow:
The way to disarm, to defang these people is to have them more close to himself and that he is not dependent on them for advice. He will be keeping counsel with himself and with a very few select people who are not in that circle. For example, Elon Musk, who is probably the person closest to the president and who certainly cannot be expected to pursue any of the Biden policies that people like Rubio would appear to back.

Alkhorshid: 20:35
The situation with the Russian gas, Russia not being able to send their gas directly to Slovakia and other countries. Do you think that– Sikorsky yesterday he was bragging about how strong Ukraine is in cutting off the Russian gas. Do you think that this would bring even more problems within the European Union, or the situation cannot get worse?

21:07
Well, it certainly doesn’t improve relations between Slovakia and Brussels. That’s … clear. Mr. Fitco was rightly angry at everything that Von der Leyen was doing, and she is among those who is calling for an absolute cutoff of Russian hydrocarbons to the European Union.

The poll of Russians, Mr. Sikorsky can make his propaganda points. In general, I think Sikorski is the shit on his pants. The Poles, the top-level Poles, I think are very worried about Russian power today. They may have their orders for tanks and everything else coming in from Korea, but the reality is that Russia has everything now.

And what was true two years ago, that the Polish elite were saying that Russia could just roll over them. I think that remains the case. And therefore, Sikorsky is kind of singing a nice positive sound for the public. I don’t believe for a minute that he feels confident of Polish security in the face of an aggressive Russia, aggressive if Russia feels threatened by anything the Poland is doing.

22:27
Therefore, let’s look at the reality of this cut-off. Russia’s relations with Ukraine over the transit of its gas to Europe, over on the same pipelines and gas reserve system that Ukraine has maintained. This goes back to 2005. There were big conflicts in 2005, 2006, and 2009 over first of all over siphoning off gas that was in the pipeline from Russia with intention of being transferred to Western Europe, but was siphoned off by Ukraine for its own needs without any records, without any offer of compensation. Then there was Ukraine’s inability or unwillingness to pay for the gas they received. And so there were big conflicts and a shutdown of Russian delivery of gas in 2009, which was of course raised as an issue of Russia’s reliability by all the usual propagandists in Washington and Western Europe.

23:36
The fact that the cut, shut-off, took place because they weren’t paid for what they delivered, nobody bothered to talk about. Nonetheless, there was this background of Russia’s difficulties with a pre-2014 Ukraine that was dishonest, thieving, and malicious. And after 2014, it has been, and particularly after the start of the special military operation, when the Ukrainians, who Mr. Zelensky has been calling daily, weekly, monthly for Europe to impose the most drastic sanctions to deprive Russia of its financial means to pursue the war against Ukraine, it was an anomaly that Ukraine itself was facilitating the delivery of six and a half billion dollars worth of Russian gas to Central Europe over its pipelines. Of course, there had been much more delivered over those pipelines prior to the self-prohibition imposed by various European member states on receiving pipeline gas from Russia.

24:52
But there was still this residual six and a half billion, which represented five percent of European Union gas consumption that was passing through the Ukrainian pipelines. Now that has stopped since the five-year contract under which it was being delivered was not renewed. And that is six and a half billion dollars less that Russia will earn from that particular pipeline. It means one billion dollars per year less that Ukraine will earn as transit fees. So he can claim that he is harming the Russians, but he is harming his own economy to the tune of one billion dollars a year.

25:36
Considering the kind of infusion of money he receives from Washington, I don’t think that one billion is a great loss to Mr. Zelensky and his circle. A loss of six and a half billion for Russia is also not what it looks like. It is reasonable to assume that a fair portion of that gas that is not going to be delivered by this pipeline will be delivered as liquefied natural gas to Europe by Russia. Despite all of the talk of cutting back on hydrocarbon imports from Russia, in 2024 the European Union imported more Russian gas by liquified natural gas than it did in 2023.

26:27
So it’s reasonable to assume that some of the gas deliveries not going through the Ukrainian pipeline will now reach Europe in the form of LNG. But that remains to be seen, of course. Overall, to take that six-billion-dollar loss, and I want to say all the Russians are suffering, the Russians have imposed on themselves a much heavier loss of income in arms sales. I believe their annual arms sales were running at 30 billion dollars a year. They’re now running at zero, because all of Russia’s arms production capability is focused on satisfying demand of its own armed forces to pursue the war in Ukraine and to prepare for a war with NATO.

27:14
Therefore, if you want to look at overall costs, let us say this is one fifth, one sixth of what Russia has itself sacrificed to pursue the war without any reference to sanctions or actions by Western Europe or the United States. That’s to put it into perspective.

Alkhorshid: 27:35
If Fico in Slovakia, you’ve mentioned Brussels being responsible for what’s going on, but I would point out that Washington would be responsible for what’s going on with Ukraine. I do believe that they’re thinking that it’s going to be part of the bargaining process for them. And the question is, to what extent Washington is willing to sacrifice Europe in the process of conflict in Ukraine?

Doctorow:
Oh, it doesn’t hesitate for a moment. I think one of the wins for the United States in the whole war in Ukraine is precisely that it’s reinforced, reached probably a never-before level of control over everything that’s going on in Europe. So from that standpoint, for Europe to be weakened, for Europe to feel threatened, and to realize its total dependency on the United States for security. That is all a plus for Washington, in Washington’s book.

28:42
You would think that in a normal world, the United States would want to have strong allies. But regrettably, that wisdom is not understood in Washington, and they much prefer to have slaves. And in the crop of elected leaders in Europe, they have 27, 25 willing slaves, which is very, very sad and is what condemns Europe in its present configuration to a zero role in the world.

Alkhorshid: 29:20
How about Syria? Do we know that Russia would stay in Syria or they’re going to leave?

Doctorow:
I don’t have any special insider knowledge. I look at what’s on YouTube and there are a lot of sensationalist video clips on what Putin is doing, not doing in Syria, what he is doing, not doing in Libya. I cannot comment on this because I don’t believe any of these … widely watched and sensationalist video clips are based on verifiable fact. So I just sit tight and wait to see how it develops. I believe the Russians would like to stay in Syria.

I believe that the government in Damascus would like to have the Russians there as a kind of counterforce in case things don’t go too well with Israel, in case things don’t go too well with Israel, in case things don’t go too well with Turkey. They would like to have another player of weight at their side. So it could be they’ll strike a deal, but I have no insider’s knowledge to judge what is now going on. And Russian media say nothing about it.

Alkhorshid: 30:39
It seems that the deal between Iran and Russia, the agreement that comprehensive agreement would be signed on January 20th, hours before Donald Trump takes office in Washington. Are they talking about what it’s going to be with how they’re going to, what are the … influence, what are the main objectives of this agreement? Because right now nobody knows what’s going to be in that agreement. Are they talking about it in the Russian media or they’re not talking about anything about it?

Doctorow: 31:19
No, they’re not talking about it. I don’t think that the content has been leaked by anybody in the circle of Vladimir Putin. And so we’ll wait and see. The logic is that it will have this big component of mutual defense. The logic is that this will provide substantial assistance to Iran in deterring irresponsible, reckless action by Israel and its US backers. But to what extent Moscow is comfortable with the government in Tehran, we don’t know.

Alkhorshid: 32:03
Yeah. And right now, situation in Ukraine, Joe Biden is leaving Washington and Donald Trump is coming. Are we going to be surprised before Joe Biden leaving? Because the days are just running out. The Biden administration is running out of time right now.

Doctorow:
The logic is that the Russians will increase their offensive and will try to reach the Dnieper before the inauguration. That would certainly facilitate talks with Trump, because they will have achieved most of their objectives in the special march operation. And they would ease the situation for Trump himself because it wouldn’t look like he’s compromising things when they’ve already been lost. That is the logic. But whether I think Putin is willing to take additional losses, which any major offensive would necessarily entail, that again is unforeseeable. The latest Russian achievements is that they took Kurakhove, which is one of the logistical hubs.

