Transcript submitted by a reader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aeigb0SeHrA

Doctorow: 0:00
He has been persuaded that controlling the whole world is too big a task and highly controversial and leads you into wars which you usually lose. Fighting in Afghanistan, fighting halfway around the world at great logistical disadvantage versus powers that are there on the spot, assisting Ukraine against Russia when you’re four or five thousand miles away and Russia’s right there. This is a fool’s game. And I think that advisers to Trump have persuaded him of that obvious point. However, bullying Venezuela, bullying Panama, that’s an American game that Mr. Reagan was very good at. The question of beating up little countries, well, there are plenty of little countries to beat up on in Latin America.

WTF – Fatseas: 1:01
Hey, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the “What the Finance” podcast. On this episode, I have the pleasure of welcoming on Gilbert Doctorow. So Gilbert is an author and geopolitical analyst with really interesting perspectives on what’s happening around the globe. So Gilbert, thanks so much for coming on the podcast today.

Doctorow:
Well, it’s my pleasure.

Fatseas:
I’m looking forward to the conversation, because I was just talking before we sort of went on air. There seems like there’s been so much happening in the global sphere and sort of geopolitics overall. So interested to dig into it. What is your current outlook on what we’re really seeing in geopolitics overall?

Doctorow:
Well, I’d just like to emphasize, considering whom I consider, perhaps mistakenly, but whom I consider to be a prime audience, that the geopolitical conflicts that we see now are not isolated from the rest of politics. And they’re certainly not isolated from who is in power and what kind of finance policies, credit policies, and so forth these governments are pursuing. That is to say, the powers that be in Europe are all globalists, neoconservative in outlook, values-based foreign policy. And they also– and so you could call them, in American context, we would call them all progressives.

2:25
“Progressives” is a very nice word, but it hides the fact that they are war hawks. And that they, like politicians who don’t have such attractive labels attached to them, are ambitious people who have taken power by using various particular levers that we can discuss like the Green Movement, and are wholly dedicated to holding power. So these are preconditions for any discussion of geopolitics. And I raise this because of the recent analysis of who said what about Donald Trump’s speech last week in the General Assembly, where what he had to say about Russia was denounced because he was being provocative — by the very same people who are actually enemies of his anti-globalist, anti-renewables positions in other parts of domestic and foreign policy.

3:32
So these things are inseparable, whether we like it or not. And they have a lot of bearing on what the outlook for people interested in finance will be as these governments stand or fall in the wake of the ultimate collapse of Ukraine, which is a matter of months away.

WTF:
Okay, yeah. Thanks for laying that out. And I think it’s something that’s really interesting that you pointed out there. If we look at historically, or maybe it’s at least 25 years ago, the hawks seem to be the conservatives and then the liberals were sort of, I guess, maybe you could say the Peace Party, and now it seems to have been a complete switch. Is that something that we commonly see, a switch between, I guess, different leanings, or is this something that’s quite unique?

Doctorow:
Well, taking just the American case, the Democrats were always the party of the working man. Republicans, by definition, were the party of the bosses. And that has reversed itself completely. This is something that Donald Trump has worked on, but he’s not the first one.

Ronald Reagan was the first one to see the opportunity to take away the working class votes from the Democrats because they had actively undermined the interests of the working class by their globalist pursuits, including in particular, their multilateral free-trade agreements, their concessions in taxes to American corporations that had operations abroad and kept their profits abroad and declared them in very low taxing countries and districts.

So the Democrats, from being the working-class party, evolved into what Donald Trump openly denounced as the elitist party. And the Republicans, despite themselves, under Trump’s stewardship, have returned to principles of Reagan, where they are attempting to look after the interests of the working man. And that is what the whole tariff policy is about, the re-industrialization of the United States.

So the position of right and left has flipped. And that has to be understood. It’s true in the States where it’s so transparent and obvious. It’s true in England with Mr. Farage. He has completely gutted the conservatives and gutted the labor.

5:58
And so who is right and who is left? And everyone will say, who is the Labor Party, that Mr. Farage is on the right. Well, that’s a very subjective statement which we can examine. In Europe, the right and the left is almost meaningless. The left has largely been vanquished. And so what we really have is the right and the center. And in Europe, that is even complicated further because most countries have coalition governments and they don’t have a first-pass-the-line kind of electoral system that is true in the first-past-the-post in the United States and in Europe. And the coalition governments, what each party stands for more or less becomes meaningless because of all of the swapping and concessions and compromises over policy to get in the number of the parties and the parliamentarians, the number of deputies necessary to have a majority in parliament to rule. Therefore, it’s very much fudged and unclear where right and left stand.

7:11
But where we are headed in Europe, I believe, is going to follow the pattern in the States because Mr. Trump and the United States are very, very important in determining policies in Europe and politics in Europe. It will take some time, but I think things will head that way.

WTF:
Yeah, and I think it’s a great point. If we look at it, it’s more like a political class with traditional parties versus, I guess, not revolutionary, but the new parties that are trying to push into this, you know, one system, one, you know, political class that are sort of driving basically the same agenda. At least that’s what I’ve seen in the UK and I think it’s probably quite similar sort of throughout the rest of Europe.

Doctorow: 8:01
And again, issues, it’s very easy to use the category right and left when you take an issue like sustainability and carbon footprints as a political issue and a way of gaining votes and winning elections. The point is that this is totally unrelated to where the given spokesman for Green stand on other things, like war and peace. Going back 15 years, the most warlike, the most viciously anti-Russian, the most sanctioning party against Russia in the European Parliament were the German Greens.

Is that a necessary association? I cannot say for sure, but it is true that this is the association. The Greens paid for it because of who their leaders were initially and who their leaders became, what kind of people they were, how they were shaped by American sponsorship, turned these Greens, who were appealing to young people in particular, who would like to break with the stasis of the centrist parties and with their indifference to global warming and so on. These parties, the Greens, combined a concern for the environment with readiness to destroy the world in a nuclear war. So it becomes very, very difficult to speak in traditional right and left terms wherever you look.

WTF: 9:49
Yeah, it’s really interesting. And how has Trump shifted what we’re seeing globally? Because it does seem like he’s had a large impact on the geopolitics and what we’ve been seeing. Would you agree with that?

Doctorow:
Yes, I believe he is having. To say that he’s had is a bit premature. But assuming that he stays alive and that he is not taken out to the woodshed by what remains of the deep state in the United States and told, “If you don’t change your ways, you’re going to have a short life.” Assuming that he continues the bold implementation of policies that he has ruminated over for several decades and the formulation of which he has been assisted in by some very capable advisors who have been with him through thick and thin, he will have a big impact on global geopolitics, as well as on domestic politics in large parts of the world. What he spoke about at the General Assembly, particularly the question of open borders and the question of the Green Movement. These are going to be reversed in front of our eyes as Mr. Trump’s tenure in office proceeds.

11:21
It is often … not understood how certain individual principles– well I mentioned before the question of greens and how that is deceptive for their actual policies other than environmentalism when they come to power. But there are other issues which seem to be progressive, attractive, which unfortunately are promoted by people who are not progressive and attractive. On the contrary, are just the opposite of that. They are authoritarians, and they wouldn’t know democracy if they tripped on it. And I have in mind, for example, here in Europe, the Federalists, the people who are talking about harmonizing Europe, consolidating Europe, giving it a consistency that was lacking up to the 1990s.

12:17
That sounds great, but regrettably, the very same people who are talking in those very respectable, very progressive-sounding and attractive terms are also warmongers, are also spoiling for a fight, with Russia in particular, and use militarization to justify and consolidate their grip on power. And I can name names. If we go back to the 2010s, you had a group called Aldi that was a substantial minority group within the European Parliament, headed by the former prime minister of Belgium, Guy Verhofstadt. Verhofstadt fell from grace after he was one of the several leaders in Europe, the Germans, the French, who openly resisted Bush’s intention of using the United Nations Security Council, to allow for his invasion of Iraq.

13:23
And so Mr. Verhofstad, who would otherwise have become the head of the European Commission, was sidetracked and he formed a group within the European Parliament called Audi, which after Mr. Sarkozy– Sarkozy, sorry– after Mr. Macron was elected, his parliamentarians joined, merged with Verhofstadt and formed a rather substantial bloc that is present and rather influential in the European Parliament today. Those people are pursuing policies on the Europe-wide level in foreign policy, which will lead us straight to World War III if they’re not checked. And they are federalists, and they’re looking to increase the powers of Brussels at the expense of the sovereignty of the member nation states.

14:17
So as I said, single issues like federalism, like sustainability and the green and renewables, which are sound fine and give certain people and certain parties a claim on the electorate, are unfortunately linked to broader intentions that are quite odious.

WTF”
Yeah, and is this sort of why they, if you look at it, they’ve been very, yeah, definitely hawkish against sort of Russia. Is it sort of trying to find a common enemy to to find an excuse to unite and to federalize and to gain more power is that what you’re seeing as a mechanism for this?

Doctorow:
Well yes, Russia is a very convenient bogeyman, and it gives the leadership at present in Europe the possibility of saying to their electorate, stay with us, bear with us, our countries are under threat, we are the stewards, We are the ones who are most interested in national defense, and we will protect you.

This is precisely what Mr. Starmer was saying at the Labour Party convention in Liverpool yesterday, when interviewed, and was explaining how Mr. Farage would cozy up to Putin and threaten the security of Britain. That’s in a nutshell what these people are saying to hold their grip on power and to deprive the electorate of a reasonable debate on all policies, including the remilitarization of Europe and the merger, essential merger, of what is NATO and what is the EU. These are serious issues today. And unfortunately, in the mainstream media, no one is looking at these constellations as I have just set them out.

WTF:
Okay, really interesting. So maybe we can come back to that point, but if we go directly to sort of the Russia-Ukraine war, how are you currently judging that? You know, a lot of people, it’s very hard to see what the actual, what’s actually happening. Some people say Ukraine are almost going to beat Russia. Others are saying Russia is going to walk over them soon. What is your current outlook?

Doctorrow: 16:40
Well, at this stage of events, for anyone to be saying that as the “Financial Times” yesterday and today as a lead page, so to speak, in their online edition, I forget it was Rashman or one of their regular contributors is explaining, or trying to explain, why Ukraine is really winning the war.

And I think similar to what is being said in the States, even in the circle of President Trump, that, “Wow, the Russians should have solved this problem and defeated Ukraine long ago, and we see they’ve only had such limited territorial gains in the last three years, that proves that Russia’s losing.”

Of course, this is utter nonsense. The latest figures even coming out of Ukraine from military sources, is that Ukraine has lost 1.7 million dead and severely injured soldiers. Out of respect to Russia, someone with as much experience and good sources as Colonel Macgregor has been saying that Russia has lost 120,000 soldiers dead. Discrepancy is more than 10 times, 12 times. That is reasonable to expect when you consider from the very beginning of this war of attrition, Russia had 10 to 12 times the amount of artillery shells and tubes, artillery tubes, compared to Ukraine and NATO. So the figures correspond. The actual mortality versus the actual, is in line with the actual relative armaments and wherewithal of the respective sides.

18:33
To say that Russia is losing and to ignore this vast discrepancy in fatalities is to be irrelevant and is, simply speaking, a propagandist. The situation at present is: the Russians have accelerated their move in all fronts, in part in the Donbass, which is the principal area of interest to the Russians. They have found weak spots, undermanned positions on the Ukrainian side here and there. And they are taking advantage of this, but not in the most obvious way.

They don’t storm in and push the Ukrainians back 50 kilometers. No. They take some land and hold it, inviting the Ukrainians to come and counterattack, which they do, and they get slaughtered. So this is repeated in various places. The Russian game is to demilitarize Ukraine by destroying its manpower in the army. They’re doing a good job of it.

19:39
Now you can send to Ukraine everything you want by way of new artillery and new Bradleys and new xxx-powered tanks, but if they have no one to man it, or if when they come out in the open field those tanks are destroyed in minutes by Russian drones and artillery, then how can you speak about the Ukrainian counteroffensive ever taken back what they’ve lost? So for people who are following the facts on the ground, as are being quite objectively reported by many different sources, it should be clear that Ukraine is on the ropes. The problem is that politically, the group around Mr. Zelensky have a stranglehold on the Ukrainian nation. They have since they came into power.

They have since the coup d’etat of February 2014. And the Ukrainian nation has been deprived of all possible alternative news to the state-run media or to the supposedly free press that has in fact from the beginning been financed by the United States USAID, essentially the CIA, and NGOs acting in the name of the US government. So the Ukrainian people only see the large increase, regular increase in cemeteries, but they don’t have a sense of the balance of power between Ukrainian and Russian forces.

What is happening now is, as I said, in advance, the Russians are moving on on Donetsk, which was the most important of the two oblasts in Donbas, which have been largely, majority, held by Ukrainian forces when this special operation began, and which even today are at least 30-35% held by Ukrainian forces and 65-70% held by Russian forces.

21:56
The Russians want to sweep to the Dniepr River. That’s probably a matter of weeks, if not a very few months away, since they are knocking out these substantial fortified towns that the Ukrainians fortified over the course of eight to ten years precisely to prevent such a Russian sweep. The Russians are very cautious. They want to keep this ratio, kill ratio that I mentioned before stable. They do not stage large-scale, widespread assaults on these towns because in any situation like that, the attacking force always has bigger casualties than the defending force. So they are softening these towns up, and I have in mind Pakrovsk in particular, and several others in the Donetsk province.

We see the, as I said, the partial takeover of Pakrovsk, which is a major logistical hub and fortified point, barring the way to the two lesser fortified cities in the very center of Donetsk, Kramatorsk and Sloviansk. And then as a free plane, free rolling to the Dnieper River. The Russians have been moving on this Pakrovsk, which they call Krasnoyarsk. And they have had significant success in the last week in a similar town, taking a similar town on the outskirts of Kharkiv, that is northeast Ukraine, on the border with Russia. And it’s the city that is the second- largest in Ukraine with predominantly Russian-staking population but has been used by the Ukrainian government as a staging ground for attacks on the Russian border provinces.

23:53
This goes back more than a year, a year and a half, to a raid, the first raid within Russian Federation territory that was staged by a group that the Ukrainians helped form, called the Russian Volunteer Unit or Corps. These are the people who have been defending the fortified town near Kharkiv that the Russians now have surrounded. And these renegade Russians who were turning on their own people and staging terrorist raids across the border are among those whom the Russians are very busy slaughtering right now to remove the most obnoxious forces in the Ukrainian military.

