The widely read Russian news outlet Аргументы и факты (Arguments and Facts) which had a vast audience in print form during Soviet rule in Russia and continues in the present era to enjoy a mass readership as an online purveyor of news and opinion today has put out a leading article on Russia’s delegation to the next session of the trilateral US-Russian-Ukrainian peace talks scheduled to be held tomorrow and Wednesday in Geneva. They inform us that the Russian team will once again be headed by Vladimir Medinsky, former Minister of Culture, adviser on international policy to President Vladimir Putin and until the last two rounds of negotiations, former head of Team Russia at the talks.
As we know, in the last two rounds of talks held in Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates, the Russian negotiating team was headed by the chief of Russian Military Intelligence (GRU) General Kostyukov. Those talks were said to center on security issues, which as I have said in recent essays, were about the modalities of Ukrainian withdrawal from all of Donbas in keeping with Russian preconditions for a cease-fire. I interpret the re-appointment of Medinsky as a tip-off that the talks will now resume at a higher level of discussion, meaning the overall contours of the peace settlement where the historical perspective that Medinsky brings to the task is critical.
In another article a day or two earlier, Argumenty i Fakty explained to its audience the significance of the selection of Geneva after Zelensky’s refusal to go back to Abu Dhabi considering the UAE’s treachery, from his standpoint, in handing over the accused would-be-assassin of Russian general Alekseyev to Russian authorities for interrogation and trial in Moscow. AiF tell us that Geneva was selected because of Switzerland’s centuries old neutral status in the heart of Europe. They also, very correctly, hint that this neutrality has been compromised in recent years. Indeed, allow me to hazard a guess that the Swiss authorities were keen to be hosts to the talks to demonstrate a return to neutrality after some recent missteps in the course of the Russia-Ukraine war when they have pandered to the pro-Kiev authorities in Brussels.
I take pleasure in ending this brief note with a hats-off to Argumenty i Fakty for reporting on my more substantive podcasts and in particular for reporting on my latest conversation with Professor Glenn Diesen. Their respective article was entitled Зеленского предупредили о потере Одессы и Харькова(Zelensky has been warned about the loss of Odessa and Kharkov). The opening paragraph of this article tells us: Aмериканский специалист в области международных отношений Гилберт Доктороу высказал предположение, что до завершения боевых действий Украина рискует лишиться контроля над двумя ключевыми городами — Харьковом и Одессой. Translation: “An American specialist in the field of international relations Gilbert Doctorow has suggested that before the military actions end Ukraine risks the loss of control over two key cities – Kharkov and Odessa.”
If I were Zelensky or some member of his regime, I might rightly ask, paraphrasing Stalin with respect to the Pope: and how many divisions does Doctorow command?
Promotional offer for new one-year paid subscriptions to my alternative web platform gilbertdoctorow.substack.com where I post analytical articles not shown on Word Press You will be eligible to receive a free of charge paperback copy of the historical novel on the Russian emigration of the 1970s, ‘Nadine’s Story’ by Larisa Zalesova. Subscribers must identify themselves by email to gsdoctorow@gmail.com to avail themselves of this offer. Information about the book is available on the various country websites of Amazon.
In a remarkable speech yesterday to the European Industry Summit 2026 held in Antwerp, Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever proved once again his role as intellectual leader for the EU waiting in the wings to replace the ideologically driven authoritarians today in power in the European Institutions who continue to implement the Green Agenda talking points at the expense of industry and of the broad economy on the Continent.
Although De Wever indirectly took swipes at Donald Trump and MAGA for its ‘winner take all’ approach to global trade and global governance wherein there are only winners and losers versus the ‘win-win’ approaches of the EU, the commonality in thinking between Bart De Wever and Donald Trump is undeniable and rests on one word and concept: pragmatism.
Pragmatism was long ago the hidden strength of America in contrast to the very different, over-intellectualized operating principles on the Continent and among American elites. Whereas the American of yore asked about a new concept ‘does it work in practice?’ the average Frenchmen, by folklore, asked about a new invention ‘does it work in theory?’
However, over past decades pragmatism fell victim to various iterations of political correctness and was forgotten entirely among American elites. It took the brash and seemingly inarticulate Donald J. Trump to reject unhesitatingly and in clearest terms the illogic driving the Green Agenda that had taken hold of legislators and brought over-regulation and redirection of national wealth towards unworkable and/or vastly overpriced solutions to the needs of energy and industry.