They still have not completed their conquest of Pokrovsk, or Krasnoyarsk, as they’re calling it now. But that is clearly going to fall in the next several weeks, meaning that the Russians will have a clean route to the Dnieper, because the major defence points and logistical points will have been lost by the Ukrainians. And it’s a straight run across the plain without any particular elevations or major rivers that would slow them down. The Ukrainians will not be slaughtered in one day. They will fall back and fall back and fall back until they reach the river and find a way across. But I think there’s a reasonable expectation that in the coming month, the Russians could finish up xxxx xxxxx.

Alkhorshid: 34:18
The situation in AfD, Alternative for Germany, and the changes that are happening in Germany, do you think that these parties capable of standing against the policies of Washington in Germany, or they’re not that capable?

Doctorow:
Well, we will see in the elections in February, to what extent they are capable of winning over a substantial portion of the electorate, sufficient enough for the cordon sanitaire that the centrist parties have built around the AFD to prevent it centering the government. I have to say, I’m not very happy that Elon Musk is throwing his money and his prestige behind the AfD. And I would have been much happier if he had backed the leftist candidate, Sahra Wagenknecht and her party, which is, I think, much cleaner than the AfD. For me, the AfD has one particular drawback.

35:33
What we’ve been living through for the last 15, 20 years has been a new generation thinking within Germany about collective guilt and collective responsibility. And it was precisely the Alternative for Deutschland that raised this issue and made it a public issue, that of refusing to accept guilt, responsibility, for what the grandfathers, the Hitler generation had perpetrated in Europe and the destruction of European Jewry. It’s understandable that they would like to see statute of limitations for this responsibility, but regrettably I cannot support that. And regrettably, the decisions that Germany has made under Scholz indicate that there are the same weak points of utter conformism and pursuit of policies that are self-destructive and a unwillingness to heed the voice of conscience in the question of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. These issues raise for me a question of national guilt in present-day Germany.

37:01
And lest anyone think that I am being unfair or unreasonable, I extend the same logic to the United States of America. The whole American nation now bears collective responsibility or collective guilt for the genocide in Gaza. Those who are not protesting against it in the streets, those who are not finding ways of civil disobedience or whatever to express their utter dislike, their utter contempt for the politicians who are facilitating that genocide — this leaves the whole country with a kind of collective guilt.

37:47
I do not believe, I am not a subscriber, to “woke” principles. I personally reject the notion of responsibility of anyone living today for what great grandfathers, for what people 150 years ago did or didn’t do. I think that is unreasonable. But we all have responsibility for what we do or don’t do. And that’s where I say, I’m not happy with the AfD, and I’m not happy with the American political, or the American voters today for their silence, relative silence on the disaster being perpetrated in their name by the Biden administration’s support, unqualified support for Israeli aggression.

Alkhorshid: 38:37
Yeah. Thank you so much, Gilbert, for being with us today. Great pleasure as always.

Doctorow:
I thank you for the opportunity to express some unusual news.

Alkhorshid:
And happy new year.

Doctorow:
Fine. You too. Bye-bye.

Alkhorshid: 38:53
Bye-bye.

This discussion with host Nima Alkhorshid focused on the prospects for a deal being done between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin to define a new security architecture for Europe.

But that is not the real novelty of the show.  Rather it is to be found in the final minutes of our discussion in which I expressed my discomfort with Musk’s support for the Alternativ fuer Deutschland in the forthcoming German elections. And I do this without reference to their being ‘ultra-right. It is because the AfD were the political movement which first promoted the idea, now widely accepted among German politicians, that they bear no collective responsibility or guilt for the crimes of the Hitler generation.  Regrettably, this has allowed certifiable idiots like the Foreign Affairs minister Annabela Baerbock to stand on a soapbox and moralize against Moscows’s alleged aggression and misdeeds while German tanks rolled into the Kursk province of the Russian Federation.  No, German politics is still not ‘normal’ and the AfD will take the country further away from decency.

At the same time, I raise the question of collective responsibility of the American people for not taking action to stop the unconscionable military assistance to Israel provided by Biden and likely to be continued by Trump that enables the genocide.

Time is here for frank talk.

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

„Dialogue Works“-Ausgabe vom 3. Januar

In dieser Diskussion mit Gastgeber Nima Alkhorshid ging es um die Aussichten auf eine Einigung zwischen Donald Trump und Wladimir Putin über eine neue Sicherheitsarchitektur für Europa.

Aber das ist nicht die eigentliche Neuheit der Sendung. Sie findet sich vielmehr in den letzten Minuten unserer Diskussion, in denen ich mein Unbehagen über Musks Unterstützung für die Alternative für Deutschland bei den bevorstehenden deutschen Wahlen zum Ausdruck gebracht habe. Und ich tue dies, ohne darauf hinzuweisen, dass sie „ultrarechts“ sind. Sondern weil die AfD die politische Bewegung war, die als erste die Idee propagierte, dass die deutsche Politik keine kollektive Verantwortung oder Schuld für die Verbrechen der Hitler-Generation trage, eine Idee, die heute unter deutschen Politikern weit verbreitet ist. Bedauerlicherweise hat dies dazu geführt, dass sich nachweislich schwachsinnige Personen wie die Außenministerin Annalena Baerbock auf eine Rednerbühne stellen und gegen die angebliche Aggression und die Missetaten Moskaus moralisieren können, während deutsche Panzer in die Provinz Kursk der Russischen Föderation einrollen. Nein, die deutsche Politik ist immer noch nicht „normal“, und die AfD wird das Land weiter vom Anstand entfernen.

Gleichzeitig stelle ich die Frage nach der kollektiven Verantwortung des amerikanischen Volkes, das nicht aktiv wird, um die skrupellose Militärhilfe für Israel zu stoppen, die von Biden bereitgestellt wurde und wahrscheinlich von Trump fortgesetzt wird und den Völkermord ermöglicht.

Es ist an der Zeit, offen zu reden.

Transcript submitted by a reader

NewsX: 0:00
On New Year’s Day, Russia launched a drone strike on Kiev, killing two and injuring six while damaging buildings in two districts, including a residential building. President Zelenskyy confirmed Russia’s actions, emphasising that even on New Year’s Eve, Russia’s focus was solely on harming Ukraine. In a related development, Russian gas exports through a Soviet-era pipeline running across Ukraine were halted on New Year’s Day. This marks the end of Moscow’s decades-long dominance over Europe’s energy markets. Gazprom, Russia’s state-owned company, confirmed the stoppage at 5 o’clock GMT after Ukraine refused to renew the gas transit agreement.

0:38
While this was widely anticipated, experts suggest that the suspension will not affect European Union gas prices in contrast to the sharp price hikes experienced in 2022 when Russia’s reduced gas supply triggered an energy crisis. First we’re going to be joined by our correspondent Aditya Wadwan. Aditya, I’d like to bring back to the strikes themselves that we saw over the New Year’s period. We know two people have died, six people have been injured. What else do you know?

NewsX correspondent Waghwan: 1:07
Well Josh, absolutely as you rightly pointed out, Russia retaliated to the Ukrainian drone strikes that took place in the Russian city of Kazan, you know, I mean, you know, I mean Russia launched the series of missiles and drones and you know the first explosion was heard at around 3 AM in Kiev and the second explosion was heard around 8 AM in the morning. So, you know, this is you know, this seems to be an unending war, you know, the war has been going on for quite some time now since 2022, the last year Ukraine war started and there has been no stopping since then, you know.