25:04
Well, so that’s what’s going on in Northeast around Kharkov. That’s what’s going on around the center and the Donetsk, Lugansk, the two core oblasts of what they call the Donbas. And now the Russians are turning their attention to Odessa. Odessa is not so far away. When you consider where the Russians are in the neighboring province, Ukrainian province of Kherson, it’s a rather short distance to by land to Odessa.

But Odessa so far has been attacked by the Russians by air, using missiles, using drones. Odessa is the most important port facility of Ukraine. It’s what they have used for all their grain exports, and it’s also a very important military base. It would be a still more important military base if the war is frozen, if there’s a settlement that is a provisional settlement and not a profound settlement like the Russians want, and the borders are fixed where they are now. In that case, the French and the British would certainly move into Odessa, set up shop and prepare Odessa to serve their purposes in attacking Crimea, which is rather close by sea, if you just look at the map, close by sea from Odessa.

26:35
For that very reason, the Russians are now saying among themselves, “We cannot be free of the threats to us, to our security, coming from Ukraine if we don’t take Odessa, which was always a Russian city anyway.” So that is probably the next area of military attack by the Russians as they roll on and take the whole of the Donbass in a month or two to come. If they take Odessa, then the rump Ukraine will lose almost all of its interest to France and to Britain, and the war will be ready to be wound up.

WTF:
Yeah, thanks a lot for the in-depth analysis of it. Do you see, is there any way that this can be resolved through this settlement, or it would have to be quite large, sort of, I guess, you know, basically Ukraine giving Donetsk and other parts of the country. Is that the only way for that to be a settlement soon?

Doctorow: 27:38
Well, I don’t want to be dogmatic or to say that the scenarios as I just described are obligatory and the only way out of this conflict. Of course, there are always variations. What I will say is that what Mr. Trump was saying in New York last week when he was say taunting the Russians and saying that, “Gee, they thought they would do this in a week. It’s now the third year. They haven’t finished the job. Maybe Russia is a paper tiger.”

Well, of course that was a taunt. And a lot of people initially took what Trump was saying to be that, “Ah, he’s changed his position, he’s a pivot, he’s seen the light, he’s now on our side.”

Which was, after they reflected a little bit on this, they understood that they were being trolled. That is, the European leaders were being trolled, and Trump’s domestic opponents, like Lindsey Graham, were being trolled by Trump, when what he really meant was the opposite of what he was saying. He said, the essence to the Europeans was, “OK, you like the war, you want Ukrainians to win, good luck, and you’re on your own.”

28:56
The position of Mr. Trump with respect to Putin is a little bit different. Yes, there was a taunt. And yes, Mr. Trump wants to be the peacemaker, but not in the sense that the European leaders and his domestic opponents and the majority of the American political establishment believes. You see, the real message of Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin was, “Vladimir, get it over with. Crush Ukraine, finish them off, do it in a week, so that you and we can then move on and do real business. We can do business extending the about- to-expire New SALT treaty.”

That is to say, the only major remaining agreement on arms limitations, nuclear offensive weapons, missiles, submarines, and air-delivered weapons that we have today. It expires on the 2nd of February. And Mr. Trump, despite his seeming belligerence and unwillingness to accept arms limitations agreements in general, I believe he has been persuaded that it’s in America’s interests that there are not being new arms race.

30:32
So these, Mr. Trump’s desire– I believe, and this is, and I cannot prove this, it’s simply my take on the situation– his desire is for normalization in relation to Russia. First of all, for security reasons of the United States. Russia is now well ahead of the United States in updating its nuclear triad, and well ahead of the United States in not just development, but actual implementation, deployment in the field of advanced offensive weapons, hypersonic missiles of various kinds. And I think that Trump has been persuaded that it is in America’s interests to put a cap on these developments.

WTF: 31:24
Yeah, and I think this links quite well to the point you were making before about NATO and Europe. Do you see, so this is a mechanism for the US to almost withdraw from Europe, withdraw from NATO, and then to sort of push further to towards the East, towards China and Asia? Is that sort of how you’re seeing this trajectory?

Doctorow:
Yes and no. I don’t believe that Mr. Trump really wants to go after China. His secretary of state has, from long ago, made it clear that China is the biggest threat, la, la, la. And Mr. Trump is going along with that. And he is, again, Trump is assumed to be a dullard. He’s assumed to be a superficial man. He’s just a real estate developer. What does he know about global politics? I beg to differ. He’s had decades to mull over these questions, and he’s had some very smart, if not brilliant, advisors to help him along, starting with Henry Kissinger.

32:30
Everybody in the press has a memory that goes back about two weeks. And our political scientists in their journal articles have a memory that goes back maybe three, four, five years. Let’s look back a little further. During the 2016 presidential campaigns, Henry Kissinger was a key advisor on foreign policy, and I’d say a mentor to Donald Trump. And so strategic thinking was given to him in a kind of tutorial for at least six months, close to a year, by Henry Kissinger.

These principles, I don’t believe he’s forgotten them, and if he did, he has them in his new suite of advisors, some other very smart people who also understand geopolitics and can give him specific pointers as we go along. So as regards the world at large, Mr. Trump is interested in the American– in perpetuating, reinforcing, consolidating the American hegemony in the Western hemisphere and in Latin America. That is clear from the day he took office. That is clear in his whole Greenland acquisition move. That is clear from his gunboat diplomacy with Venezuela today.

34:06
Let’s remember what’s happened in the last 20 years. China has moved in to Latin America as a very big consumer of its raw materials, investor in minerals production, and investor in logistics, as we see in their involvement in the Panama Canal.

Mr. Trump would like to uproot all of that. I think that’s his primary concern. Going after the People’s Republic of China over Taiwan, I think is a negligible interest of Donald Trump, even if it is a concern of Republicans in Congress and of his own Secretary of State. So withdrawal from Europe, not completely, but he wants to end and he is succeeding in ending Europe’s free ride. They’re having less than 2% of GDP devoted to military purposes in their own defense. He has done what he could to motivate Europeans to raise their defense spending while preparing the way for a lesser role of the United States in Europe. That is not the same thing as isolationism and withdrawal of the United States from the world, which is what Mr. Trump’s enemies attribute to him.

As I just said, he wants to control half of the world. It’s called the Western Hemisphere. And he is less interested in America’s being the policeman of the world and of being widely overextended outside its own sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere.

WTF: 36:07
Okay. So a return to the Monroe Doctrine.

Doctorow:
Oh, exactly. I think he was being persuaded that controlling the whole world is too big a task and highly controversial and leads you into wars which you usually lose. Fighting in Afghanistan, fighting halfway around the world at great logistical disadvantage versus powers that are there on the spot, assisting Ukraine against Russia when you’re four or five thousand miles away and Russia’s right there. This is a fool’s game. And I think that advisors to Trump have persuaded him of that obvious point.

However, bullying Venezuela, bullying Panama, that’s an American game that Mr. Reagan was very good at. The question of beating up little countries, well, there are plenty of little countries to beat up on in Latin America.

WTF: 37:12
Yeah, okay, really interesting. So you say it sounds like there’s gonna be spheres of, you know, as you said, the Western Hemisphere, you know, Europe, and then probably the Eastern, Eastern Hemisphere of China leading the way and I guess the BRICS countries, is that how you sort of see the world moving forward?

Doctorow:
Well, I think there is going to be a regionalization of power. And that is a good thing, where people in countries that are directly involved and directly knowledgeable about their neighbors are, with those neighbors, some of the neighbors, making common policy to resolve issues that concern them directly, without the intervention, without the big thumb on the balance, of a country that is very far away and has its own peculiar ideas about how the world should look, meaning the United States. So there will be– the Chinese hegemony in the Far East will be ultimately accepted by the United States. The Russian interests in its immediate neighborhood, not to control these countries, but to ensure that they’re not being used as weapons by the countries halfway across the world, to undermine Russian security.

38:40
So Russia is not going to control Poland, Estonia, and the rest of it. It’s all nonsense. But that these countries not be hostile to Russia. If they form some kind of written agreements on security, mutual security, I think that’s what we will see evolving around Russia. And the United States will remain regrettably, but let’s face it, this is a long story, the big bully in its own neighborhood.

39:12
Okay, really interesting. Gilbert, thank you so much for your time today. We’ve sort of covered basically going over the whole globe. But my last question is, what is one message you want people to take away from our conversation?

Doctorow:
Stay calm. Look, I am on a number of YouTube channels. I consult YouTube regularly to see who is saying what. There is a lot of sensational headlines attached to people who are otherwise quite respectable and balanced, which if you read them and see them daily, your hair stands on end. The end to the world is not coming. That is my single message.

And Mr. Trump is– whether is this shall I say despite himself, but I think in favor of what he really wants– acting against the war hawks, acting against the conspiracy here in Europe to maintain tension for the sake of keeping those in power in power. So overall, I do not see reason to be alarmed. And I take a phrase from Charles Dickens, in _Tale of Two Cities_, “It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.” To my, as an, I’m an historian by training, and looking at the world in the past, the present, and I believe the future, that statement has always been true.

WTF: 40:51
Great message. Thanks so much for your time. If anyone wanted to find out more about your work and what you do, where would the best place for that be?

Doctorow:
Well I have a Substack account, the “Armageddon Newsletter”, which shouldn’t get people too worried by the title. It also was catchy, but it was not intended to alarm anybody.

I also, if you just look [for] me, Google me in Amazon, you’ll see what I have written. I have eight published books and a couple more in the works. My activity has been as a chronicler of our times. And that comes out in my two volume memoirs. It comes out in my latest book, _War Diaries_. So I invite the audience to investigate this aspect of my work and perhaps it will interest them.

WTF: 41:50
Perfect, I’ll pull that in the description below, but thanks again for your time.

Doctorow:
All right, my pleasure. Bye bye.

WTF:
Hey everyone, thank you for listening. I really appreciate the support. If you got value out of this, I’d really appreciate it if you could like, subscribe or comment, you know, good or bad feedback, I’m always open to that. But it really helps to the channel. As I said before, only about 14% of people actually subscribe to this channel. So if you were to do that, it would really help. It could mean we could continue to grow. If not, thanks for watching and see you on the next show.

42:20
You also might like this video right here. All right. Thanks again.

Transcript submitted by a reader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDsIswiAREs

Diesen: 0:00
Welcome back to the program. We are joined today by Gilbert Doktorow, an historian, international affairs analyst and author of _War Diaries – the Russian-Ukraine War_. So I remember the last time Trump was ramping up the pressure and rhetoric against the Russians. He gave them 12 days to accept an unconditional ceasefire. Otherwise the response would be crushing.

This of course, the prospect of America going, if not to war with Russia, but at least putting its might behind the attempt of crushing Russia created a lot of excitement. And then the 12 days expired, they met in Alaska and Trump took the unconditional ceasefire off the table. I was wondering now we’ve seen this display at United Nations. We see the same rhetoric, the Russians are losing, Ukraine is winning, will get back all its territory. And while you’re at it, why not take some Russian territory and shoot the Russian jets out of the sky.

1:11
And yet again, the Europeans are very excited. Finally, America is joining, becoming more directly involved at least, already quite involved. How are you assessing this development?

Doctorow:
Well, before I begin, I’d like to congratulate you for putting on air very divergent opinions coming from different experts or people who are being watched on alternative media. An hour ago, I caught the first part of your interview this morning with Jeffrey Sachs.

And what I’m about to say sharply diverges with his interpretation of it. The general position within alternative media of Sachs is very well known, and with good reason, and has a very wide following with good reason. I am much less known with good reason, and my views could be described as an outlier on what we’re about to discuss. I think it would be very informative for viewers to juxtapose, to watch these two different interpretations when each of us has been asked this question by yourself.

2:32
Jeffrey Sachs said that the performance of Mr. Trump at the United Nations was a colossal failure of leadership. I disagree entirely. But behind this is not just my opinion on that one issue and his opinion on that one issue, but where we both stand on everything about Mr. Trump, since it is not widely discussed that Mr. Sachs is a globalist by definition, given his position at Columbia University.

He is a Green movement supporter, since his whole career the last 30 years has been support of sustainability. And Mr. Trump in his speeches at the UN trashed both positions, both globalism, particularly the aspect of it relating to open borders, and very specifically trashed the Green movement. So we’re coming from very different positions on Mr. Trump in general.

3:21
But let’s look at what happened this week in his speech and in Trump’s answer to reporters regarding the shoot-down of Russian jets violating airspace; and the likelihood that Mr. Zelensky will succeed in recapturing his territory, thanks to, with the help he’ll be receiving from the European Union.

Now, Jeffrey Sachs was denouncing Trump for his lack of candor and for his not explaining to the American people the basis of his policy and for being duplicitous. My position is that if Mr. Trump did any of those things, he’d be impeached and removed from office within a few weeks.

His policy on Russia, unlike his policy on the Green movement or open borders, has little or no support within MAGA. It has still less support, in fact is vehemently opposed by the majority of congressmen and by the majority of the American political establishment. For that reason, there is no candor in his speech. There is duplicity, double talk, and he’s leading people on. This was my first conclusion regarding his remarks [in] respect of the likelihood of Mr. Zelensky winning the war against Russia. There was an initial reaction among European leaders of glee. It was not just Lindsey Graham in the States who was taken in by this. It was all of the European top leadership, whether it’s Merz or Starmer or Macron. Macron was sitting next to Trump, and looked very pleased to hear Trump say that he really thinks Zelensky can succeed.

5:42
Well, that was the initial reaction. After a bit of time and reflection and after people like the _Financial Times_ came out and said, Hey by the way, it could be that Mr. Trump’s word shouldn’t be taken at face value and that in fact he is setting the stage for an American off-ramp and for Europe to be blamed, because there will be a blame game for the eventual defeat, capitulation of Ukraine.

Well that has now become a consensus view within the spokespeople for the European Union, like Kaja Kallas, who came out and said precisely that. That– well, not precisely. What she said was that Ukraine cannot succeed with the help of the European Union alone.

6:32
That is a hint, hint, that the United States should be part of the party, of the group. But it suggests that they now understand that they have been taken for fools or as one reader of my recent essay said, that Mr. Trump was trolling them, which is indeed my view of the situation. If he said openly that he expects Mr. Zelensky to be defeated and so on, he would find enormous resistance within all of Congress. So that’s the game he’s playing.

Also the question of the “paper tiger” remark, an insult to the Russians. Indeed, some Russian readers of my interviews as they’re translated into Russian by one or another Russian internet platform have said that this was an insult to Putin.