When he joked during the 2016 electoral campaign saying “Marge, please tell me if the wind is blowing this morning. I’d like to watch some television’ Donald Trump encapsulated the return of common sense. Deregulation and application of the rule of pragmatism to the task of reindustrialization have been the calling cards of Trump’s domestic policies since he took office one year ago. These same principles were what Bart De Wever invoked in his speech last night in Antwerp.
To be sure, with typical Old World gallantry, De Wever tossed bouquets to EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who sat on the dais, calling out her ‘incessant work’ and special efforts to conclude new and promising free trade agreements opening up new markets to European industry. But without question his words about the need for urgent action to implement the industrial recommendations of Draghi and other consultants to the Commission which have been realized at less than 10% in the past year spoke volumes about the wrong-headed priorities of the Commission.
To be sure, De Wever is willfully ignoring the need for pragmatism in foreign and defense policy if there is to be real progress in restoring the pillars of the European economy that he mentioned at the outset of his speech. Nota bene that his list of issues weighing negatively on the European chemical industry that lost 10% of its capacity in the last year began with high energy costs. And we all know the ‘why’ of those energy costs, namely the cut-off of cheap Russian oil and gas that had heavily supported the competitiveness of the EU domestically and on global markets for decades going back to the 1980s. The logic of De Wever’s words is to revisit the sanctions on Russia, to revisit the entire von der Leyen policy of erasing Russia from the European map and to practice instead self-serving common sense.
‘Judging Freedom’ edition of 4 February: What Putin is telling Trump
Today’s discussion focused on the way Trump and Putin have used their backchannel consisting of their personal envoys to do business with no leaks by subordinates in their respective foreign ministry and State Department. Consequently, we observers are left guessing what is the content of the negotiations in Abu Dhabi which are being described as ‘constructive’ when nothing more is being said. We are left clueless about any possible US-Russian talks over Iran.
As I mention, being in the pool of analysts invited onto various Indian and Iranian television programs that are later posted as podcasts, I receive some very interesting snippets of information that I find useful in developing my own speculation on what is going on between Moscow and Washington with respect not only to achieving peace in the Russia-Ukraine war but also in finding an off-ramp from his threatened attack on Iran that is face-saving for Trump.
I had shortly before the start of this interview received a couple of lines from News X World that they proposed to pitch to me for discussion starting just after the close of the Judging Freedom show. The main point here is that Russians are speaking of possible removal of Iranian enriched uranium to some foreign country. About this you will find nothing in Mainstream. It matches perfectly what a journalist from an Iranian broadcaster told me several days ago when preparing me for an interview they propose to conduct tomorrow: namely than Iranian weapons grade uranium will be shipped to China. Meanwhile, RT in an article yesterday mentioned that Putin and Trump are in discussion about Rosatom being put in charge of the Iranian civilian nuclear program for medicine and other purposes to ensure that the work stays within the agreed bounds. All of this constitutes an off-ramp for Trump similar to the off-ramp which Putin made for Trump in 2013 over disposition of Syrian chemical weapons.
I heartily recommend to my Community of subscribers your recent podcast on “The Future of Europe,” which you delivered in excellent English, making your thoughts accessible to a wide audience.
Your remarks, your answers to a number of pointed questions from the moderator on intra-Belgian, intra-European and international issues were characterized by unusual openness and, shall we say, boldness. In this sense, what you had to say was as courageous as your public stand in December on the issue of confiscation of Russian state assets held in Euroclear, when you stood up to European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. They wanted to take Europe ‘into uncharted waters’ as you rightly said, exposing Belgium to financial ruin and exposing the global financial markets to a possible melt-down. I said ‘bravo’ to your bravery and success then, and I reconfirm that expression of admiration today.
Your speech in this podcast highlights your insider’s critique of the failures of the European Union in economic, military and geopolitical dimensions due to over-regulation, a wrong-headed approach to immigration, distortions in the energy balance due to the influence of the utterly impractical environmentalists, and complacency in the defense umbrella that was provided by the United States via NATO, to the point where Europe is now defenseless if the US is not at its side, as NATO Secretary General Marc Rutte said directly to the European Parliament a week ago. Your repeated mention of ‘dogmatism’ guiding baneful EU policies might be better called the triumph of ideology over the pragmatism for which you stand.
So far, so good.
However, at the very start of this podcast you show that on the single biggest issue today driving Europe into crisis you yourself are being guided by Cold War ideology rather than realism and pragmatism. You should put aside your father’s uncritical worship of Ronald Reagan and think for yourself. The entire edifice of your solutions to the woes of Europe stands on quicksand, while real foundations for building the future are readily available if only you will open your eyes and put aside sanctimonious language and thinking.