On the other side, if you see, you know, let’s put this into perspective, you know, Russian president, on one hand Russian president Vladimir Putin says that he’s ready to make compromises on the Ukraine war on the position of strength and not on weakness. But on the other hand, the other side, Russia is retaliating, is attacking Ukrainian cities again and again. And you know, so this needs to be seen as to how this entire scenario is, you know, going forward.

It is not clear as of now that after Donald Trump takes office as a US President on 20th January, whether this war will stop or not. So this needs to be seen, George. As we mentioned, the result of this, what has happened is that the Ukraine has stopped the flow or the gas supply to the European this will make really impact Russia’s position as a monopoly and energy supplier to the European also this needs to be seen yes George back to you in the studios.

2:45
Thank you Aditya I’m going to bring it back to the gas flow and I’m going to go to Gilbert Doctorow, a Russian affairs expert who joins us now. Gilbert Doctorow, in terms of the impact that this could have on Russia, we’ve seen, of course, that Zelensky has hailed it as a defeat for Moscow, but what will the impact be felt in Russia and what could be the financial impact?

Doctorow: 3:10
Well, the impact on Russia is likely to be negligible. To put a dollar sign next to this action, Russia has been supplying six and a half billion dollars per year in gas via the Ukrainian pipelines. That will now be zero.

At the same time, Ukraine will lose its transit fees, which have been one billion dollars per year. So both sides will be taking a cut. But I think the Ukrainian economy is vastly weaker than the Russian economy. The Russian economy, just to give you an example, Russia has imposed on itself a deprivation of export sales for its military equipment, for all of its tanks and artillery and whatever else that is purchased by India, by many countries around the world, because this equipment is needed for Russia’s continuing the military action in Ukraine. Russia has been by–

NewsX: 4:15
Sorry, Gilbert, to interrupt. I want to bring it back though to the impact that has been there on Russian businesses. We’ve seen of course that many Western companies have taken business away from Russia even though some are still operating on a smaller scale, but there must be some impact on this. It can’t be nothing. We’re looking at many, many businesses that have stopped trading with Russia. Experts have said that Russia in their current state can’t carry out a continued war for more than maybe one or two years at this rate. So there must be some impact. It can’t be negligible.

Doctorow: 4:46
Those same people who are saying what you just quoted expected that Russia would run out of artillery shells after a few months following the entry into the war in February 2022. So those same people are not to be taken as experts; they are propagandists. As regards money, as I was saying, Russia has cut off 35 billion dollars in its own military exports for a year. So what difference will a six and a half billion dollar loss [make]? And part of that is not a loss, because Russia will replace these pipeline sales by more LNG sales. The European Union imported more LNG from Russia in 2024 than in 2023. There are a lot of complications to this story, and a simple approach that Russia’s a loser is just propaganda from Kiev.

NewsX: 5:40
Ambassador Suresh Goel, I’m going to come to you next, because I really want to look at the impact that this is going to have on the rest of Europe. We saw when the war started– or when the war at least escalated past the 2014 Crimea annexation– we saw gas prices across the continent of Europe rise dramatically, and that is still being felt across Europe. But in terms of the financial impact, the EU are saying it’s not going to [be] that big of an issue. So can you provide some more context potentially on that for us?

Ambassador Goel:
My own sense is that if you look at the overall performance of pressured economy ever since the war with Ukraine began and also from the context of financial instruments to put pressure on any country, most often this pressure or the impact of any kind of financial pressures or the trade or sanctions has the impact only as far as the country subject to this pressure allows it to take it.

6:45
Let me explain what I mean. Iran, I am just giving a context here really. The USA had thought that Iran after all the trade sanctions, all the economic sanctions or the gas on the oil trade etc etc would be subjugated after some time and would actually [submit] to the USA demands on nuclear program. It didn’t happen. They continued with the nuclear enrichment, uranium enrichment.

Russia are in with the beginning of the Ukraine war there has been enormous pressure, and now there is no doubt that the Russian economy has been impacted. And it has been analyzed in the various articles of public domain, but not to the extent that the world thought it would happen.

7:39
They have been able to continue with the war effort despite all the pressure, and there are buyers of the oil, as unanticipated before. So my own sense would be that there would be an impact, but who will suffer from this? Moldova has had to cut down on their own energy xxxxxxx, and they are suffering from heat, a lack of heat. Therefore the countries which could be impacted by gas supply stoppage at this time, at this severe winter, would of course be only the also the countries who were actually buying gas earlier. Therefore, while the impact of Russia could be temporary for a few months till they find alternative buyers, impact on the European economies and people would be far more. And that is my sense.

NewsX: 8:37
Thank you very much, and we will continue to bring you the latest updates from across the Russia-Ukraine war, and any further developments that we have across the EU, with the continuation of the fuel crisis.

Transcript submitted by a reader

‘Napolitano: 0:33
Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for “Judging Freedom”. Today is Thursday, January 2nd, 2025. Happy New Year to everyone. Professor Gilbert Doctorow joins us in just a moment on how will the special military operation in Ukraine end.

2:21
Professor Doctorow, a pleasure, my dear friend. Welcome here. Happy New Year to you and your family. What do you think is the state of Russia today, its economy, its political stability, its perception of itself?

Doctorow: 2:42
Well, wars make nations, and Russia is no exception. From the start of the special military operation, there has been a dramatic change in Russia’s self-perception, that is of the large majority of the population, extending to the most critical and difficult stratum of the population, the intelligentsia. They have become patriots, which was not the case before. They have a lot of self-confidence and the economy is helping them.

I was noting with interest the usual critical remarks made about Russia, whatever they do there, in the “Financial Times” saying that Mr. Putin has a hard time recruiting people for his armed forces now, because they’ve had to raise the level of pay for odd sign-up. Yes, of course they have, because the salaries of working men have doubled in the last year. So of course they would have to make an incentive to those who are leaving work and taking on the risks of war, that much higher. The economy is doing very well. The Russian average person, as I say, is enjoying wealth that he did not have before, and that is driving inflation.

4:00
It is more money chasing– in the hands of people who spend what they receive, not save it and spend it because they always were hand to mouth. Well, now they have more in their hands and they’re spending it on goods, and the goods have not increased in volume sufficient to keep pace with the money in their hands. So that explains the inflation, which still is nine percent. There’s nothing dramatic. And the Russian central bank is doing what it can to control it.

But the mood is optimistic. The feeling is that the war is coming to its conclusion, meaning to a successful Russian victory on the ground. And there hasn’t been too much news these past couple of days because it is a holiday, because people were celebrating the New Year in Russia, which has all the power of Christmas and New Year’s combined there. But what has come out is, for example, today the announcement by the Ministry of Defense that they have taken full possession of the town of Korokulov, which was one of the important towns under contention for the last month or more. And we can see and expect that they will take the still more decisive logistical hub of Pokrovsk in the coming weeks.

5:18
What this means is, that they have crossed the 50 percent line in how much of the Donetsk region they possess, and they’re going for the finish line, which is at Dnieper River. I think that is within grasp, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they reached the Dnieper before Mr. Trump’s inauguration.

Napolitano: 5:40
President Putin has indicated a desire to speak with President-elect Trump after he’s inaugurated, and Donald Trump has indicated a reciprocal desire. What do you think Putin wants from Trump? What will he ask for? What will his goal be in whatever conversations they have?

Doctorow:
The Russian goal is to put the discussion of a peace in Ukraine in the broader context of a revised security architecture for Europe. And that can only be discussed between Putin and Trump. They do not have an interest in Moscow in talking to the European Union or NATO member states in Europe, because they consider them all to be the proxies for the United States. They consider them all to be taking direction from the United States.

So they want to go to the source, which is not surprising. If you were a student of the Soviet Union as I was, you know that the Russians never put much, had much interest in dealing with individual West European countries. They always compared themselves and looked for doing a deal, cutting a deal with the United States. That’s the case today.