Well, let me give my brief explanation. Mr. Trump wants to be a peacemaker. He wants the war to end. And he’s been told by all sides that he must pressure Mr. Putin. I believe he is pressuring Mr. Putin. And this taunt of Russia being a paper tiger was part of the pressure techniques of Donald Trump on Mr. Putin, but not in the sense that the European leaders and many in Congress would like it to be. The taunt is, “Vladimir, get it over with now. Crush Ukraine now.”

8:25
Now, I said in a recent interview that it could be done if Mr. Putin took out the Oreshniks and destroyed Bankovskaya Ulitsa, the street in downtown Kiev, where most of the government offices are. A Russian, one Russian reader and commentator said, you’re 100% right. At first, for a Russian to write that is rather brave. That’s to be taken to be a Putin critic or an Eno agent. But that is the message that Mr. Trump is delivering.

Diesen: 9:11
It is interesting though that the peacemaker is not always able to make peace because it’s a fear of being a sign of weakness. So for example, you saw toward the end of the Cold War when Reagan wanted to open up talks with the Soviets and discuss how to improve relations and have more peace. It would have been very difficult for a dove to get away with this, but he was the hardliner and no one could accuse him of being soft on the Russians.

So given that he had that reputation for being a bit of a hawk, he had the political capital to go and actually talk and try to make peace. I mean, you could say the same with the way the Russians gave territorial concessions to the Chinese. For Yeltsin, that would have been impossible because he was seen as weak, he would have been almost treasonous. No one saw Putin as weak. So he was able to make a lot of agreements which laid the foundation for more stable and stronger relations with the Chinese.

10:21
I guess my point is you might be onto something there because you do have to, it’s very difficult to make peace if you’re seen as peacemakers given that they’re seen as weak. It could be good as playing the hawk at times. I must say though, there is some dishonesty. It’s not [exclusive] to Trump either though. The whole idea that when he says yes, Ukraine can win, nobody really believes this.

And given that their reaction was wait, he’s just trying to blame us for the Ukraine failure. So obviously the Europeans don’t think that Ukraine is winning either. It’s just one of these things you have to say to pledge loyalty to the narrative that keeps the war going. So we’re all chanting, yes, the war was unprovoked, the Ukraine is winning, they’re having low casualties, Russia has these human waves, Zelensky is just super democratic. I mean, this is what you have to say to give support for prolonging the war.

11:20
But the thing is that there’s no honesty anywhere though. Everyone is just lying to support the narrative which makes it impossible to come up with a peace agreement and instead to keep the war going. How do you assess though Starmer, Macron, von der Leyen and Merz? What are their positions? Because I saw Mr. Tusk, the Prime Minister of Poland, take to Twitter that he realized, wait, we might be getting played here. That is Trump is trying to hand over responsibility for the Ukraine war to us. I mean, I guess they wouldn’t panic in such a way if they actually thought that the war was going their way. I mean, why would you want to take responsibility if you actually think you’re winning?

12:15
Well, they are so heavily invested in all of this tripe, all of this nonsense, that it’s very difficult for them, particularly since they moved locked arms. And they are very critical of any member of the 27 countries that breaks ranks as Fico in Slovakia and Urbán in Hungary have done. So they will make a move, but they’re putting it off and putting it off, a move towards reality, to get out of the bubble.

Let me be very precise about duplicitousness and lying to the public or false words that Mr. Trump is spreading. That is in one area, maybe in a few other areas, but the area that is of note is his policy on Ukraine, the Ukraine-Russia war, and on what he expects American relations with Russia to be after the war.

13:20
He doesn’t dare set that out in a straightforward, honest, candid way. For the reason I just said, he would lose all of his political support and become a lame-duck president instantly, if not impeached, if that’s what he did. At the same time, his speech to the UN was perfectly candid and honest and showed leadership. Whether you like the direction of his leadership is another question; that’s a personal choice of anyone who’s listening. But he was perfectly candid in expressing his heartfelt thoughts about open borders, about the renewables as a substitute for traditional fossil fuels.

And he was perfectly honest and candid, if anyone bothered to listen to the end of his speech about a multipolar world. Why do I say that? He established that it is the obligation of heads of state and heads of government to look after the prosperity of their peoples and to give support to the traditions, the national traditions of each country, which established the uniqueness and the sovereignty of those countries. My goodness, that is a complete break with the underlying principles of the neocons and of globalism. And that was speaking from the heart. Oh, he does have a heart, and he just speak from it, but not on Ukraine and Russia.

Diesen: 15:11
But I hear what you’re saying. John Mersheimer, he’s also, he interpreted it in the same way that this was this statement, which was very belligerent on paper and rhetoric. What it effectively did was to wash Trump’s hands of the Ukraine war. And I thought this was convincing because when he said, well go shoot down Russian jets, but you know, America won’t participate and you can put crushing sanctions on Russia and secondary sanctions, which will also crush Europe. But you know, you go first and then we’ll join later.

Yeah, we’ll send all the weapons, they can retake all the territory, but you know, You have to buy them from us. And they don’t really have the money. America don’t have the weapons and the Ukrainians don’t have the soldiers. So one, one, I guess I found your argument in your article quite convincing in this sense. But I do have to say though that words, they do matter though, and the rhetoric can be quite dangerous.

16:22
This whole argument of striking deeper inside Russia, they’re going to send more weapons. That’s one of the things that made Lindsey Graham just giddy like a little schoolgirl that now America wouldn’t put any limits on weapons. So you’re going to have this long- range missile striking deep inside Russia, which is effectively then an American attack on Russia, and with the Russian jets as well. I mean, once those words have been uttered, they have to be taken into account by Russia. And again, they made it very clear if anyone in Europe thinks about firing upon a Russian jet, then it’s war. There’s no other path. So it seems that the rhetoric nonetheless is intensifying, though.

Doctorow: 17:08
It would be troublesome if there were anything true, the claims and the demands and the … fists in the air from European leaders. What Trump was doing was calling their bluff, and it is a bluff because he knows and they know that they don’t have the wherewithal to do anything without the United States. And it also is calling the bluff of the Americans, the people under him who are saying to him and he then repeats, oh we will ship 3,000 missiles to Ukraine, so that they can strike deep.

Well, that issue has been taken up by Russian analysts on air, on state television, and they insist: these weapons haven’t been produced yet. We’re speaking about something two years, three years from now. When Trump said he’s going to ship them, he didn’t say when. Oh, he said when, but it wasn’t serious. It is not going to be in three weeks.

18:11
Therefore, this belligerency that seemed apparent and that could have made people like Lindsey Graham delighted is also a bluff, and empty talk. In the meantime, Mr. Putin, the lawyer– He is a trained lawyer after all, who doesn’t want to take an action that is no longer a military, special military operation, but in fact an act of war. He doesn’t want to do that without the authorization, specific authorization of his parliament.

That man, the lawyer, is working at odds with the man who is the supreme commander-in-chief of the Russian armed forces, which also was named Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. So we have this contradiction at the top of Russia, and it should be resolved. It has been lingering and lingering.

Diesen: 19:15
Yeah, well, Zelensky was making some comments that he might hit, I’m not sure if he was going to hit Moscow with Tomahawks, something along those lines. But I saw a report, I haven’t had it verified, but I read that the Tomahawks are not forthcoming.

So again, this would also be something that would cause a direct war between NATO and Russia. So I guess there is some, behind the wild rhetoric, there seems still to be some common sense.

But on the issue of common sense, what do you see actually happening now at the moment? I mean, you followed the war very carefully with your war diaries And there’s been, you know, gradual unraveling over time.

We tried to patch up the holes with new weapons, more aggressive recruitment strategies in Ukraine. But at the moment, there’s some, a lot of regions now which are being encircled, not just Pokrovsk or Konstantinivka, but Kupiansk, that might be the most critical one. There’s a lot of problems building up, Also the Zaporizhzhya front, which is now being closed off both from the West and the East. But once countries get desperate, and you did say the Europeans, they committed themselves fully to this. And if there is no diplomatic path, I’m always worried that desperation translates into stupidity, and there doesn’t seem to be a shortage of that at this moment in Europe.

So what do you see happening? I ask because I see the Russians now shipping Oreshniks to Belarus. So I’m not sure if they will know something we don’t know yet.

Doctorow: 21:15
Well, to a couple of things. First, to ease the difficulty of listeners to this. Kopyansk is what has been described as a major fortified outpost of Ukraine. It is a logistical hub, yes, but it is also a city protecting Kharkov. It’s part of the Russian strategy of taking Kharkov without a ground assault on Kharkov that could be very costly in civilian deaths. And after all, Kharkov is not just the second-largest city in Ukraine, but it is essentially a Russian-speaking city. So they would be killing their own people if they came in and stormed the city.

So they are going to encircle Kharkov and taking Kupyansk is a big part of it. They do this very dramatically by using underground pipelines from the Soviet era, gas pipelines, to again bring in secretly their own troops. Some of them, these pipes are pretty big because I was told that some of the Russian forces were riding motorcycles or scooters through these pipes. Anyway, It was a very dramatic event. They already have their troops in the center of Kupyansk and they’re cleaning it out.

22:40
This is an important development for the Northeast because this area, Kharkov, was a staging ground for the attacks on the Russian frontier or border provinces, oblasts, Belgorad and Kursk. Moreover, very specifically, the 700 soldiers whom the Russians are said to have encircled inside Kopyansk, Ukrainian soldiers, a large number of them were what was called, or is called, the Russian Volunteer Army, or Corps, which were precisely the people, defectors from Russia, who were armed and sent in by the Ukrainians to commit acts of terror and murder civilians in the first Ukrainian incursion on border areas, which was approximately one year ago, and before the Kursk action, Belgorod. So the Russians are very keen to murder all of them. I think they’ve taken out 250 out of division, 750.


23:51
But that is not the main front. The main front, as you said, is in the Donetsk oblast, and that is where the Russians are advancing and are likely to do in the city of Pakrovsk, which is known in Russian as Krasnoyarmesk, are something similar to what they’re doing now in Kupyansk. And yet there are other things afoot. You’ve mentioned Zaporozhzhye, yes, but there’s something more, I think, more important for us to understand how this war will end, that’s now being discussed on Russian television. And that is the need to take Odessa, because Odessa is rather close. If you look at the map, in maritime terms, it is that close to Crimea.

24:40
And the British and French have looked at Odessa as a key base for precisely that. So the Russians now are also turning their attention to Odessa to be captured. And if they capture it, then this tells you a lot about how the war will end, because once the rump Ukraine does not have Odessa, it loses much of its interest for Britain and France. So this is the way the war is going.

But all of this is going terribly slowly and the world doesn’t stand still. This is why I believe Mr. Trump is pushing Putin to get it over with by some stunning act, like an Oreshnik attack on Kiev that that decapitates the Kiev regime.

Diesen: 25:42
So you think the decapitation strike could be forthcoming; that is, as the frontlines are falling apart to add to the confusion, just go directly after Kiev. Because, well, so far the Russians, well, I wouldn’t say they haven’t touched Kiev because they have increased a lot, especially lately. But it wouldn’t be so popular even within Russia given the historical role of Kiev in Russian history as the origin from Kievan Rus. But do you think such a decapitation strike could come in the foreseeable future?

Doctorow: 26:26
Well, first of all, for one thing, having the Oreshnik takes away a big objection to attacking Kiev. They’re not going to wipe out the Lavada, the very famous and important Russian Orthodox Church-history monastery and repository of the holy relics and remains of Russian saints. They don’t have to do much damage to Kiev as a whole. They just have to wipe out and go deep to get to the safekeeping places of underground of Mr. Zelensky and his close circle on Bankovskaya Urizen and one or two other locations. So the material damage to Kiev would be minimal.

Is it capitation? I think that much depends on Mr. Trump. If he were, for example, to really step up sanctions, do something that severely interrupts the Russian economy, which is within his power, so he can do some nasty things. That might just push Putin to do what he otherwise should be doing, which is to go from this war of attrition, which can go on much too long, to finishing up the Zelensky regime. We’ll see.

Diesen: 27:55
I thought there was a big chance of something like this happening after the attack on Russia’s nuclear forces, that this was something that they couldn’t, yeah, something that would put an end to the attrition warfare. But yet, they seem to continue the same approach.

My last question, though, I just wanted to ask about this recent tensions between the Europeans and Russia. Because I had on also two days ago, I did an interview with Colonel Douglas Macgregor, who was previously an advisor to the US Secretary of Defense.

And he argued that in conversation with different people from US intelligence that they kind of dismissed this as being a European hoax. They were exaggerating. The Estonians especially were not credible. They argued that Poland, you know, they more or less, not more or less, they did very openly admit that there was no warheads on this.

Of course, the Russians, they go further. They say, of course, there’s no warheads, but also these weren’t ours. They were sent by Ukraine. Again, I don’t sit on any evidence here, so it’s not for me to say. But what do you make of these tensions though? Because even if it is Russia doing it to perhaps send a signal that we can also bring the war to you.

Even if this is the case, I’m a bit not perplexed, but I take note of the European excitement in this that they can almost show the smoking gun coming from Russia that now we have some legitimacy to step this up or pull the Americans in. I’m not really sure. Yeah, even in this country there, because I’m in Norway, and Oslo, they thought they saw drones. It’s like, oh, Russia, Russia.

29:52
And at the end of the day, they’re not sure if it was a drone. And the next day they arrested someone on a different drone, but you know, he’s a Norwegian. So it doesn’t make any sense. But this impulse always to run into this almost excitement that now finally the Russians have attacked us, now we can do something. It is very strange to me.

Doctorow:
Well, none of us knows for sure, and I doubt that the truth behind this will be known for decades, but we come at it from our own conceptualizations. And my conceptualization is that this fits in line with a typical false-flag operation designed and partly executed by the British, by MI6. I look at timing. Timing is important. In the case of Estonia, Kaja Kallas herself said a week ago, you know the Russians have made these incursions four times this year.

Okay. Why didn’t you say anything before? Why is it coming up now? Why suddenly out of nowhere is Norway coming? Why suddenly is Denmark and the Prime Minister, by the way, not the military, the military are much more cautious in Denmark. They say they have no idea where this is coming from, and it could come from a ship in the Baltic Sea. It could be anybody’s ship.

But it’s the real Russophobe prime minister of Denmark who said, oh, we can’t rule out Russia. OK. I believe MI6 is behind this, because it fits the pattern. If you go back over the last decade, every time there is some kind of big false-flag operation, whether it was in Syria or in Russia, relating to Russia, it coincides with something.