I think that Mr. Putin wants to discuss with Donald Trump how, what NATO will look like going forward, how all sides, European and Russian, can find security if the role of NATO is redefined or if it’s dissolved. This will be the subject. And here, when you speak about dissolution or downscaling NATO, I think Mr. Trump is the right person.

He’s made it plain that he’s not a fan of NATO. So that is the subject. And that is why, despite everything that Mr. Kellogg has put out and other spokesmen for the incoming Trump administration have said, all of which the Russians do not take seriously, particularly the notion that a deal could be done by extending the suspension period for Ukraine’s joining NATO. Absolutely excluded. Mr. Lavrov said that flat out in his press conference last week. So that is excluded. So why would they bother to see Trump? Because they have something different to talk to him about.

Napolitano: 8:08
I guess the war cannot really be ended without a resolution of NATO’s role in Europe, without a recasting of NATO’s role in Europe. That’s how I read what you just said. And you’ve also stated, I think quite correctly, that Donald Trump is the person to do it.

Doctorow:
Yes. No, they understand that, and they’re not put off by these various proposals that have been produced by Kellogg and have gone to the press. They understand that this is not coming from number one, it’s coming from his advisors, and that in fact Mr. Trump takes counsel of himself, or perhaps with Elon Musk.

Napolitano: 9:00
You know, one wonders about General Kellogg, because he sounds as bellicose as Tony Blinken. He doesn’t hold any portfolio. He’s not even going to be nominated to a position that requires Senate confirmation.

And the soon-to-become Secretary of State, who’s still a United States Senator from Florida, Marco Rubio, hasn’t uttered a peep about any of this. Kellogg is confusing people. It doesn’t sound the way Trump sounded during the campaign, and the Russians are wise to dismiss it. One wonders why the general is a retired four-star general, why General Kellogg is even in the mix. I mean, there cannot be a resolution, a peaceful resolution of the special military operation if NATO has any future claim to Ukraine. So the idea that it ould happen in the future is just something that Lavrov and Putin won’t accept, no matter how far in the future it is. Am I right?

Doctorow: 10:06
Yes, and I don’t think they have a choice. Russia is not a dictatorship. Russia is a democracy of a sort, not the same as ours, but it is a democracy. It has votes that are not forced. It has legitimacy in casting ballots. And it also has Mr. Putin is a politician. He’s a statesman, but he’s a politician.

And he has to face pressures within his entourage and further afield. This war has gone on much longer than anybody anticipated, for a number of reasons that most of the critics in the West, including some very sincere and well-respected people like [Paul] Craig Roberts, don’t quite get: that Putin has not had a general mobilization; he has sought to carry out his special military operation with a relatively low number of troops assigned to the task. Certainly not adequate to storm Ukraine and run through it in a matter of days or weeks. No, no.

11:17
He’s doing it in a deliberate way, which keeps the public at home out of the war, in the sense that there is no draft. Mothers aren’t up in arms, Wives are not up in arms about their loved ones being sent off to the war. It is a political solution by a supremely experienced political operator, which is what Mr. Putin is. He has to consider the realities.

If he were to have a general mobilization, there would be a lot of political disturbance, just what the United States would like to happen. But he isn’t allowing that. By playing it slow, by working his way steadily with the limited forces that he can muster by means of the sign-up volunteers.

Napolitano: 12:17
So how does the war end, Professor?

Doctorow:
With the collapse of the Ukrainian army. I think that once the army goes, then the political establishment around Mr. Zelensky will crumble, and they’ll all be looking for their first plane out. They are there because the army has resisted and resisted valiantly. I think the audience has to appreciate that this is not Russia flattening Ukraine in one blow. And that the Ukrainians, despite everything, are mostly not running from the front.

Every day the Russian forces in one place or another find themselves in counter-offensive, small ones, which they defeat, and nonetheless the enemy is not running away. The enemy is being pushed back, and the momentum on the Russian side is precisely to prevent the Ukrainians from having the time or the engineering possibilities to build protections, to defend themselves through earthworks or concrete bunkers or whatever. The Russian army keeps on moving, advancing, and does not allow the Ukrainians to establish defensive positions. That is the first and most obvious reason why Russia cannot agree to a ceasefire.

Napolitano: 13:53
Can you foresee a division of Ukraine, like Germany was divided after World War II?

Doctorow;
Well, this question is very topical, and it was raised and brought to the attention of all of us in the West by Dmitry Trinin, who is a senior military analyst, think tank person, a member of the highest and most respectied consultative groups on foreign and military issues in Russia, in the Kremlin. And Trinin published an article less than two weeks ago in which he was proposing various outcomes for this war, including the division of Ukraine into a good Ukraine, which would be the territory east of the Dnieper River, minus those parts of this geography that Russia considers strategically essential for its security. And other substantial withdrawals: precisely, we’re speaking about Odessa and Nikolaevs and Kherson. These territories pose a threat to Russia if they are inhabited by hostile forces. So they would be taken out.

But what would be left in this land east of the Dnieper could be our Ukraine, a friendly Ukraine, a country with sovereignty, but disposed towards Russia and receiving assistance from Russia in reconstruction. Then all of the nasties, the neo-Nazis, the Bandera fans that are determining the policies in Kiev today, they would be pushed west into the Lvov area, the area of Ukraine that was, if you look back historically, never part of Russia. It was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and always was fomenting anti-Russian, Ukrainian nationalism from the end of the 19th century. This part of Ukraine missed her train. We could cede to, let Europeans look after it, let them pick up the pieces. We don’t want it. It costs us too much to administer, so let’s leave that alone.

16:19
Well, that is one proposal by a very well-respected and intelligent military expert, that has been making the circles of discussion. And I and some of our peers have been addressing it. My particular view is that a divided Ukraine in that respect is not workable for the same reason that you have to consider what happened to divided Germany. It reunited. So what would prevent the pro-Russian, free, independent, sovereign Ukraine to decide to reunite with the baddies on the other side of the Dnieper River? Nothing.

And so I think that is a faulty notion, that Ukraine can be divided. And as I said, the nature of Ukraine, where its borders are, is a minor part of the big story. The big story is NATO and Russia’s relations with NATO. Ukraine is a threat to Russia only if NATO exists and is able to use Ukraine against Russia as it has been doing the last 14 years.

Napolitano: 17:32
What happens if Donald Trump closes the spigot of military supplies and ammunition and cash on January 21st?

Doctorow:
I think the capitulation of the Ukrainian army would follow in a few weeks. The Europeans are in no position to provide the artillery shells, the new artillery pieces, the rapid-fire missile launchers, like HIMARS, they don’t have that. So the ability of the Ukrainian army to defend itself would be reduced to nil in a very few weeks. And the ultimate result would be capitulation.

Napolitano; 18:23
Can President Putin, excuse me, can President Zelensky survive capitulation? I mean, literally survive it? Or would he be killed or forced into exile by the nationalists?

Doctorow:
Well, I think you just identified it. It’s not a secret issue. Every time that there was a possibility of a negotiation and a peaceful solution, the people around Zelensky, these, what they call the Rednecks, the neo-Nazis, they made it plain that he would be lynched, and he’s not a stupid man. So I think that he would find his way on the first plane out, if it looked like capitulation is coming.

Napolitano: 19:14
Can you explain to us, Professor Doctorow, the situation with the Russian sale of natural gas to Europe, which passes through, I think I have this correctly, Ukraine, and which has now been turned off and which has resulted in skyrocketing petrol prices at the pump in Europe, from the people from whom President Zelensky has sought help. Is he biting the hand that he wants to feed him?