Well, the murder, death, of Alexei Navalny. It came what, a week before the Munich Security Conference, when his widow had already been prepared to come to speak. Well, that’s interesting. But it was a setup. Who had access to him in the far north?

Well, the Brits have a very extensive system of espionage and activities across Russia, particularly with the assistance of people who can pass for Russians, Russians speaking Ukrainians who worked with them, as well as Ukrainian intelligence. And I said at the time that Navani was killed by the Brits. I say at this time that what we’ve seen is a British plot; aided and supported by the Ukrainians, who are fully in on this, because it brought to the attention of Europeans how useful Ukraine can be in supplying them with its unique technology and hardware to intercept, to destroy cheaply, not at $50,000 a missile, a $20,000 drone coming from Russia. That was very convenient for Mr. Zelensky.

33:01
But more broadly, and then the whole idea of a drone wall, which was one of the results of this whole operation. A drone wall for all of Europe with the Ukrainians as part of this. That’s one result. But the timing, again, for me is a big indicator. This came, this whole story about the supposedly Russian drones attacking Poland and Romania, then the Russian military jets in incursion in over Estonian airspace, all of that comes at the tail end and just after Zapad 25.

This joint exercises of Belarus and Russia held every four years. That just was ending with 100,000 Russian soldiers with 25 foreign delegations, many of them quite important and obviously prospective customers for Russian military gear and for security arrangements with Russia, for money of course. And it is very convenient to start this new “Russia Russia Russia” chant to direct attention away from that big Russian success in Zapad 25.

Diesen: 34:18
It’s, yeah, behind the empty rhetoric slogans in the media, there is a more complex reality, I guess. So thank you so much for taking time out of your Saturday to speak. I always very much appreciate your perspectives.

Doctorow:
Well, I very much appreciate your exposing the audience to divergent views, which they have a right and a need to get.

Transcript submitted by a reader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZXVX6xRatk

WION: 0:00
Welcome to Game Plan, I’m Shivan Chanana. While Europe has been busy dealing with unknown drones flying into NATO airspace in various countries, Russia planned and executed a subterranean ambush in the eastern Ukrainian city of Kupyansk, just across the Oskil river beyond Luhansk. Now this is a key artery for supplies for the Ukrainian army. Kupyansk was turned into a heavily fortified zone by Kiev as Ukraine established fire control over the approaches to the city. That is essentially what Ukraine prepared Kupyansk for.

0:31
But Russian troops reportedly used carts and scooters to travel 13 kilometers under the Oskil River, navigating through extensive Soviet-era underground networks of pipelines to ambush Ukrainian troops who were stationed in Kupiansk. And they were totally caught unaware. Russian troops have now sealed off a large Ukrainian group north and west of Kupyansk, trapping some 700 Ukrainian troops, out of which 250 are reported to have been eliminated by the Russian defense ministry.

So how did Russia do it? Why was Ukraine caught off guard? How do they navigate in these Soviet-era pipelines which exist even now? How important is Kupyansk for Russia? What is Russia’s game plan? On this episode of Game Plan, I’m being joined by Dr. Gilbert Doctorow from Berlin. He’s an international affairs analyst, author and historian. Dr. Doctorow, always a pleasure speaking with you. Is the fall of Kupyansk imminent now?

Doctorow: 1:27
According to the latest Russian reports, which were broadcast last night on state television, the Russians are occupying a part of central Kupiansk and are cleaning it out.

What that means is they have mine sweepers to eliminate the weapons left by Ukraine in those parts of the city which they abandoned for the sake of causing havoc to the invaders. But let’s take a step back, as you mentioned a moment ago. Why is Kopyansk important? Aside from its logistical aspect, which you have mentioned, it is a defending point for the city of Kharkov. The city of Kharkov, or Kharkiv, as it’s called in Ukrainian, was and is the second-largest Ukrainian city in an area that is Russian-speaking.

2:14
So it is more than that. The Kharkov area, being close to the Russian border, has been a staging ground for the incursions into Belgorod and Kursk oblasts, or region of the Russian Federation. Moreover, the troops, those 750 troops, now 500 troops, who are they? And why would they be of particular interest to the Russians? Because a part of them are what’s called the Russian Volunteer Corps, which is a group of Russian defectors, Russians who joined the Ukrainian side and who were celebrated by the Ukrainian government when it staged its violent terrorist operations inside Belgorod about a year ago.

WION: 3:02
I understand. And when you say clearing out Kupyansk, that is essentially what the report suggests so far. Now, is Kupyansk going to fall to Russian forces eventually? Is that now a certainty?

Doctorow:
Oh, it’s a certainty. What is happening is the slow evacuation, to the extent possible, from the area. The Ukrainians have more or less given it up. They will leave those who are trapped to be killed. That is the way that they have behaved so far in each similar Russian capture of a fortified city. So those fellows are goners unless they can manage to surrender. The city of Kupyansk will fall.

Kharkov is really the target of this operation. Here again, the Russians are not storming the city of Kharkov. It has a large Russian-speaking population. They are not intent on causing civilian casualties. But they will surround and starve out Kharkov. The surrender of Kharkov will be inevitable, and that is an important part of the Russian game plan for the end of the war.

WION: 4:13
I hear your point. And Dr. Doctorow, what kind of loss is this going to cause to Ukraine? As Kupyansk, was a fully fortified town. It was guarding Kharkiv, Kharkiv being the second largest city. What kind of loss will this be for the Ukrainian government as far as the infiltration is concerned? And also going forward, what’s next for the Russian forces after that?

Doctorow:
Well, let’s be honest, the main area of activity is not around Kharkov. That is a secondary front for the Russians. The main area of activity, of course, is in the Donetsk oblast, which is the key oblast, region of the Donbas.

And it is there you have the Ukrainian forces collapsing in front of our eyes, withdrawing and leaving the path open for the Russian capture of Slovyansk and Kramatorsk in the center. The city that gets the most attention, which I believe you mentioned is Pakrovsk, which is known in Russian as Krasnoyarsk, is in a similar position to what is happening in Kupyansk. That is to say, the Russians have avoided storming any of these cities in the most obvious way by sending in massive troops from outside and running over the barbed wire, whatever else the Ukrainians have established to protect them. Instead, they are doing the bombardment of these towns to soften them up and using special methods as were using Kupyansk, the underground tunnels.

WION: 5:49
And Dr. Doctorow, let me also get your thoughts on the latest statement which came in from Donald Trump after talking to Zelensky, saying that Ukraine can regain all territories lost to Russia. And this is– earlier he was talking about ceding territory, and now he’s giving Ukrainians hope that they can regain all that territory which has been lost to Russia. Is this yet another U-turn from Trump, which it seems like, which will eventually also get U-turned later, or is there any kind of hope now which Ukraine is gaining? And how will that translate into the battlefield?

Doctorow: 6:25
This news is prime news on this morning’s BBC. And it’s being described as a statement of fact that has to be dealt with. It means that Mr. Trump has been turned, that he has now sided with the Ukrainians against the Russians. This is all nonsense. Mr. Trump is a master of deception. He is a master of spreading confusion.

And he is a master at playing the British, the EU countries, for fools, which is not particularly difficult because they are fools. The point is that the United States has stopped supplying arms that it paid for. It will not renew that. Mr. Trump made no such promises.

7:11
What is clear is that he wanted to shut up Mr. Zelensky in a very polite and seemingly gracious way and to silence his opponents in Europe, to make them think, or at least be able to say, as the BBC did as the voice of Mr. Starmer, that Mr. Trump has turned. He hasn’t turned at all.

But he’s gained some time. He’s gained some weeks. On the other hand, his message yesterday, during his General Assembly speech, made clear what I have seen in him for some time. His message was to Mr. Putin when he said how disappointed he was that the war wasn’t ended in one week, and his taunt to Mr. Putin that the Russians look like a paper tiger. That is the message of Mr. Trump to Putin: get it over with, finish this war quickly, so that we can move on to real business like the arms limitation talks that have to be renewed at the start and so forth.

WION: 8:16
All right, Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, thanks so much for joining me here on “Game Plan”. As always, never holding back your views or your thoughts or your feelings regarding the UK, at least at this point and the Ukrainians. But as far as your comments on Trump are concerned, you’ve maintained earlier as well that he’s not to be considered as someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He knows very well what he’s doing. So his statements right now which suggest that he is back with the Ukrainians, it’s perhaps also a message to Russia but eventually he wants to get this done with as he’s mentioned enough times in the past as well.

We need to wait and watch how this one unfolds, but as of now this is what the Russian game plan seems like as of now. They are definitely going after Kupyansk, but perhaps not after the entire city of Kharkiv. How this eventually plays out we need to wait and watch.

8:58
That was Dr. Gilbert Doctorow joining me here on “Game Plan”. Thanks so much, doctor.

Doctorow:
My pleasure.

With over 10 million subscribers worldwide, WION is by far India’s biggest and most authoritative English-language broadcaster.  It is an honor to be called upon by them periodically to comment on major Russia-related developments. My last time with them on air was a month ago.

This 9-minute interview taken this morning focuses on the ongoing Russian capture of the city of Kupyansk in northeast Ukraine. The novel and most newsworthy aspect of this conquest has been the use by the Russians of Soviet era gas pipelines to move their troops into the city stealthily and take the Ukrainian defenders by surprise, killing about one third of the garrison outright and trapping the rest.

With regard to those ‘rest,’ it is noteworthy that among them are units from the so-called Russian Volunteer Corps that staged a terrorist incursion in the RF border region of Belgorod a year ago. Destroying these murderers was certainly one key objective of the Russian forces entering Kupyansk now.

Taking the city of Kharkov by knocking out fortified towns in the vicinity and surrounding the metropolis is surely on the Russian game plan for ending the war, although in fact this is a secondary front while the center of Russian attention continues to be in the Donetsk region, where the main fighting is around another logistics hub, Pokrovsky, known in Russian as Krasnoarmeysk. That is also proceeding well for the Russians as they move ever closer to the city’s outlying districts.

Taking Pokrovsk will open the way for the Russians to take the last two heavily defended cities in central Donetsk, Kramatorsk and Slavyansk, after which they have a clear path to the Dnieper river that divides Ukraine in two. It is worth noting, when speaking of the changing Russian military objectives, that there is talk on Russian state television now of the importance of taking Odessa to ensure the safety of the Crimea. The distance by sea from Odessa to Crimea is rather short and the city’s port is viewed by the French and British as a desirable base for their own anti-Russian operations when the war ends.  If Odessa is excised from the rump Ukraine, the country will lose much of its attraction to these Western allies of Zelensky.

Transcript submitted by a reader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY4T88gIpdw

Napolitano: 0:33
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for “Judging Freedom”. Today is Wednesday, September 24th, 2024. Professor Gilbert Doctorow will be with us in just a moment on President Trump embraces Ukraine. But first this.
[ad]

2:02
Professor Doctorow, good morning and welcome here. Thank you for coming on the show. Thank you for accommodating my schedule. Let’s get right to the hot international news, at least in the West here. As the sun comes up on the East coast of the United States, President Donald Trump yesterday saying that Ukraine can win in all caps, W-I-N, the war against Russia, and retake Crimea and the other areas now under Russian security control. What do you make of that?

Doctorow:
Double talk. Look, my opinion has not changed. I do not say that I am certain. I do not claim that others are wrong, but I think I am onto something quite important when I say that Mr. Trump deceives constantly, misinforms constantly. These are the tools he uses to maintain his independence and to put at arm’s length his many opponents domestically and abroad.

Napolitano: 3:12
Well, what do the Russians think when Trump makes a statement like this? And there’s a lot more to it. “Russia is a paper tiger, NATO”, which of course includes the United States, which is predominantly the United States, “can help Ukraine win the war”. Do you think these are just negotiating techniques?

Doctorow:
I think they have the intent of making fools of his opponents and they very gladly fill that role. The BBC today put without any question whatsoever the statement that Trump has changed sides, that he now backs Ukraine, that Ukraine will retake its territory, they’ve gone in for that. Why not? They are so heavily invested in this story that the Ukraine will win, that Russia will be humiliated, that they will seize at any opportunity, at any straw that Mr. Trump gives them to think that he has joined their side.

4:16
That does not mean he joined their side. I look at the small print. When he said that the Europeans can go ahead and shoot down Russian military aircraft if they are violating the airspace of NATO countries over the Baltic — he was then asked afterwards by a journalist whether the United States would support Europe in this venture, and he said it all depends, depends on the circumstances.

Well, if you’re sitting in London, Paris, Berlin, and you hear him say that, you understand perfectly that you will be on your own. And none of these countries is likely to take his invitation to fire [on] a Russian aircraft and face the wrath of Russia by themselves, which is what you–

Napolitano: 5:08
You missed one country in there which probably is prepared to fire at Russian aircraft and bear the brunt of Putin’s wrath on its own: Poland.

Doctorow:
No, I don’t believe so. I don’t think that Mr. Tusk is that bold or that much a risk-taker to put his country on the line without a firm backing from Washington, which he does not have and will not get.

Napolitano: 5:40
All right, Chris, put up the full screen. You had it there a moment ago. I just want to read the operative language of President Trump’s statement on what he calls “Truth Social”. This is yesterday, Professor Doctorow.

Trump:
“I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and WIN” [in all caps] “all of Ukraine back in its original form. With time, patience and the financial support of Europe and in particular NATO,” [now I’m editorializing: which includes the United States. Now back to reading] “the original Borders from where this war started is very much an option. Why not?”

Is this his negotiating, in your view, his negotiating technique? And if so, with whom is he negotiating?

Doctorow: 6:33
He is buying time, yet again. Now I’d like to note here that– and it goes back to his remarks in the General Assembly, when he said that he was disappointed that Mr. Putin did not do what the Americans expected, which is to defeat Ukraine in a week. And then he made this taunt that you have quoted, that Russia is possibly a paper tiger. I agree with him. And so far, what is really at issue is Mr. Putin’s way of conducting this war, where Mr. Putin, the lawyer, is at odds with Mr. Putin, the military commander in chief.

Napolitano: 7:21
But is not Mr. Putin’s goal in fighting the war to eradicate a Ukrainian military so that at least for another generation the Russians don’t have to put up with this again? He could send off a half dozen Oreshniks tomorrow and destroy the regime. That’s not what he wants to do.

Doctorow:
I agree with your analysis, but I say it’s a faulty policy, because the world does not stand still. This has been the problem with this war from the beginning, that every time it looked like the Russians were coming to victory, the West came in with a new escalatory move and provided Ukraine with manpower, with, I’ve got to say, advisors, and with hardware, which enabled them to fight on.