Doctorow:
Well, it is an anomaly, of course, that Ukraine continued to supply Russian gas to Europe, taking its tips. Well, the tips are not so bad. There’s about 20 percent or 15 percent tip they were getting for the transit fees. The latest estimate is that Russian gas traveling through Ukraine was being delivered to Europe at a level of six and a half billion dollars a year, of which one billion dollars, between 800 million and one billion dollars, was paid back to Ukraine for its services. As to Russia, the loss of six billion dollars in sales of gas is not a big deal. The likelihood is that some of this gas will nonetheless be delivered to Europe by further expanded LNG deliveries from Russia. Despite everything in 2024, Europe imported more liquefied natural gas from Russia than it did in 2023.

20:48
So that is … the economic loss to Russia is not great. And let’s consider going back to 2000, 2005, 2006, especially in 2009, there were very bitter conflicts between Moscow and Kiev over Ukrainians siphoning off gas from the pipelines, gas that should have been sent onto Europe and taking it into their own distribution system for their domestic needs, illegally. There was also a major dispute which caused a shutdown of Russian deliveries of gas into Ukraine over the non-payment for gas by Ukraine. So there, these relations were very difficult going back, as I say, to 2005.

But it should end now. It’s only logical. It is an anomaly for Zelensky to be demanding daily more sanctions on Russia. We shouldn’t be buying anything from them when his own country is facilitating this $6 billion sale of Russian gas.

Napolitano: 21:59
What are the consequences to consumers and industries in Europe, to Zelensky’s decision to close down that pipeline, literally in the past 48 hours?

Doctorow:
Well, the most vulnerable country is Slovakia, and That’s why Fico made this unexpected visit to Moscow– this is what, comes back a week– to discuss with Vladimir Putin what his alternative sources of gas may be and what action he could take or Russia would take to ensure that he gets gas. There are three countries in Central Europe that are affected by this. There’s Austria, Hungary, and Slovakia. Slovakia is the most exposed.

22:43
Austria has found alternative sources, mostly coming, this is LNG gas, that is sent on through the European-wide gas pipelines to Austria. Some of the same solution has been found by Mr. Orban, though he seems to be receiving substantial deliveries of Russian gas through the Turkish pipelines. I don’t know whether that can be extended to Slovakia to help Mr. Fico out of his problem.

But if there is this very big inflation in cost of gas at the pump in Europe or elsewhere, it is a speculative bubble, which I don’t believe has any justification. Because we’re speaking about a five-percent shortfall in European gas that could result from the turnoff of the Ukrainian pipelines, and that can possibly be compensated for by other means, either increased LNG deliveries for other providers.

Napolitano: 23:54
I don’t mean this to sound in a snarky way, but has the Nord Stream pipeline been repaired?

Doctorow:
I’ve seen various accounts that– they are not substantiated, and I can’t say that they are reliable– that the Russians have linked up the Nord Stream pipeline with Kaliningrad. So they would get some benefit from their own gas. Otherwise, the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is still workable. It’s the Nord Stream 1 that was destroyed, and really not destroyed in a way that is irreparable. I’ve heard your discussions that for a billion dollars or something like that, the Nord Stream 1 pipeline can be returned to service. So if and when this war ends, if and when Europeans come to their senses, if and when the elites that are presently pursuing these self-destructive policies of isolating and cutting off Russia, if one [day] they are pushed to the side, then it’s entirely thinkable that the Russian supplies of gas could be increased very substantially, very quickly.

Napolitano: 25:13
President Trump has invited President Xi of China to his inauguration. As far as I know, President Xi has not yet responded. If he invites President Putin, do you think President Putin will come?

Doctorow:
Not if he’s going to be arrested. No, the United States is not part of it, the International Court, but I don’t think that his security would be very promising, considering the state-to-state relations. But anything is possible. Mr. Trump pulls more than one rabbit out of [the hat].

Napolitano:
Professor Doctor, a pleasure my dear friend. Thank you for joining us. Happy new year to you and your family. I hope you’ll join us again next week.

Doctorow:
Well, great kind of you, and I look forward to it.

Napolitano:
All the best, and thank you. And coming up later today at one o’clock Eastern this afternoon, Scott Ritter. At three o’clock, Professor John Mearsheimer; at five o’clock, Max Blumenthal.

26:21
Judge Napolitano for “Judging Freedom”.

On this second day of the New Year, Russians are vacationing or watching the classic Soviet movies running on state television, if they are not taking the kids to see the just released blockbuster film Bogatyri, about fabled Russian heroes of yore in which all the latest Western action movie cinematic tricks are deployed.

That is to say all Russians are relaxing except those on the battlefields of the Special Military Operation. As for the soldiers, they continued their advances on the line of confrontation, taking the important logistical hub of Kurakhovo in the Donetsk republic after a couple of months of slowly pummeling the city with artillery and bombs.

However, Russia made news in our Western media today for reasons having nothing to do with the battlefield. It was rather due to the shutdown after midnight on the 1st of their gas deliveries to Ukrainian pipelines, which no longer were providing transit to Western Europe now that the 5 year contract between Russia and Ukraine had expired. In effect, Russia’s annual sales of 6.5 billion dollars of gas to its customers in Central Europe via the Ukrainian gas system came to an end. 

Zelensky claimed that this shutdown represented a major defeat for Russia. Whether that corresponds to reality was the subject of this brief panel discussion on News X, a program on India’s English language broadcaster ITV.

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

NewsX World: Russland stoppt Gaslieferungen an die Ukraine

Am zweiten Tag des neuen Jahres machen die Russen Urlaub oder schauen sich die sowjetischen Filmklassiker im staatlichen Fernsehen an, wenn sie nicht gerade mit ihren Kindern den gerade erschienenen Blockbuster „Bogatyri“ („Bogatyr“) über die sagenumwobenen russischen Helden von einst anschauen, in dem alle neuesten filmischen Tricks der westlichen Actionfilme zum Einsatz kommen.

Das heißt, alle Russen entspannen sich, außer denen auf den Schlachtfeldern der militärischen Spezialoperation. Die Soldaten setzten ihren Vormarsch an der Konfrontationslinie fort und eroberten nach einigen Monaten, in denen sie die Stadt langsam mit Artillerie und Bomben beschossen hatten, das wichtige Logistikzentrum Kurakhovo in der Republik Donezk.

Russland machte jedoch heute in unseren westlichen Medien aus Gründen Schlagzeilen, die nichts mit dem Schlachtfeld zu tun haben. Es lag vielmehr an der Einstellung der Gaslieferungen in die ukrainischen Pipelines nach Mitternacht am 1. Januar, die nun, da der Fünfjahresvertrag zwischen Russland und der Ukraine ausgelaufen war, keinen Transit mehr nach Westeuropa ermöglichen. Damit endet Russlands jährlicher Verkauf von 6,5 Milliarden Dollar Gas an seine Kunden in Mitteleuropa über das ukrainische Gassystem.

Zelensky behauptete, dass diese Abschaltung eine große Niederlage für Russland darstelle. Ob dies der Realität entspricht, war Gegenstand dieser kurzen Podiumsdiskussion auf News X, einer Sendung des englischsprachigen indischen Senders ITV.

‘Judging Freedom’ edition of 2 January:  How the War in Ukraine Will End

The title which Judge Napolitano assigned to this chat says it all. We discussed in particular why Vladimir Putin is amenable to meeting with Donald Trump given the bellicose statements that General Kellogg and others whom Trump is bringing into his administration have been making and their nonstarter proposals for simply postponing Ukraine’s accession to NATO for some more years, which the Russians have rejected outright. 

The Russians may have no illusions about the United States but they know, as the Soviets once did, that all of the European leaders count for nothing, that they are all underlings or proxies for the USA. 

In short, the Russians can pulverize the Ukrainian army and may do so in the coming weeks before the inauguration in Washington.  But to find peace in Europe they must strike a deal with Washington over the downsizing or dissolution of NATO.