If the situation is now reaching a culmination point, which means that the defenders of Ukraine are all the more desperate and irresponsible in their behavior, [then] I think it is a big mistake if Vladimir Putin does not take that into account and do what is within his power, which is to utterly destroy the Ukrainian regime in one day with the Oreshniks on Bankovskaya Urytsia, whatever it’s called, the one street in downtown Kiev, where all the government officers are.

That would be much more sparing of Russian lives and Ukrainian lives than his war of attrition today.

Napolitano: 8:50
I guess he doesn’t want to spare the Ukrainian lives. Chris, let’s play back to back the cuts that reference what Professor Doctorow has been saying. 18 and then 22, Chris.

Questioner:
Mr. President, do you think that NATO countries should shoot down Russian aircraft if they enter their airspace?

Trump:
Yes, I do.

Questioner:
Would you back up NATO allies– you said that you thought that they should shoot down the Russian aircraft– would you back them up, would the United States help them out in some way?

Trump:
Depends on the circumstances. It’s been a terrible war, should have ended, and Russia should have stopped it.

But they’ve been three and a half years and they’ve gotten not so far. So we’ll see what happens. But the other side can fight, too. And they’ve proven that. Maybe it’s a – it could be that Russia is a paper tiger.

I don’t know what they are, but three and a half years of fighting and killing everybody, of killing 7,000 people a week For nothing. For nothing. So it’s a very sad situation, but most of you have seen the recent statement I put out a little while ago. And I’m glad you got it. But I feel that way. I really do feel that way. Let them get their land back.

Macron:
Yep.

Trump:
So we’ll see how it all works out.

Napolitano: 10:07
Let them get their land back. You know, Professor Doctorow, that that is a metaphysical impossibility.

Doctorow:
And so does Donald Trump. He is speaking with sarcasm and he is giving again the message that I have read into him going back weeks: that is, Mr. Putin, get it over with. Now he didn’t say how the war should end.

He didn’t say what Russia will give, should give up in a settlement. No, he expects Russia to take all the chips, but they should do it now so we, the United States, and you Russians can get on with our real business, which starts with renewal of the New Start arms limitation agreement, which expires in February 26, very, very soon. These are issues of much greater importance to Mr. Trump than where the lines between the new Ukrainian rump state and Russia will be.

Napolitano: 11:09
Well, they’re certainly of great importance to the Russians. I don’t know if they’re of importance to Trump. He’s the one that tears up these agreements. He thinks they’re a sign of weakness when the United States is very rationally restrained from expanding its nuclear arsenal.

I want to play President Trump and President Macron again. Watch the look on President Macron’s face. This goes to your argument, Professor Doctorow. He may be saying this for the benefit of the Europeans. Watch the smirking President of France.

——–
Trump:
It’s been a terrible war that should have ended, and Russia should have stopped it. But they’ve been three and a half years, and they’ve gotten not so far. So we’ll see what happens.

But the other side can fight, too. And they’ve proven that. Maybe it’s a — it could be that Russia is a paper tiger. I don’t know what they are, but three and a half years of fighting and killing everybody, of killing 7,000 people a week for nothing. For nothing.

So it’s a very sad situation, but most of you have seen the recent statement I put out a little while ago. And I’m glad you got it. But I feel that way. I really do feel that way. Let them get their land back.

Macron:
Yep:

Trump:
So we’ll see how it all works out.
——–

Napolitano: 12:27
Here’s President Zelensky’s reaction, Not to that interview with President Macron, but to the Truth Social posting that I read a few minutes ago, cut number 19.

========
“I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form. With time, patience and the financial support of Europe and in particular NATO, the original Borders from where this war started, is very much an option.”

Are you surprised to hear that?

Zelensky:
A little bit. A bit. I mean, this, I’m sure in my people, in my army, and I’m sure in strengthening, in support of the United States. But President Trump was more positive in it. And he showed that he wants to support Ukraine to the very end.

So we understand now that we are ready to finish this war as quick as possible. And he wants, and I want, and our people want. But he understand that Putin doesn’t want. And he understands that he’s not winning, but he says to everybody that he will win. And I see very, it was a little bit surprise for me, you’re right. I was very positive signals from the side that Trump and America will be with us to the end of the war.

Yes, we will see. We will see. But God bless. It will be so.
========

Napollitano: 14:05
What do you expect him to say? Surprised and he’s happy, but he may not believe it. He may take the Doctorow view of this.

Doctorow:
Well, I don’t know how deeply he will analyze it. So long as Trump says what he said, that Europe will save Ukraine, Zelensky knows that it cannot save Ukraine. This is the key point.

Mr. Trump has washed his hands of American military and financial contributions to Ukraine. That is decisive. Everything else is irrelevant, actually. Let Mr. Macron smirk, let him feel satisfied that he has turned Mr. Trump, which he hasn’t. The man is not for turning. And I believe that Mr. Putin is missing the cues.

The cue is Trump is buying him time to end it. And end it, he can only do with Oreshniks. Otherwise, this will go on for one more year. And Lord knows what’s going to happen in the global alignment of countries on this war and on Russia in one year’s time. This is the time to end it.

Napolitano: 15:25
Can you give me your understanding of the drone issue, the claims that Russia sent drones over Poland, the counterclaims that these were Russian drones on the ground in Ukraine, reassembled by the Ukrainians sent over Poland as sort of a false flag. How do you read this drone controversy, which candidly seems a little like old news and then it keeps coming back?

Doctorow: 15:57
It keeps coming back because it is not a self-standing issue. The drone issue is part of the Russian incursion issue. They are both being masterminded by the same people, probably sitting in MI6 in London.

It is because the Brits are way ahead of the States in nasty, nasty tricks, especially today, when Mr. Trump has pulled in the CIA and the other actors who otherwise took part in dirty tricks and false flag operations in Ukraine.

The situation is complex, and I’m not surprised that many people have not seen this as one whole campaign by the leadership in Europe, this means Britain and Germany, to nail Russia with accusations that are false or which are, may be true as in the case of incursions, but are true for reasons that are not coming up in the press. I have in mind specifically the point that in effect, the NATO powers in Europe have created or want to create an air blockade on Russia.

17:17
They are saying that Russia is crossing their airspace. Well, it probably is, because if you look at the map, and if you ask Google artificial intelligence this question, can any aircraft pass the length of the Baltic without passing over NATO countries’ territorial waters, the answer comes back: it cannot. So what we saw–

Napolitano:
That’s Sweden, right?

Doctorow:
Sweden joined NATO, and that made it almost impossible for Russian aircraft to cross the Baltic and not touch on one or another territorial water of a NATO state. That is not being discussed in the media.

It is a nasty secret because what we’re talking about now is essentially an attempt to blockade in the air, which follows the May events. You will recall, in May of this year. The Estonians sent cutters to arrest a gray fleet tanker that was taking oil to or from St. Petersburg as Russia owned. And they were driven away like scattering mice before a cat when the Russians sent up fighter planes over that area.

18:39
That failed. The naval blockade on the ground, on water level, failed. Now they’re trying an air blockade. So the only way– what this will lead to, if it is pursued, and if they follow the advice of Mr. Trump and shoot down a Russian plane, it leads us directly to World War Three. Since Mr.

Trump did not answer the question– you heard that he didn’t answer the question, but the United States will provide support– he was asked that elsewhere, in which he said it depends on the circumstances. The point is that it’s very feeble to non-existent support, and no NATO country will dare attack a Russian airplane if it doesn’t have US backing.

Napolitano: 19:20
Does Emmanuel Macron believe that Russia is a paper tiger?

Doctorow:
I don’t think for a minute he believes that. He knows how many nuclear missiles he has. He knows that the Russians have 10 times or more that number. And that he knows that the Russian nuclear triad is totally updated, which the United States is not. Therefore, if anyone is feeding him proper intelligence, and I assume they are, he knows that that is not a paper tiger.

Napolitano: 19:48
Back to the drones. Is it your understanding that MI6 engineered this, that the drones were a false flag and the Poles were in on the scheme?

Doctorow:
My first reading of the situation was much more simple and direct. It seemed to me, and not just to me but to many other people, that the Ukrainians had initiated this, and that the intent was to put the Russians into direct conflict with Poland. If a military action took place, then that would quickly broaden into a direct kinetic war, as opposed to proxy war between NATO and Russia.

20:30
Then when this broadened, then Romania became an issue. And then following that several days later, at the end of last week, we had this Estonian claims. It became clear that this was not a one-off, the drones were not a one-off act by Ukraine to engage Poland in war. It was something much bigger, and it was being directed most likely from the West and most likely from Britain.

And the timing, let’s look at this question of incursions. The incursions, even Kallas said, Kallas, the head of, the foreign policy commissioner of, the vice president of the European Commission, said that there were four Russian incursions over Estonia airspace this year.

21:17
Well, why wasn’t the complaint made earlier, and why was it made now? The answer is Zapad-25, the military exercises that Russia was conducting at the same time as the drone incursions and ended just before the story of jet fighters over Estonian airspace.

This was a NATO response to Zapad 25 to start the 100,000 Russian soldiers in operations from Murmansk to the southwest of the Russian Federation with a very big soft-power impact on the 25 delegations from all over the world, including Iran, who were present as witnesses.

Napolitano: 22:06
If MI6 orchestrates this type of dirty tricks– and I don’t mean to demean it by calling it dirty tricks; it could have led to the loss of life; it could have led to a a war– is CIA far behind? Don’t they work hand in glove?

Doctorow: 22:23
Well, I think you have other panelists who are much more capable, much more experienced in judging what CIA can do. I, as an outsider looking on, say that’s doubtful.

After all, I think that Mr. Trump has some control over policy, even in the CIA, and they would be much more cautious about something as inflammatory, as escalatory as what has gone on in the last week; whereas MI6 knows no restraints. Their boss is all in favor. It’s all sporting for a war.

Napolitano: 22:59
Professor Doctorow, a fascinating stuff. Thank you very much. Welcome back home from your happy trip. And thank you very much for joining us. We’ll look forward as always to seeing you next week.

Doctorow:
My pleasure.

Napolitano:
Thank you again. Coming up later today at 1:30 this afternoon, Aaron Maté– do you know that General Petraeus embraced somebody he once tried to kill who was the head of the Taliban when Petraeus was leading the charge in Afghanistan? We’ll get into all of that.

And Pepe Escobar– what do President Xi and President Putin think of Trump’s latest words, which I think are nonsense and Professor Doctorow says are carefully calculated? That’s Pepe Escobar today at 3.30 this afternoon.

23:49
Judge Napolitano for “Judging Freedom”.

News X World interview 23 September:  the Indian understanding of British sense of fair play is a knee to the groin

Yesterday I had two brief interviews with News X World relating to the latest NATO Council accusations against Russia for ‘irresponsible’ incursions into Estonian and other NATO air space over the Baltic Sea.

One of these interviews has been partially put on line by the broadcaster

You will note that the video stops just as I was about to say the following:

My characterization of these NATO allegations, which were picked up and disseminated by the BBC and other Western major media, is that they corresponded to Western, in this case specifically British, behavior in the sporting world during competitions with Indian teams: the Brits use a knee to the groin. I was merely repeating what I had heard some years ago from an Indian news analyst on air. The NATO story line against Russia is precisely a knee to the groin.

I say this because it is virtually impossible for aircraft to navigate the Baltic Sea without passing over the ‘territorial waters’ of one or another NATO nation given the narrowness of the sea in various places and the fact that since the accession of Sweden to NATO, the sea is lined by NATO member states.  What we are talking about in effect is an attempt by the European NATO member states to impose an air blockade on Russia.  If pursued, this can only lead to WWIII.

However, I greatly doubt that it will be pursued.  Even when Donald Trump said yesterday to a journalist that the Europeans should shoot down any offending Russian planes, he went on to say that whether the U.S. would back them up ‘depends on the circumstances.’  That faint support ensures that no European country will dare to attack Russian military planes over the Baltic.

In one of the two News X World interview segments, I expressed my surprise that NATO speaks of the Russian incursions as a violation of international law!  How remarkable, given that the Collective West had abandoned the notion of international law coming from the United Nations and replaced it with the ‘rules-based order’ set down and changed daily by Messrs Jake Sullivan and Tony Blinken in Washington. If NATO countries indeed once again are paying attention to international law, then they should rise up and put an end to Israel’s genocide in Gaza.         

                                                                   *****

I am told by a News X World producer that the full interview will be posted and sent to me. If and when that happens, I will repost here.

Transcript submitted by a reader

https://www.mgtow.tv/watch/sanchez-effect-dr-gilbert-doctorow-trump-s-playbook-a-masterclass-in-confusion_DXPcqxRBgbjUY3z.html

https://rumble.com/v6zbfxs-sanchez-effect-dr.-gilbert-doctorow-trumps-playbook–masterclass-in-confus.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CroGgJxPEbU

Orban: 11:55 (English voice over)
Europe, as we knew and loved it, is over. If we deny this, we lose time. If we say it out loud, we gain time.

Sanchez:
Wow, has the post-World War II model lost its way? Is it too late to get it back? That’s what Orban seemed to be saying, but in stronger words than I just repeated. Our guest today has written countless books on this subject. His books include War Diaries, Stepping Out of Line, Does the U.S. Have a Future, Does Russia Have a Future, and many, many more.

Here, historian, international thinker, and writer, Dr. Gilbert Doctorow is good enough to join us. Wow, that was quite a mouthful, not for me, but for Mr. Orban. Lilliputians, bankrupt, wars, they’re finished. Wow. Is he right about Europe, doctor?

Doctorow: 12:52
Yes and no. Under the present administration of von der Leyen, yes, this is a very apt description. However, she’s not going to remain in power forever. And there are some well-informed members of the European Parliament who have shared with me their view that she may not last six months. It’s also possible she may not last two weeks.

There are now pending two votes of no confidence against von der Leyen, one of them initiated precisely by Mr. Orban and his group of deputies in the European Parliament, the Patriots for Europe. These are accusing her of violating the Constitution, of having lack of transparency in the way she governs.

So if von der Leyen falls, which is, I wouldn’t say likely, but it’s possible in the near future, then she will be replaced by people who will be far more circumspect. I don’t mean to say that the balance of power within the European Parliament and in the European institutions will change overnight, but it will be on the way towards change, and it can virtually only change for the better.

14:07
As for Europe’s viability, I believe it’s there. But it’s possible only if Europe goes back to where it was in the 1990s as a peace project and not in the new millennium as a war project.

Sanchez: 14:22
Let me ask you the question that my editors would ask me when I told them that something is likely to happen and it’s going to be big news. How good are your sources that are telling you that von der Leyen is on the way out?

Doctorow:

Well, it’s not wild speculation. There were several weeks ago, and I forget, within the last two months, there was a vote of no confidence, which she survived.

Sanchez:
Yes.

Doctorow:
But she held on by her fingertips. I understand that there was a one-vote swing, which left her in power. And if the mood has continually deteriorated, with respect to her popularity, standing, credibility in the parliament, then she’ll lose the next vote. As I say, that’s not going to cure all, but it’s a good start, towards cure. And what is at issue is Europe being, as I say, a war project, because it has taken over geopolitics as its uniting factor, whereas in the 1990s it was the economics and cultural dimension which gave Europe unity.

Sanchez: 15:28
So essentially it’s become an entity that is into wars, Afghanistan, Belgrade, Iraq, et cetera. It has become aggressive and very tied to the military establishments that surround themselves with that entity. Is that part of what you’re intimating has been their downfall?

Doctorow:
Exactly. They have made the bogeyman Russia the uniting factor. It is meant to keep in power those who are now ruling Europe. Let’s be frank about it. We’re talking about a very common element of politics, and that is to hold on to the spoils of power at all price. European countries, by and large, are run by coalition governments, which are a formula for corruption and for incompetence, which, corruption and incompetence, are two sides of the same coin. Parties get together for the sake of grabbing and holding power, and they have no consistency in their policies, because they have dealt out to parties with conflicting interests and conflicting programs, ministerial portfolios, to have a majority of seats in the parliaments. So it is a situation where Europe, country by country, will have to reconsider the basis for elections and allocation of a formation of governments. That’s a separate but related issue.

Sanchez:
But when you hear Orban talk about it, he talks about layoffs and high inflation and wages are really low and migrants all over the place and the populace that’s unhappy. How did that become the overflow product of this situation that you were just describing to us. Did they, you know– there’s an expression in America, as you know, you and I are both Americans. The term is you “take your eye off the ball”. Have they taken their eye off the ball, the people that they’re supposed to serve?

Doctorow:
Well, it took some time to reach the dismal state they’re in now. As regards the illegal immigrants, refugees, as they were called at the time. This takes us back to 2014, 2015, and the gross mistake of Angela Merkel to open the doors of Europe to these supposedly kind ladies with little children who were fleeing the civil war in Syria. That was a very nice story for the progressive press in Western Europe.

It was now quite– lie. And the present Minister of Defense in the Belgian government, Theo Franken, he wrote a very fine book about 2016, _Europe Without Borders_, which described in great detail the fraud that was perpetrated on the European peoples, since it was not nice, kindly ladies with little children who came in. And it was not Syrians as such. It was Afghanis. It was North Africans. It was all kinds of very muscular young men who came as economic refugees, not war refugees.

Sanchez: 18:56
Before it’s all said and done, before we leave Europe– because I want to ask you about the United States, and I want to ask you about Russia and Ukraine. There’s so many things to talk about, including some of the things that are going on with India and Israel as well, but– maybe the final question when it comes to Europe is, will, if there is a change– and let us suppose that your sources and your sense of things is correct, and your sense of things is usually correct because you’re one of the most respected people in this business– and von der Leyen is out, what are the probabilities that whoever or whatever replaces her in the European power structure will be more level-headed and will not do things like wanting eternal war with Russia and wanting to constantly engage in more and more wars, etc.? What are the chances of that?

Doctorow: 19:57
There are several factors here. I started this discussion pointing to the European institutions. The opposition to von der Leyen is partly or even importantly on geopolitical considerations. And that is why it is of greatest interest to myself and to others who are following developments in Europe.

This is not the only factor that can bring about change. We have the two locomotive countries from the beginning of the European institutions, that is France and Germany, both are faltering. Both have the possibility of changing government in the foreseeable future, as opposed to the constitutionally recommended periods of service. England also has a very weak government.

20:47
So, if you put together the possibility the fall of Macron, he has royal powers under the French Constitution, but even royalty can find itself on the way out, even if they’re not facing a guillotine. The government of Macron is hanging by a hair. And if he cannot maintain his own position, then there will be a change, a dramatic change in France, which will bear upon the overall geopolitical stance of Europe.

In Germany, Mr. Merz looks very solid. He was very proud that in the West German Laender, the states, federal states of Germany, had elections in the last 10 days. His party held its own. However, his coalition partner, that is the socialist SPD, they lost significantly to the Right parties of the Alternative fur Deutschland.

Sanchez:
Or Russian.

Doctorow:
If you lose your coalition, then you lose your government.

Sanchez:
Yeah.

Doctorow:
And you’re out and have to face elections. And he will not survive a new election in Germany, because he’s very unpopular, as became apparent after he took office. So it is possible in both of these locomotive countries of the European Union that there will be changes of government in the foreseeable future, all of which would promote and redirect the European institutions, because these countries are leaders within the European Council, which is the second executive body alongside the commission within Europe.

Sanchez: 22:27
Yeah, all three of them have horrible approval numbers, by the way. I mean, not just horrible, dismal, like in the low 20s. And by the way, just to make sure I heard you correct, you said that Macron is not hanging by a thread, but hanging by a head?

Doctorow:

Hanging by a hair, well, might as well say by a thread, yes.

Sanchez:
Okay, I was thinking of French history there for just a moment. Good line either way. Let’s talk our country, the United States of America. What gives? I can’t help but look at the situation and scratch my head in a different place every day. I’m going to give myself a sore trying to figure out what is the intent? What is the actual strategy? Have you figured it out?

Doctorow:
Well, I have. I’ve paid a price in terms of the general public reading my works or listening to me. I’m doing better these days than, say, six months ago. Six months ago, I was called an apologist for Putin. Now I’m called an apologist for Trump. I suppose that’s progress.

The point is that I see logic in Mr. Trump in what he does, not what he says. What he says is intended to confuse, to keep all of his opponents both domestically and foreign, off balance, and to avoid their coming at him with a hatchet. So he has successfully confused many of my peers in alternative media.

Sanchez:
Including me. Including me. Hands up over here, by the way.

Doctorow:
They point to the contradictions as if he is mindless and does what is proposed to him by the last person to whisper in his ear. I absolutely [disagree] with that. He has his priorities and his direction.

His first priority is establishing some normal relationship with Russia for a number of reasons, which we probably don’t have time to discuss, but they are rational, rational logic to this. And he is doing what he can in very difficult circumstances. By that I mean he is surrounded by opponents to his policy. The Congress basically is opposed to his policy of some kind of normalization with Russia. And of course, Europe is now all against it and has, in the last week, launched yet another program to draw to its side Mr. Trump.

25:06
And I mean now this discussion of the drone attacks on Poland, Romania; and the Estonian complaints that Russian fighter jets violated their airspace. All of this is nonsense. If you want to go back to basics, what those drones were, whether it was possible at all to fly across the Baltic without violating NATO space, given the realities of the narrowness of the Baltic Sea and the countries lining it, being NATO members. In any case, my point is that the Russians have been described as aggressors in the last week, all in an attempt to turn Mr. Trump around.

Well, they won’t. The man is not for turning, but he is for lying, for deceiving, and for giving hope to his enemies that he will do what they want, which he will not. So it is a waiting game. The message that I see from Mr. Trump to Mr. Putin is to get it over with quickly. That is the message.

Sanchez: 26:18
I’m wondering, in hearing you say that about Mr. Trump, whether you believe—and I think this is important, so let me just try and get it on the record from you, because a lot of people heard you mention as an aside what just happened with Poland, and I haven’t quite even figured it out.

Do you think it’s a canard, a red herring? Do you think it’s just errant drones that suddenly may or may not have been the fault of Russia that ended up in Polish airspace? And should we not then ask ourselves if Russia was really interested in doing something with Poland or to Poland, which I don’t think they are. I think they have no interest in Poland or Europe, who would? They would have done it full force, not with three or four errant drones.

27:10
That’s just what I’m thinking, not necessarily as a studied journalist on this issue who’s talked to sources, but rather as somebody who just looks at it and says, this doesn’t make sense to me. What’s your take?

Doctorow:
Well, to go back to the beginning, my own understanding of what was happening has changed over the last 10 days or so, as new information came out and as new accusations against Russia came on. Initially it looked like this was, these were drones sent by Ukraine into Polish territory for the sake of provoking a Russia-Polish war, and which would immediately become a broader Russia-NATO war, moving from proxy to genuine kinetic war.

That was over, that was bypassed by further information. First of all, we learned from Polish authorities, Polish news sources, that Belarus had communicated with the Polish military while those drones were flying over Belarus territory informing the– well, I have posted the links to the Polish news agencies– giving the Poles time to act. If Russia were the source of these, of the [drones] it is excluded totally that Belarus would be communicating information to warn them.

Sanchez:
They’re allies with Russia.

Doctorow:
We have to [assume].

28:40
Secondly, people have done research into what the drones were. They were found to be not kamikaze drones, but the type of drone that Russia has used in swarm attacks on various Ukrainian sites. These are to attract or distract the air defenses from the primary attack drones and missiles. It was known that the Ukrainians had been collecting downed drones of this variety.

And they did. Some of them do go down by electronic warfare they’re brought down, and or they crash. And since they had no explosives, which was the important fact, they would just fall and break up. They could be reassembled, were reassembled by the Ukrainians for use in this contingency. All of that was defined at the level of a Ukraine-Polish interaction.

However, the plot had thickened in the last week or so; then there were the so-called attacks on Romania, further aggravating the case against Russia as an aggressor. And now we have the culmination in the last few days, the supposed violation of Estonian airspace by Russian military jets.

Well, we have to look at the timing of all of this. All of this comes in the middle or at the end of Zapad 25, the West 25 military exercises of Belarus and Russia with very large-scale participation, more than 100, 000 Russian soldiers in action, sites all over the place from Murmansk in the north, down to the southwest of Russia, and in the [Baltic Sea].

30:30
This of course was an important event staged in part to show the military prowess of Russia to the 25 visiting delegations, many of them Global South, prospective security partners of Russia and purchasers of Russia military hardware.

Now, the West reacted. How did they react? By this canard, as you called it, false flag activity, which has a number of objectives. One of them has been to call for united Ukrainian, Polish dash NATO action, securing a wall against Russian drones using Ukrainian technology and hardware to help the West European countries defend themselves against Russian drones.

31:24
At a price less than what happened in this Polish incident, where the Poles sent aloft fighter jets that cost several million euros each, that fire missiles that cost $500,000 each to down drones that cost $20,000 each.

So this was one big end result of all of these various efforts, starting with the false flag drone attack on Poland. And now it reached the highest level in the case of the Estonian charges meant to influence Donald Trump.

Sanchez:
That’s amazing. The explanation that you just gave is the best that I’ve heard since I’ve been watching this situation. And I’m here in Moscow.

And sometimes, you know, things get muddy because a lot of people talk at once. But in the end, the takeaway from all of this is Russia was flexing its muscle, doing military exercises and inviting global south countries and countries from all over the world. They probably would have been happy to see even NATO countries come. Here’s what we got. We’ll be happy to show you. You can buy it if you want, for the right amount of money.

32:38
NATO, EU, that power structure saw what Russia was doing and said, we have to create a distraction. We have to create, as you said, a false flag. We have to create something to make people think that Russia is actually getting ready to invade Europe. If Biden had been president, he would have held a news conference and said, “We’ve got to be on the alert because Russia is getting ready to invade Europe.”

Instead, we heard it from Rutte, but we didn’t hear it from Donald Trump. Going back to your original point, maybe Donald Trump is a little smarter than we give him credit for.

Doctorow:
I think he has good advisors. In the memorial service for Charlie Kirk yesterday, we had a good glimpse of what kind of advisors and what quality advisors Trump has had around him. And that is first quality.

That is an extraordinarily capable man of great intelligence, who obviously was providing to Trump the information on what is going on at American universities, since he traversed the country many times each year and had installed his Turning Point units in 2,000 American universities and colleges. That is on that domain. I believe he had similar competence in his advisors for foreign policy and what is going on in Russia. I have taken issue with my peers and intelligence experts who appear on some very widely known programs based in Washington and elsewhere, and who keep on insisting that Trump is in the dark. He’s not in the dark at all. We’re more likely in the dark than he’s in the dark.

Sanchez: 34:13
So you’re talking about Jeffrey Sachs and Mearsheimer and Ritter and Napolitano and Daniels and some of these guys who are wonderful people, by the way, really good communicators, great shows, but they tend to lean on the side that Trump’s getting really, really bad information and he should have made Macgregor his defense secretary.

Doctorow:
Well, I won’t make any comments on Macgregor, who iss obviously a very competent and experienced man, but I’m not sure I would like to see him as the defense minister. As regards Mr. Sachs, I would put him apart from the other men you’ve mentioned, because he is a globalist. And that is something that everybody who praises him for his wonderful stance on US foreign policy and its violations of international law, they ignore the fact that Jeffrey Sachs is a backer of globalism, which is the reason why the United States is such a violator of international law.

Sanchez: 35:13
Can we talk Israel for a little bit? Canada, UK, Australia came out today and said they recognize officially Palestine as a state. I’m wondering whether they know that they’d already done that during the Oslo Accord, or at least that was my reading of it, so [I’m] kind of shocked that everybody’s making such a big deal out of it. So I guess my question to you, is it a big deal?

Doctorow: 35:38
Well, it cannot be a big deal if no one is taking any action against Israel to prevent the annexation of the West Bank. I think that’s a much bigger deal than these countries coming out and acknowledging the non-existent Palestinian government.

There is no government. It’s a nice statement. It is certainly hurtful to Israel, but it does not contribute to ending the genocide in Gaza or to downing Mr. Netanyahu. I think a much more important development in the last couple of days, was the Pakistan-Saudi agreement, a mutual defense, which, if I were sitting in West Jerusalem in Israeli offices, I would be much more worried about.

36:27
That gives to the Gulf states, and to one Gulf state in particular, Saudi Arabia, finally an equalizer to Israel and its nuclear weapons.

Sanchez:
That’s a great point. Everybody talks about the Israel situation in Gaza. Everybody criticizes what Israel is doing, and by everybody I mean everybody but the United States and a few others. But nobody ever can definitively say that any of this, no matter how ruffian Israel may appear, is going to eventually affect them in a negative way.