I appreciated the opportunity to remind viewers that Russia is a democracy, in its own fashion, and that Mr Putin is not only a statesman but also a politician who has to deal with pressures from various strata of the population. And that is why this war has been drawn out so long: for the Kremlin to overpower Ukraine at a stroke, they would have had to bring into play far more troops than were available in February 2022, meaning through mass mobilization.  And such a mobilization would have been very unpopular.  This political stress was avoided by using the war of attrition method that Russia has applied.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

„Judging Freedom”-Ausgabe vom 2. Januar: Wie der Krieg in der Ukraine enden wird.

Der Titel, den Judge Napolitano diesem Chat gegeben hat, sagt alles. Wir haben insbesondere darüber diskutiert, warum Wladimir Putin zu einem Treffen mit Donald Trump bereit ist, angesichts der kriegerischen Äußerungen von General Kellogg und anderen, die Trump in seine Regierung holt, und ihrer untauglichen Vorschläge, den NATO-Beitritt der Ukraine einfach um einige Jahre zu verschieben, was die Russen rundheraus abgelehnt haben.

Die Russen mögen sich keine Illusionen über die Vereinigten Staaten machen, aber sie wissen, wie einst die Sowjets, dass alle europäischen Staats- und Regierungschefs nichts zählen, dass sie alle Untergebene oder Stellvertreter der USA sind.

Kurz gesagt, die Russen können die ukrainische Armee vernichten, und das möglicherweise in den kommenden Wochen vor der Amtseinführung in Washington. Aber um Frieden in Europa zu finden, müssen sie mit Washington eine Einigung über die Verkleinerung oder Auflösung der NATO erzielen.

Ich habe die Gelegenheit genutzt, um die Zuschauer daran zu erinnern, dass Russland auf seine eigene Art und Weise eine Demokratie ist und dass Herr Putin nicht nur ein Staatsmann, sondern auch ein Politiker ist, der sich mit dem Druck verschiedener Bevölkerungsschichten auseinandersetzen muss. Und deshalb hat sich dieser Krieg so lange hingezogen: Um die Ukraine mit einem Schlag zu überwältigen, hätte der Kreml weitaus mehr Truppen ins Spiel bringen müssen, als im Februar 2022 verfügbar waren, d.h. durch eine Massenmobilisierung. Und eine solche Mobilisierung wäre sehr unpopulär gewesen. Dieser politische Stress wurde durch die von Russland angewandte Zermürbungskrieg-Methode vermieden.

Several comments on my latest essay and an essay on the same subject posted on the substack account of Karlof 1 prompt me to return to this subject with a few fresh observations of my own.

In particular, I have further remarks on Trenin’s preferred solution, which was to divide what is left of Ukraine after Russia takes those regions it considers to be of strategic importance for its own security into two parts: a westernmost ‘Free’ part that would be the dumping ground for neo-Nazi riff-raff now in Kiev and protected and/or controlled by Poland, Hungary and Romania – and a second, ‘good Ukraine’ that would be rehabilitated and find itself in the Russian sphere of influence, eventually becoming a Russian ally.

I already called out how ceding the westernmost part of Ukraine to NATO powers compromises the reason that the war was initiated by Russia. That was to expel NATO from all of Ukraine, thereby starting the process of rolling-back the Alliance to its West European member states such as existed before the expansion begun during the Clinton administration.

However, there are other points which I neglected to make.  The most important is that the Ukraine problem cannot be solved definitively until and unless the NATO problem is solved definitively by redrawing the security architecture of Europe.  A NATO in its present form, with some foothold in Ukraine, a NATO that has not been publicly humiliated and reined in, if not dissolved here and now will continue to be an existential threat to Russia. It will persist in its ‘mission’ of bringing Russia to its knees via Moldova, or Georgia, or Kazakhstan, or, if need be, the Baltics, Sweden and Finland.

Those who say that NATO will collapse on its own overestimate the differences between the overwhelming majority of member states and two dissident members, Hungary and Slovakia. NATO’s collapse can only be engineered by the United States and Russia acting in agreement over what security arrangements will follow.

Meanwhile, Trenin’s preferred solution of two Ukraines fails to consider the possibility that they will eventually decide on their own to reunite, as the GDR and the FRG did.  Given the level of hostility that the Ukrainian nation feels towards Russia now after 10 years of indoctrination by the ultra-nationalists who have been in power since 2014, given the vast suffering that Russia has inflicted on the population through destruction of the energy infrastructure that will take years to restore and the vast numbers of Ukrainian soldiers killed or severely wounded, I find it improbable that any part of that nation will join hands with Russia for a better future together.  Their possible threat to Russia can only be neutralized if NATO is removed from the equation, not only on their territory but in Europe as a whole.

At present, it is only by the will of the United States that NATO can be de-fanged.  This should be the proper subject for any Trump-Putin summit, not some cease fire or even some peace treaty with Ukraine.

                                                                           *****

In closing, I point out that essentially what Trenin is recommending is a division of the Ukrainian nation into two political camps roughly along lines that go back further in time than WWII.  Before WWI, the Lvov region, Volhynia and Galicia were all part of the Austro-Hungarian empire and everything to the east was part of the Russian empire.  The Austrians encouraged use of the Ukrainian language and Ukrainian ambitions as a battering ram against the part of Ukraine east of the Dnieper that was the Russian Empire, where the Ukrainian national feelings were tamped down by the ruling dynasty. That was not a solution that survived 1914 and it is not a solution for today. Not local but Europe-wide solutions are needed.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Weitere Gedanken zu Trenin und dem Kriegsende

Mehrere Kommentare zu meinem neuesten Essay und einem Essay zum gleichen Thema, die auf dem Substack-Account von Karlof 1 gepostet wurden, veranlassen mich, mit ein paar eigenen frischen Beobachtungen auf dieses Thema zurückzukommen.

Insbesondere habe ich weitere Anmerkungen zu Trenins bevorzugter Lösung, nämlich die Aufteilung dessen, was von der Ukraine übrig bleibt, nachdem Russland die Regionen eingenommen hat, die es für seine eigene Sicherheit als strategisch wichtig erachtet, in zwei Teile: einen westlichsten „freien“ Teil, der als Sammelbecken für das Neonazi-Gesindel, das sich derzeit in Kiew aufhält und von Polen, Ungarn und Rumänien geschützt und/oder kontrolliert wird, und eine zweite, „gute Ukraine“, die rehabilitiert würde und sich im russischen Einflussbereich wiederfände, um schließlich ein Verbündeter Russlands zu werden.

Ich habe bereits darauf hingewiesen, dass die Abtretung des westlichsten Teils der Ukraine an die NATO-Mächte den Grund dafür, dass der Krieg von Russland initiiert wurde, in Frage stellt. Russland wollte die NATO aus der gesamten Ukraine vertreiben und damit den Prozess einleiten, das Bündnis auf seine westeuropäischen Mitgliedstaaten zurückzufahren, wie es vor Beginn der Erweiterung unter der Clinton-Regierung der Fall war.

Es gibt jedoch noch andere Punkte, die ich nicht angesprochen habe. Der wichtigste ist, dass das Ukraine-Problem erst dann endgültig gelöst werden kann, wenn das NATO-Problem durch eine Neugestaltung der Sicherheitsarchitektur Europas endgültig gelöst ist. Eine NATO in ihrer jetzigen Form, mit einem gewissen Standbein in der Ukraine, eine NATO, die nicht öffentlich gedemütigt und gezügelt, wenn nicht sogar aufgelöst wird, wird auch weiterhin eine existenzielle Bedrohung für Russland darstellen. Sie wird an ihrer „Mission“ festhalten, Russland über Moldawien, Georgien, Kasachstan oder, wenn nötig, die baltischen Staaten, Schweden und Finnland in die Knie zu zwingen.

Diejenigen, die sagen, dass die NATO von selbst zusammenbrechen wird, überschätzen die Differenzen zwischen der überwältigenden Mehrheit der Mitgliedstaaten und den beiden abtrünnigen Mitgliedern Ungarn und Slowakei. Der Zusammenbruch der NATO kann nur von den Vereinigten Staaten und Russland herbeigeführt werden, die sich über die nachfolgenden Sicherheitsvereinbarungen einig sind.

Unterdessen berücksichtigt Trenins bevorzugte Lösung von zwei Ukrainen nicht die Möglichkeit, dass sie sich irgendwann von selbst für eine Wiedervereinigung entscheiden, wie es die DDR und die BRD getan haben. Angesichts der Feindseligkeit, die die ukrainische Nation Russland gegenüber empfindet, nach zehn Jahren Indoktrination durch die Ultranationalisten, die seit 2014 an der Macht sind, angesichts des enormen Leids, das Russland der Bevölkerung durch die Zerstörung der Energieinfrastruktur, deren Wiederherstellung Jahre dauern wird, und die große Zahl getöteter oder schwer verwundeter ukrainischer Soldaten zugefügt hat, halte ich es für unwahrscheinlich, dass sich ein Teil dieser Nation mit Russland zusammenschließen wird, um gemeinsam eine bessere Zukunft zu schaffen. Ihre mögliche Bedrohung für Russland kann nur neutralisiert werden, wenn die NATO aus der Gleichung entfernt wird, nicht nur auf ihrem Territorium, sondern in ganz Europa.

Derzeit kann die NATO nur durch den Willen der Vereinigten Staaten entschärft werden. Dies sollte das eigentliche Thema eines Trump-Putin-Gipfels sein, nicht irgendein Waffenstillstand oder gar ein Friedensvertrag mit der Ukraine.

                                                                           *****

Abschließend möchte ich darauf hinweisen, dass Trenin im Wesentlichen eine Aufteilung der ukrainischen Nation in zwei politische Lager empfiehlt, die in etwa auf eine Zeit vor dem Zweiten Weltkrieg zurückgeht. Vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg gehörten die Region Lemberg, Wolhynien und Galizien alle zum österreichisch-ungarischen Reich und alles östlich davon zum russischen Reich. Die Österreicher förderten die Verwendung der ukrainischen Sprache und ukrainische Ambitionen als Rammbock gegen den Teil der Ukraine östlich des Dnepr, der zum Russischen Reich gehörte, wo die ukrainischen Nationalgefühle von der herrschenden Dynastie unterdrückt wurden. Diese Lösung war 1914 nicht mehr tragbar und ist es auch heute nicht. Es sind keine lokalen, sondern europaweite Lösungen erforderlich.

I open with a word of appreciation to a colleague for directing my attention to the latest essay on possible outcomes of the Special Military Operation published by the leading Russian political scientist and military expert, Dmitry Trenin.  A ‘full’ version of his essay in Russian came out on the website of the authoritative Russian Council on International Relations on 18 December:

https://russiancouncil.ru/analytics-and-comments/comments/kakoy-dolzhna-stat-ukraina-posle-zaversheniya-rossiyskoy-spetsoperatsii/

A slightly shorter English language version published two days later is available here:

Dmitry Trenin: What Ukraine should look like after Russia’s victory

For those who are not acquainted with Trenin’s background, I offer some relevant information: He had a distinguished 20-year career as a Soviet, then Russian military officer reaching the grade of lieutenant colonel. Five of these years he spent in East Germany, based in Potsdam, presumably in intelligence work. The next five years he taught in the Military Institute of the Ministry of Defense, while also completing a doctoral program within the Institute of the USA and Canada. From 1985 to 1991 he was a member of the Soviet delegation to the US-Soviet negotiations over arms control in Geneva.

In the new millennium, Trenin positioned himself as a genial intermediary in Russian-US relations by serving from 2008 to 2022 as the head of the Carnegie Center Moscow. This US financed think tank in fact was a prestigious refuge for seditious anti-Putin, anti-Russia members of the Moscow intelligentsia.

With the launch of the SMO, the Carnegie Moscow was finally shut down and Dmitry Trenin had an epiphany moment; as did other long-time intermediaries between East and West like Dmitry Simes Sergei Karaganov and Dmitry Medvedev.  All of these converts to strongly formulated Russian patriotism have been said in the West to speak for Putin today, however I believe that their supposed closeness to the Russian president is grossly exaggerated.

                                                                     *****

In this essay, Trenin sketches four possible outcomes of the war:

1. Conquest of the entire country and its full integration into the Russian Federation which will then assume its reconstruction and rehabilitation. This he rejects as imposing too great financial and administrative burdens on Russia

2   A Western oriented Ukraine  – which he believes would be the worst outcome, since it would constitute  a large and populous country with revanchist and hostile intentions towards Russia supported by its friends abroad.

3. A failed state, wrecked Ukraine left to dry in the wind. This also would be dangerous for Russia because the internal chaos of contending parties on Ukrainian territory would spill over into Russia.
4. A divided Ukraine.  I quote:

Anti-Russian forces could be pushed into the western regions under NATO protection, possibly splitting the country into a “Free Ukraine” controlled by Poland, Hungary, and Romania, and a new Ukraine. Let the West console itself with this Cold War-style buffer state.

 This Trenin calls ‘the most realistic and advantageous outcome.”

Trenin seems content for the rump Western Ukraine consisting of former Polish (Volhynia, Galicia), Hungarian and Romanian territory from before WWII be protected by NATO. I call this peculiar logic, since the whole purpose of the Special Military Operation was to remove NATO from all of Ukraine, as the first step towards an overall roll-back of NATO installations to their pre-1994 borders, before its expansion eastward began in the Clinton years. That was precisely the objective stated by Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov in December 2021, when Russia officially demanded that its security concerns finally be dealt with by the USA and NATO.

Trenin does not tell us where the borders between the two Ukraines would be drawn. Nor does he say where the borders of the Russian Federation would be with the ‘New Ukraine’ that is nominally independent but clearly in the Russian sphere of influence. Over time he expects the ‘New Ukraine’ to pass from being pacified, to being peaceful to being an ally of Russia. Russia will assist the reconstruction of the ‘New Ukraine.’

All that Trenin says about borders is the following:

Crimea, Donbass, and two other regions have already returned to Russia through referendums. More will likely follow – perhaps Odessa, Nikolayev, Kharkov, or Dnepropetrovsk. But not all of them. We will take only what can be integrated and defended. Expansion must be strategic, not emotional.

If strategic considerations indeed will be the basis for defining new borders, then Russia surely will take and keep Kharkov, Nikolayev and Odessa.

I stress that the reasons for taking and keeping these cities will not depend on the fact that they were always populated predominantly by Russians and have large Russian populations today.  No, the strategic logic for each is as follows:

Kharkov borders on three Russian Federation oblasts and has been used as the launching grounds for Ukrainian artillery and missile attacks as well as for armed incursions.  It must be pacified and held.

Nikolayev is on the route to Odessa. And Odessa is the essential outpost consolidating Russian access to the Transdnistria, the break-away Russian populated enclave in Moldova that now may become the next flashpoint between Russia and NATO as its president Sandu draws ever closer to the EU and NATO, and as she prepares for an armed assault on the Transdnistria. If taking this stretch of the Black Sea littoral deprives Ukraine of a seaport, so much the better.