I alluded to this earlier, I think you heard me say, props to Netanyahu, he basically is thumbing his nose at the rest of the world and said, “I don’t care what you think, and I don’t care what you say about me.” My tendency is then to ask you, what can they do to him? What can happen to him? How can he be affected by any of this?

Doctorow: 37:32
None of the great powers [has] taken any significant action against Israel, and that is China, it is Russia.

Sanchez:
Right.

Doctorow:
And I understand why. If the neighbors, if the Gulf states do nothing, except jawbone, then there is no room for outside powers to come in and do something. So that is the real state, the real situation. As for Mr. Trump, since I’ve said some very positive things about him, I’d like to put the negative side. This is a balance, of course. The negative side is his support for Israel, which enables the genocide, and not only the genocide. For example, the very widely discussed Israeli attack on Qatar. Yes, as I understand, it was enabled by American refueling of their jets, not a small detail.

38:32
The problem here is that Mr. Trump lives in a world that he didn’t make in Washington, and there are certain rules that he is stuck with. And one is not to go against the pro-Zionist Congress. If he were to act out of conscience and take any measures against Netanyahu and the genocide, he would be politically broken the next day. Therefore, in a world that has both good and evil in it, you have to make compromises.

Mr. Trump has compromised on relations with Israel, and he is seeking to accomplish something on a global level by putting aside the risk of a war with Russia.

Sanchez: 39:23
There are those who say, and I only mention this because it’s become part of the national conversation these days in the United States, that what you just said is true, but actually worse. Mr. Trump would not be broken politically, to use your words, as a result of taking on Israel in the United States. He could actually be broken physically for taking on Israel, if you get my gist. What do you think of that?

Doctorow: 39:54
I think if he doesn’t do something stupid again, that is not going to happen. What he did stupid was called out on Russian television two weeks ago, when he and J.D. Vance and much of the cabinet took a stroll over to a Washington restaurant to demonstrate how safe Washington is.

That was a very stupid thing to do. Vladimir Solovyov’s program mentioned anyone with a bomb among that group of protesters in the restaurant could have ended the US government right then and there. Now, the reason why Mr. Trump, aside from that very strange and inexplicable risk-taking that I just described in that restaurant, Mr. Trump’s best life insurance policy is called JD Vance.

40:45
Nobody in his right mind, among political malefactors, will try to remove Trump knowing that he would be replaced by a man who is still more obnoxious in the opposition to America’s conventional foreign policy than J.D. Vance.

Sanchez:
Yeah, he’s a non-Neocon. He’s a non-Neocon, right? That’s what you mean, yeah.

Doctorow:
That’s right.

Sanchez:
Huh, I’ve never looked at it that way. That’s absolutely fascinating. His best insurance is in fact JD Vance.

I got, what I got left in my mind in this feeble little tiny Cuban mind of mine. Why don’t we go to why don’t we go to India? I was fascinated last night. I was obviously watching football because it’s Sunday night in America. But I was fascinated by what Mr. Modi did. Just to all of a sudden call this emergency national address where he told his people, Swadesha, we have to do this. And he didn’t say, don’t go to McDonald’s, don’t go to Burger King, don’t drive a Chevy. But he didn’t have to. I kind of got the gist.

He was telling people, don’t buy American products. We’re going to make our own products. We might buy some stuff from the Chinese and the Russians. That was my take. What was yours?

Doctorow: 42:12
Well, he was just repeating Mahatma Gandhi. This was the basic method, don’t buy British textiles. Buy Indian hand-woven textiles. That’s where it all began. That’s where the Indian liberation movement found its footing.

So I think within India, this would have been recognized immediately, that he’s positioning himself in the tradition of Mahatma Gandhi as regards the self-, the production of goods and the purchase of goods within the country. However, that is much easier to recommend than to enforce. Russia has been through this. It was only in wartime conditions of drastic economic sanctions that Russia adapted to that type of policy of import substitution. And, of course, it was furthered by the military prowess on display, which gave a great deal of confidence to Russians that they can make things and do things.

43:25
And that is one of the big points in my book, which you made reference to, _The War Diaries_, which is largely about coming from my visits to Russia at a time when nearly all Western correspondents were not there due to the, first the covid and then to the sanctions imposed on Russia at the start of the special military operation. And what I saw was, step by step, how this was achieved, how there was the making of a nation that had confidence in itself.

And I thought back to the 1990s when I was, my wife and I were taking a taxi down the main boulevards of St. Petersburg and the driver said, “And by the way, we Russians make very cute kids, but not such good cars.” That self-deprecation, that inferiority complex, which was well established in the broad Russian public, has evaporated.

Sanchez:
It has.

Doctorow:
And there’s great pride in Russia’s ability to produce very good consumer good products.

Sanchez:
Yeah.

Doctorow:
And of course to feed itself magnificently as it is doing now. So India has to have a bit more pressure on it for the public to follow Mr. Modi’s advice.

Sanchez:
I, it’s interesting. So in many ways, what you’re saying is the United States has replaced the British in the mindset of the contemporary situation that we’re undergoing or that India is undergoing right now. If you haven’t had a chance to look at it, I would direct you to go look at my files of this show to my interview with Mr. Solyonov, who was the finance minister of Russia, because he said the very same thing.

45:11
We were having a conversation, he was sitting right here to the right of me, came in to say hi, spent a long interview, and at one point I asked him, I said, “what are you gonna do about McDonald’s?” And he says, we’ve learned to make the burgers and the cheeseburgers and the Big Macs better than theirs, and they ain’t getting them back. So anyway, it was a pride of ownership. I don’t know if you can brag about pride of ownership over a Big Mac or a Juicy Burger, whatever the hell they’re called, but it was interesting to hear him say that. To your point.

45:42
Hey, let’s finish off, doctor, with what can happen in Ukraine. My take watching this and reporting on it and doing interviews on it is that the Europeans have not moved one inch. They’ve not moved one inch in understanding what the positions of the Russians are. I think if they did give the Russians, I don’t know, 60, 75 percent of what they’re asking for, this thing could be done in– this thing could be over in 24 hours.

But they haven’t, as far as I can tell. First of all, what do you think of my take on that? And second of all, is there room for movement at some point, maybe post-von der Leyen and Rutte, you know, Merz, Macron, these other people? What do you think?

Doctorow: 46:41
Well, I think that some kind of patching up between Europe and Russia will take place. I wouldn’t want to put an exact timeline on it, but the logic is compelling, the economic logic. Also, if the locomotive countries have this collapse of the present leadership, that will give further room to the smaller countries to make their own accommodation with Russia. I’m speaking to you from Brussels. I’m a longtime resident in Brussels, long time, meaning more than 40 years. And I’ve seen a few people here and have a sense of how the country is suffering right now economically.

47:23
When you go down the main boulevards at Brussels, you see a lot of vacant retail and restaurants. The economy is suffering. People who are associated with marketing, which is the first budgetary item in all company business to be sacrificed, they tell me that the companies have slashed their marketing budget, which is an indication that Belgium is suffering from the German recession, as are the other smaller countries around Central Europe. These countries will certainly break with the von der Leyen-imposed restrictions and cancel Russia policies — as soon as von der Leyen goes, which could be very soon, and as soon as a country like France has a change of government, which is also very possible. So, but that is a very near term.

48:16
In the medium term, it is so obvious that Europe needs very badly the hydrocarbons, the gas and oil, at affordable prices, which Russia was providing, in order to be, once again, economically competitive in global markets. So, this will patch up. The Russians, that’s for the Russians. I know that many Russians who might listen to this will say I’m wrong, that they have had their fill of Europe. However, my own reading of the situation is that Russia is part of Europe intellectually, culturally, in every way.

48:59
And to say that– to deny that, is to deny the obvious. When I was, again, studying, looking over my diary entries when I was living and working in Russia in the 1990s, in the midst of destitution, the high culture performing arts, museums, symphonies, they were reconstructed, readapted to market conditions and flourished. And they are flourishing today. And let us remember that these high culture institutions, they are European institutions.

Russia was an essential contributor to European culture. Therefore, to deny this is to deny the obvious. Of course, they’ll patch up.

Sanchez: 49:43
I get a sense. I’ve been here now, I don’t know, four and a half, five months or something like that since I got here and I started covering stories, though I’ve done a lot of traveling, different parts.

My sense is, I love what you just said. I think Russians like American culture, but are born of European culture. And they can’t take that suit off. They wear it. It’s visible to me when I see it.

So that’s my take, you know, just based on observation. And it comes to me as I hear you say those words. So, wow, what a great interview. You are such a brilliant person. And your thoughts, your ideas are so provoking in so many ways.

And it seems like obviously you’re imperfect and so am I and so are we all, but So much of what you have said, doctor, has been on the money in terms of understanding these situations that we’re all embroiled in right now. Thank you so much for being my guest. You’ve been so kind to spend so much time with us talking about these things. I hope to be able to talk to you again.

Doctorow: 50:57
It was very kind of you to invite me, and I’ve enjoyed this as much as you have.

Sanchez:
Oh, thank you so much, Dr. Gilbert Doctorow. What a pleasure. What a great author. Buy his books, my God. Listen to that man.

That’s it from us. I got a podcast. It’s called Journalistically Speaking because I believe in journalism, because I am a journalist and because I think it’s an important craft and it’s about truth. Also, oh yeah, we’re on X a lot, all over X these days.

I mean, I’m also on Apple and Spotify. I’m all over the place, but we do a lot of really good stuff on X, and our crew’s really commanding some unbelievable conversations with you. Thank you for all you do. Thank you for letting us into your home. God bless.

51:42
Take care. We’ll see you next time.

Transcript submitted by a reader https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHzPmbvNCYU Napolitano: 0:32 Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for “Judging Freedom”. Today is Wednesday, September 17th, 2025. Professor Gilbert Doctorow will be with us in just a moment on Is Europe Collapsing? But first this. [ad] 1:56 Professor Doctorow, welcome here, my dear friend. Thank you for accommodating my schedule, as you always do. Before we get into the current state of geopolitics in Europe, what has been the reaction in Europe and maybe in the Kremlin, if you’re able to gauge it, to the United States-approved and facilitated and Israeli- perpetrated attack on a residential neighborhood in Doha, Qatar last week? Doctorow: 2:31 The reaction– I’ll concentrate on the Russian reaction. What I detect in the last few days watching Russian state television is a significant hardening of Moscow’s position with respect to Israel. They were sitting on the fence. They didn’t want to create difficulties in their relationship with Israel. That’s all over. What I see now is very frank statements condemning Israeli genocide in Gaza, and of course what happened in Doha is part of the overall picture. So in that regard there is a change in Moscow’s position vis-a-vis Israel and the ongoing land offensive in Gaza City is part of that picture as well. In Europe, of course, what we see is a greater willingness to talk about sanctions against Israel, though of course nothing has happened as yet. So far it’s just jaw-burning. Napolitano? 3:36 Is the Kremlin going to do anything about it? I mean, how should we read this public change in the Kremlin’s attitude? Doctorow: I’m afraid to say that it doesn’t indicate any particular actions to protect Palestinians or to intervene in the conflict. That is not the present state of affairs. I think that the Kremlin takes its cue from what the Gulf states are doing, and as you know, the Gulf states are doing nothing. Therefore, it is useful, interesting to see the Kremlin has finally broken with this mystique around Israel and is taking a moralistic stand and not afraid to condemn the Israeli government. Napolitano: 4:28 Has there been any reaction that you’re able to detect to Prime Minister Netanyahu going on international television and before Charlie Kirk’s shooter was even caught or named, denying that the Israelis murdered him. Who denies that they committed a murder before they were accused of it? Doctorow: Well, in the case of the Kremlin, there has been almost no commentary on that issue. I understand that it is highly visible in American media. Even in Europe, I don’t see much commentary on that particular question, but for Russia, it doesn’t exist. Napolitano: 5:12 President Putin’s recent trip to the Belarus-Russian War Games wearing a military uniform, Do you read anything into that? Doctorow: Well, it’s the first time, to my knowledge, it’s the first time that he has donned a military uniform. It was quite impressive when Mr. Belousov, his very civilian minister of defense, first shifted from a formal suit to a military uniform. And now Putin has done that. I don’t think it’s necessarily a message to the West, though it would be appropriate to say it’s a hardening of his position, and his position on the war, of course. And I think that the occasion was to be one of the boys when he was meeting with the 20 or so foreign delegations who were present as witnesses and some as participants in the military exercises, war. This 2025 is taking place, as you say, in central Russia, not far from the Volga River in the territory of Nizhny Novgorod. That is a remarkable event. It’s understandable that it attracted so many foreign visitors, from the global South in particular, Because there are 100,000 Russian soldiers in these exercises, an extraordinary large number. Napolitano: 6:53 Were NATO officials invited to observe this? Doctorow: I believe they were. But of course, when Mr. Putin had his address to the foreign contingents, NATO people were not in it. Napolitano: Why would NATO be invited to observe a hundred thousand Russian troops and gleaming new military equipment? Doctorow: I don’t think there’s any particular meaning to that, because by convention, all military exercises, both Russian and Western, usually invite everyone. So it would be exceptional if they were excluded, not that they were included. Napolitano: 7:44 What is the Kremlin’s public position on the drones over Poland? Doctorow: I think the public position was stated clearly by their ambassador to the United Nations last week, Mr. Mabenzio, And he spoke of this as absolutely not Russian drones, that they had no participation in this. He made mention of the Belarusian reporting in real time on the incoming flight headed towards Poland. And as a demonstration that Russia was in no way involved, the Belarusian authorities hardly would be alerting the Poles if their fraternal Russian military were sending drones at Poland. So the flat denial. I don’t see, though, any particular accusations as to what the intention of this Ukrainian action was. 8:55 From the very beginning, we assumed it was to spark some kind of a conflict between Poland and Russia, which would immediately broaden into a NATO-Russian conflict. But I don’t see this as being reasserted or any other particular interpretation being presented by the Kremlin. Napolitano: 9:15 Is this, in your view, the dirty work of MI6 and CIA again? Doctoorow: I’m skeptical if the CIA at this stage would be involved, given Mr. Trump’s position on Ukraine and Russia, That the MI6 is involved is on the hundred percent. So that is a fair game. Pick up, there have been so many statements by various observers with considerable technical expertise explaining why this was a fake attack, why this was an attempt by Ukraine to set off the parties against one another. But this has not been, as I said, hasn’t been in Russian news. And I don’t think it’s a current issue for Russia. What is interesting is that, for example, the _Financial Times_ today is speaking about these drone incursions as if they were Russian without any question, that this is not a contentious issue. That’s a statement of fact. The Russians sent these drones in, and we in Western Europe have to react by strengthening, by investing more in our defenses, and of course by increasing our cooperation with the Ukrainians who have far more experience in liquidating, destroying Russian drones than we in Western Europe have. That is the official word coming out of the _Financial Times_, and I take it to be prompted by MI6. Napolitano: 11:05 I thought of you this morning when I saw these absurdities in the _Financial Times_. Has the Kremlin indicated at all how much longer it will take for the Russian military to achieve its objectives in Ukraine? Doctorow: No, no. They don’t put out any timelines or any indications of what they’re going to do next. The daily news on Russia hasn’t changed in the last several weeks. They speak about capturing this or that village in Zaporozhye, in Donetsk oblast and elsewhere, but they don’t give you a strategic vision of where they’re heading or whether they’re going to take Odessa, how soon they’re going to take Odessa. There’s nothing of that sort in Russian news. Napolitano: 11:53 Let me back up to Poland for a minute. I neglected to ask you this. Did the Polish government send troops to the Polish border in significant numbers? Doctorow: o-fly zone in the face of the Russian military. Let’s jump to Europe. Over the weekend, there was an enormous march in London. The British police said it was 110,000 people. The media says it was north of a million. It’s a huge, huge number of people fiercely opposed to the government, doing something that I honestly didn’t know was unlawful in Britain, which is waving the Union Jack. You know, you see these American demonstrations, people wave American flags all the time, but this was apparently unprecedented in Britain, or at least rarely done. Is Prime Minister Starmer on thin ice? Is the Labour Party going to go through this musical chairs as Prime Minister, as the Tories did a few years ago? Doctorow: Starmer has serious political problems at home. I wish I could say that they were caused by his various positions in geopolitics, but they’re not. The difficulties that Starmer has are very traditional in British political history, which was laden with sex scandals. Well, in this case, the domestic issues were the forced resignation of his deputy prime minister over scandalous, really scandalous tax manipulation. And there are other members of his cabinet who are teetering. 14:59 There is severe criticism within the party of Starmer, who is now being called by leading figures in his own party as being incompetent and not up to the job. On the outside, the conservative party, the normal conservative party is also in tatters. The only rising force, the people who could succeed Stammer in case he loses his grip, is ousted, then has to hold an election and loses the election, which would be quite likely, is Nigel Farage, who is doing very well. He has been consistent going back a dozen years. He has a very statesman-like image. Let’s remember that Mr. Farage had difficulties in the past. He was known to tiple too much, to drink too much. All that is gone. He’s quite serious. And his policies on immigration and on Brexit and otherwise, have been useful to him because of his very consistency over a decade, whereas others have waffled, gone this way and that, in both parties. Napolitano: You know, I know him well. He worked with me at Fox News. He was there for about two years. In those days, it was almost inconceivable that he would become the prime minister, but you’re telling me there is a spanking new Nigel Farage who’s perceived as a statesman by the British people and could very well be living at number 10 Downing Street in the future? Doctorow: 16:46 It is possible. I agree that he had difficult times, and for the reason I just mentioned, he wasn’t taken so seriously, but that’s all gone. He has sobered up in every way, and his positions are of great popularity, particularly on immigration. It’s very hard for other parties to get their arms around that. Napolitano: 17:10 Let’s look at France, which is in its fifth government in two years. How stable is the government there? Doctorow: Well, it’s a question of how many weeks or months this new government will last. The peculiar thing is that Beyrou was replaced now by the defense minister, who was close to Macron. But it’s the heart of what is wrong with Macron government. After all, Beyrou was fired, was lost the vote of confidence over his budget. Which– what was wrong with the budget? That everything was being cut, that the number of public holidays [was] being cut, that health, welfare benefits were being cut, and only one budgetary item was going up, and that is defense. It is inconceivable that this fact– this basis for the new prime minister in an increased military spend when everything else is being cut– it’s inconceivable that that will go on for long. In the meantime, the French government has a different problem. That is the loss of confidence of investors and of the business world in its ability to keep the national debt within sustainable, financeable terms. Today’s _Financial Times_ is reporting that exceptionally the French private company bonds are giving a lower interest to their purchasers than government bonds. It should normally be the other way around. It means that the markets have lost confidence in Macron. And I don’t see how he can stay on for long when the markets where he came from disown him. Napolitano: 19:10 Fascinating observation. In Germany, the AfD gained recently, but at the price of the socialists, as I understand, not at the price of Chancellor Merz’s party. I don’t know if that makes Merz stronger or makes the AFD stronger. Doctorow: It makes the government weaker. He has a coalition government. Napolitano: Right. Doctorow: And his coalition partners are precisely the people who took a battering in the West German elections. Now, this Alice Weidel and her Alternative for Germany, they didn’t rise, I think it’s about 15 percent, which doesn’t give you a ruling position in the government. But considering the loss– that everything she gained was at the expense of Merz’s coalition partner, it puts in jeopardy his coalition government. And if that government should fall, he’ll be obliged, most likely, to call elections, in which case all possibilities are open. And his continued service as chancellor has a question mark over it. Napolitano: 20:29 Last subject matter, von der Leyen, is she confronting some sort of a vote of no confidence, and if the vote of no confidence prevails, is she out of a job? Doctorow: Well, when we last spoke a week ago, I mentioned what I’d heard from a well-informed, independent member of parliament from Germany who said his prediction was that she won’t last six months. And he reminded me that on the last vote of confidence, she was held in power by one vote. Now, what has just happened? And why is it possible that she will lose this vote of no confidence? There are two of them, apparently scheduled in a week’s time from now. 21:18 The one that’s most important, I think, politically, is the one that is being sponsored by Victor Orbán’s bloc. There are deputies from various countries, but he is– the bloc that he formed is called Patriots for Europe. And that is interesting because Viktor Orban is now in really a fighting mood. He just won a very important decision by the European Court of Justice, in which the core issue was whether Orban’s very restrictive policies on immigration, which are in contradiction with the much more lax immigration regulations of the European Union, whether he would continue to face blackmail and suspension of monies that are owed to Hungary in the EU budget for violation of EU immigration rules. He won the case. 22:20 This just happened. And that put him really in a fighting mood, as came out in a message to his parliament yesterday. He initiated a vote of no confidence against von der Leyen. And who knows, they may unseat her. Napolitano: Wow. Professor Doctorow, thank you very much. I know you’re traveling, and I deeply appreciate the time you’ve given us. Enjoy your travels, safe travels. We’ll look forward to seeing you next week. Doctorow: Well, thank you so much. Napolitano: Thank you. Coming up today, a busy and full day for you: at 11 o’clock this morning, Pepe Escobar from somewhere in China. At two this afternoon, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson. At three this afternoon, Phil Giraldi. At four this afternoon, Professor Jeffrey Sachs. 23:06 Judge Napolitano for “Judging Freedom”.

Transcription submitted by a reader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZMub8zcb4s

Jawad Husain, Espoir et Dignite: 0:00
Good morning, everyone. Today we have the great honor of speaking with Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, a respected political analyst and writer on international affairs, especially Russia and Europe. We will ask him about the current tensions between Europe and Russia, the role of the United States and the future chances for peace. My first question, Dr. Doctorow, why do you think Europe is so invested in the idea of a final and total confrontation with Russia?

Doctorow:

Europe discovered after the first six months, eight months of the special military operation which began in February, 2022, that Russia is a much more formidable military force than it had imagined.
1:04
And when it looked around, it looked in the mirror at itself, it understood that it is naked. It has virtually no modern armies in Europe, if you take out NATO, by which I mean if you take out the American component. The Europeans are unable to defend themselves. This didn’t just happen accidentally, it happened because there was no reason to defend themselves after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the accommodation with the new Russian Federation, which wanted very much to become integrated into Europe and into the Western world.

1:46
It didn’t play out that way. The Americans decided to take maximum advantage of their situation as the only surviving superpower after 1992. And they used the 1990s to economically destroy Russia with very good advice, they said, on transition from the communist centralized economy to a market economy, the result being shambles was left. Most of industry in Russia was destroyed, and the rest went into the hands of some rich people whom we call oligarchs.

2:26
That was the outcome of the ’90s, and it took some time for Europeans and for Americans to understand that Russia under its new president, Putin, was capable of and was in fact restoring its strength. Of course, being half the size and population of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation could not be the equal in terms of economic output and other parameters, but it was doing very well since it had no dependencies to feed.

That is to say, Russia’s kind of colonial relationship with its Warsaw Pact countries no longer existed. It did not have to give subventions in cheap supplies to those countries and receive back shoddy commercial merchandise. So Russia was paradoxically strengthened by getting rid of its empire, and it became as it demonstrated particularly in year two of the Special Military Operation, when it slaughtered the Ukrainians’ so-called counteroffensive, which had all the weight of the United States and NATO countries behind it, and the Ukrainians were destroyed.

3:46
This vision of a big neighbor whom they had been poking in the eye for more than a decade, and being militarily vastly more powerful in conventional weapons than they were, frightened them out of their boots. And when you are afraid, one of the normal emotional responses is hate. And hate took hold in the leadership of the European EU member states to the point where they were fanning Russophobia, Russia hatred, from the towering heights of power.

And that is how you have– to their surprise, to the European surprise, Donald Trump won the elections last year, and he came in with a policy that placed primary emphasis on an accommodation with Russia, on recognition that the war was lost, and to move on to areas of cooperation with Russia in geopolitical terms, which the United States deemed important. That is to say, to change the balance of power and relationship with China by way of removing Russia from China’s arms and WArm embrace.

5:06
So the Americans started making movements away from the confrontation between Russia and Ukraine, and the Europeans doubled down and insisted on continuing the war, because it would keep in power those who had got Europe into the war; and they would not be shown up to have made wrong bets and to be on the wrong side of history. So that is how we got to today. Europeans have been encouraged by the Biden administration to support Ukraine in every possible way, which they did. And now Donald Trump was doing the opposite and renouncing such policies and they were left hanging in the air. That’s how we got to [today].

Husain: 5:54
Okay, thank you sir. How would you describe the present relationship between Russia and Europe?

Doctorow:
Terrible. The Europeans under the, shall we call it leadership, of the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, are collectively committing suicide. There are only two sane members among the leadership in Europe, and they are Fico in Slovakia and Orbán in Hungary. It’s not that they are Russia friends. It’s just that they would like to live. And the leaders in the other 25 countries seem to be betting on suicide.

Economically, Europe is going down the drain. I live in Belgium. It’s a small country. And this small country, like many other small countries in the EU, is largely dependent on a strong German economy to maintain its export business and generally for its economic prosperity. Germany is now in the second year of recession. Germany has slipped from being the fourth largest economy to behind Russia.

7:13
Russia has now taken over from Germany the lead as the largest economy in Europe. And this has happened because the Germans have been at the forefront of the proxy war against Russia and with sanctions, and they have allowed their economy to be destroyed by their renouncing Russian energy supplies. That is the situation today. The Europeans, unfortunately, European leadership doesn’t care a whit about their populations or prosperity. They only care about keeping their seats in power.

And by maintaining the war in Ukraine, they have the argument that we need, that Europe needs strong leadership, meaning we, and that we will stay in power to look after your security. That’s what they’re saying. In fact, they are destroying that security by preparing for a war with Russia in 2029. They believe that they can dictate when the war will start, when they’re ready. That’s dead wrong. The Russians will not let that happen.

Husain: 8:27
If I follow on with that, President Trump has spoken about a peace initiative. He’s been on this track of normalizing relations with Russia. Do you believe such an initiative can bring real chances for peace, considering your answer to the previous questions, that the Europeans are not prepared to make peace with Russia and they want to continue the war against Russia?

Doctorow:
Well, I think we’ve seen in the last two days during the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit that Europe geopolitically counts for nothing, nothing whatsoever. It’s just the leaders refuse to face that bare fact.

As for Mr. Trump and making peace, generally whatever Mr. Trump says, I treat with great caution. I follow what Mr. Trump does, not what Mr. Trump says. And that’s not because he is badly organized or confused or doesn’t know what he wants. No, it’s because he lives in a political environment which is populated by enemies to the policies that he wants. I don’t mean personal enemies, although there are plenty of them among the other aspirants for power, as always is the case in any country, but political enemies, people who oppose what he is trying to do.

9:58
And what he’s trying to do is in fact make peace, but not at the level of solving the dispute and little war between India and Pakistan or doing something nice in Africa. No. Or being a mediator in the Ukraine-Russia war, which is nonsense, of course, because in fact, the United States is a co-belligerent. Co-belligerents, normally, are not mediators.

What he is trying to do is to destroy the bloc system. He is doing his best without being conspicuous about it, because if he were conspicuous and if he spoke openly and truly about it, he would be impeached. The American political establishment does not agree with what his foreign policy intentions are. His foreign policy intentions are to break the United States out of the blocs.

We saw this in his attack, his tariff attack on India. People say, “Oh, it won’t work. Oh, we were losing our good friends in India.”

Nonsense. He had one intention, and it looks like he got what he wanted, namely for India to withdraw from the quadrilateral arrangement in the Indo-Pacific, which the United States has been building for the last 25 years, for the purposes of containing and possibly fighting China. One of the first things that Mr. Modi did was to withdraw active participation in the quadrilaterals.

11:29
In fact, even Mr. Trump is saying, well the rumor is, that he will not go to the next quadrilateral summit. So in that case, in the Indo-Pacific, where there is no big structure approved by the Senate that he has to overturn, Mr. Trump is undoing America’s involvement in a bloc that’s aimed at fighting China.

He is intent on reducing American participation in NATO, which will effectively destroy NATO. It removes the reason for its existence. But he cannot be open about this, as I said, or he would develop enormous resistance. And so he’s speaking double-talk, as we say in colloquial English, out of both sides of his mouth. But I don’t listen– that’s why I don’t listen to what he says, I watch what he does.

Husain: 12:24
Thank you very much, Dr. Doctorow, for sharing your valuable insights with us today. Before we close, we would like to remind our audience of your latest book, “War Diaries, The Russian-Ukraine War, Volume 1, 2022-2023”. We highly recommend it to all those who want a deeper understanding of this important subject. And finally, dear viewers, if you enjoyed this interview, please support our channel by subscribing, liking and sharing our contact content. Your support helps us continue bringing you valuable discussions like this one. Thank you very much, sir.

Doctorow: 13:07
My pleasure.