In conclusion, Trenin’s paper raises more questions than it answers. Vladimir Putin’s in-house team will have to do a great deal of work in coming weeks to have in hand its negotiating positions for any discussions with Donald Trump over an eventual peace.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Dmitry Trenins Gedanken zum möglichen Ende des Ukraine-Krieges

Zunächst möchte ich einem Kollegen dafür danken, dass er mich auf den neuesten Aufsatz über mögliche Ergebnisse der militärischen Sonderoperation aufmerksam gemacht hat, der von dem führenden russischen Politikwissenschaftler und Militärexperten Dmitry Trenin veröffentlicht wurde. Eine „vollständige“ Version seines Aufsatzes in russischer Sprache wurde am 18. Dezember auf der Website des maßgeblichen russischen Rates für internationale Beziehungen veröffentlicht:

https://russiancouncil.ru/analytics-and-comments/comments/kakoy-dolzhna-stat-ukraina-posle-zaversheniya-rossiyskoy-spetsoperatsii/

Eine etwas kürzere englische Version, die zwei Tage später veröffentlicht wurde, finden Sie hier: https://thecrudetruth.com/dmitry-trenin-what-ukraine-should-look-like-after-russias-victory/

Für diejenigen, die mit Trenins Hintergrund nicht vertraut sind, möchte ich einige relevante Informationen geben: Er hatte eine 20-jährige Karriere als sowjetischer und später russischer Militäroffizier, in der er den Rang eines Oberstleutnants erreichte. Fünf dieser Jahre verbrachte er in Ostdeutschland, mit Sitz in Potsdam, vermutlich im Bereich der Geheimdienstarbeit. Die nächsten fünf Jahre unterrichtete er am Militärinstitut des Verteidigungsministeriums und absolvierte gleichzeitig ein Promotionsprogramm am Institut der USA und Kanada. Von 1985 bis 1991 war er Mitglied der sowjetischen Delegation bei den Verhandlungen zwischen den USA und der Sowjetunion über Rüstungskontrolle in Genf.

Im neuen Jahrtausend positionierte sich Trenin als genialer Vermittler in den russisch-amerikanischen Beziehungen, indem er von 2008 bis 2022 als Leiter des Carnegie Center Moscow fungierte. Diese von den USA finanzierte Denkfabrik war in der Tat ein angesehener Zufluchtsort für aufrührerische Anti-Putin- und Anti-Russland-Mitglieder der Moskauer Intelligenz.

Mit Beginn der SMO wurde das Carnegie-Zentrum in Moskau schließlich geschlossen und Dmitry Trenin hatte eine Art Offenbarungserlebnis; ebenso wie andere langjährige Vermittler zwischen Ost und West wie Dmitry Simes, Sergei Karaganov und Dmitry Medvedev. All diese Konvertiten zum stark ausgeprägten russischen Patriotismus werden im Westen als Fürsprecher Putins bezeichnet, doch ich glaube, dass ihre angebliche Nähe zum russischen Präsidenten stark übertrieben ist.

                                                                     *****

In diesem Essay skizziert Trenin vier mögliche Kriegsausgänge:

1. Eroberung des gesamten Landes und seine vollständige Integration in die Russische Föderation, die dann den Wiederaufbau und die Rehabilitation übernehmen würde. Dies lehnt er ab, da es Russland eine zu große finanzielle und administrative Belastung auferlegen würde.
2. Eine westlich orientierte Ukraine – was seiner Meinung nach das schlechteste Ergebnis wäre, da es sich um ein großes und bevölkerungsreiches Land mit revanchistischen und feindlichen Absichten gegenüber Russland handeln würde, das von seinen Freunden im Ausland unterstützt würde.
3. Ein gescheiterter Staat, eine zerstörte Ukraine, die sich selbst überlassen ist. Dies wäre auch für Russland gefährlich, da das interne Chaos der sich bekämpfenden Parteien auf ukrainischem Gebiet auf Russland übergreifen würde.
4. Eine geteilte Ukraine. Ich zitiere:

Die antirussischen Kräfte könnten unter dem Schutz der NATO in die westlichen Regionen gedrängt werden, wodurch das Land möglicherweise in eine „Freie Ukraine“, die von Polen, Ungarn und Rumänien kontrolliert wird, und eine neue Ukraine aufgeteilt würde. Der Westen kann sich mit diesem Pufferstaat im Stil des Kalten Krieges trösten.

Trenin bezeichnet dies als „das realistischste und vorteilhafteste Ergebnis“.

Trenin scheint damit zufrieden zu sein, dass der Rest der Westukraine, der aus dem ehemaligen polnischen (Wolhynien, Galizien), ungarischen und rumänischen Gebiet vor dem Zweiten Weltkrieg besteht, von der NATO geschützt wird. Ich nenne das eine seltsame Logik, denn der eigentliche Zweck der militärischen Sonderoperation bestand darin, die NATO aus der gesamten Ukraine zu entfernen, als ersten Schritt hin zu einer allgemeinen Rückführung der NATO-Einrichtungen auf die Grenzen von vor 1994, bevor die Osterweiterung in den Clinton-Jahren begann. Genau das war das Ziel, das der stellvertretende Außenminister Ryabkow im Dezember 2021 formuliert hat, als Russland offiziell forderte, dass seine Sicherheitsbedenken endlich von den USA und der NATO geachtet werden.

Trenin sagt uns nicht, wo die Grenzen zwischen den beiden Ukrainen verlaufen würden. Er sagt auch nicht, wo die Grenzen der Russischen Föderation zur „Neuen Ukraine“ verlaufen würden, die nominell unabhängig ist, aber eindeutig im russischen Einflussbereich liegt. Er geht davon aus, dass die „Neue Ukraine“ im Laufe der Zeit von einem befriedeten Land zu einem friedlichen Land und schließlich zu einem Verbündeten Russlands wird. Russland wird den Wiederaufbau der „Neuen Ukraine“ unterstützen.

Trenin sagt über die Grenzen nur Folgendes:

Die Krim, der Donbass und zwei weitere Regionen sind bereits durch Referenden zu Russland zurückgekehrt. Weitere werden wahrscheinlich folgen – vielleicht Odessa, Nikolajew, Charkiw oder Dnepropetrowsk. Aber nicht alle. Wir werden nur das übernehmen, was integriert und verteidigt werden kann. Die Erweiterung muss strategisch und nicht emotional erfolgen.

Wenn strategische Überlegungen tatsächlich die Grundlage für die Festlegung neuer Grenzen bilden, dann wird Russland Charkiw, Nikolajew und Odessa mit Sicherheit einnehmen und behalten.

Ich betone, dass die Gründe für die Einnahme und den Besitz dieser Städte nicht davon abhängen, dass sie immer überwiegend von Russen bewohnt waren und heute eine große russische Bevölkerung haben. Nein, die strategische Logik für jede einzelne Stadt ist wie folgt:

Charkiw grenzt an drei Oblaste der Russischen Föderation und wurde als Startplatz für ukrainische Artillerie- und Raketenangriffe sowie für bewaffnete Übergriffe genutzt. Sie muss befriedet und gehalten werden.

Nikolajew liegt auf der Route nach Odessa. Und Odessa ist der wesentliche Außenposten, der den Zugang Russlands zu Transnistrien, der von Russland besiedelten abtrünnigen Enklave in Moldawien, konsolidiert. Transnistrien könnte nun zum nächsten Krisenherd zwischen Russland und der NATO werden, da seine Präsidentin Sandu sich immer näher an die EU und die NATO annähert und sich auf einen bewaffneten Angriff auf Transnistrien vorbereitet. Wenn die Ukraine durch die Übernahme dieses Küstenabschnitts am Schwarzen Meer einen Seehafen verliert, umso besser.

Zusammenfassend lässt sich sagen, dass Trenins Artikel mehr Fragen aufwirft als beantwortet. Wladimir Putins internes Team wird in den kommenden Wochen viel Arbeit leisten müssen, um seine Verhandlungspositionen für etwaige Gespräche mit Donald Trump über einen möglichen Frieden festzulegen.