I have in mind your affirmation that Russia is a land of tyranny while Ukraine is a democratic country. This is a misrepresentation far greater than the promotion of offshore windfarms versus nuclear power generation that you rightly denounce. It is this misrepresentation that you are using to justify the root cause of present-day deindustrialization of Europe, namely the cut-off from cheap Russian oil, gas and other natural resources, which have driven, in particular, the ‘existential challenge’ (your words} to Germany, the traditional locomotive of the European economy. It is the justification you use for further integration of Europe to support remilitarization – whereas the shift of sovereignty from the nation states of Europe to the bureaucratic, top-down structures of the European institutions is the very last thing the Continent needs if it is genuinely committed to the principles of democracy versus von der Leyen style autocracy – against which you yourself were compelled to take up arms in December. By your alignment with the European leaders who are preparing for a war with Russia in 2030, you are exposing Belgium to a far greater possible national catastrophe than the collapse of Euroclear over stolen Russian assets.
So what is the reality of Russia? Of Ukraine?
Simply put, Russia is a democracy of sorts, with its own democratic procedures that ensure the voice of the people is decisive in parliamentary and presidential elections which are open to various parties which have their own domestic programs. Only openly seditious parties and individuals are excluded. In addition to the formal, constitutionally mandated structures, there are channels outside of parliament that bring civil society face to face with Power regularly.
Mr. Putin is not an autocrat. He is a politician who maneuvers between conflicting interests in society, just as you must. He is a lawyer by profession and, by the way, he governs out of lawyerly convictions. His ‘Special Military Operation’ is precisely constrained by the powers he sought and obtained from parliament. It is not all-out war, which would allow the total destruction of Kiev and of the ruling Zelensky regime, which is entirely within the capabilities of the Russian weapons. That may happen, but only after Putin goes to parliament for a declaration of war. I contrast this law-abiding behavior of the Russian leader, with what you see Mr. Trump doing in Venezuela, in Iran and elsewhere, i.e. making or threatening war without any authorization from Congress, as he is legally obliged to do.
Surprise you as it may, I insist that even in present conditions of wartime, there is greater freedom of the press, freedom of expression in Russia today than in France or Germany, or even than in Belgium if you consider the ban on Russian news sources practiced today under the phony explanation of combatting ‘disinformation.’ Let us be honest with one another. Euronews today is the voice of Ursula von der Leyen. The BBC is the voice of 10 Downing Street. European journalism has been greatly compromised by home-grown McCarthyism. There are no almost no debates on foreign policy in public space, with the result that the policies which are set are done so in ignorance of counter arguments and other, better solutions.
I write and say openly that there is a cult of personality on Russian state television which is plainly stupid. However, in talk shows and featured news programs there is very extensive presentation of original news from CNN, Deutsche Welle, France 24, etc., especially setting out views that are highly critical of Russia and its leadership. On these shows, many panelists speak freely about the wrong headed economic and other policies of the Putin government, and none of these programs has cuts or editing before release on air, which cannot be said of CNN or other major Western programming.
True, Putin has been in power for too long. There are many accumulated ‘barnacles’ on his administration that are off-putting. I have written that it is time for him to retire and pass the baton to a younger generation of leaders who have proven themselves as competent and successful managers, who travel the country and are well known to the electorate. But that is another matter for discussion another time.
As for Ukraine, its depiction as a democracy is a vile falsehood which you should not disseminate, since it damages your credibility as a man who speaks his mind.
We all know that the Zelensky regime has its roots in the coup d’etat of February 2014 which overthrew the legitimate elected president Yanukovich, in violation, by the way, of the terms for holding new presidential elections ahead of schedule that were negotiated by and guaranteed by France and Germany only the day before Yanukovich was forced to flee for his life. The new incoming fiercely nationalist and anti-Russian Ukrainian government was installed by the United States, as the public record of the phone conversations of then State Department officer responsible for Ukraine, Victoria Nuland, made plain to one and all. As for the presently sitting Verkhovna Rada and Mr. Zelensky, their elections were observed by international monitors who reported on the widespread use of intimidation. Physical violence against Opposition candidates was a public scandal. In the years since, the Ukrainian press was purged and made completely compliant with the regime. As we now know from the work of the Anticorruption agency in the summer of 2025, the top levels of the Zelensky regime are utterly corrupt and have been stealing from the vast funds pouring into the country from the USA and the EU. Zelensky’s closest associate, the ‘power behind the throne’ Yermak, was forced to resign and to go underground at the close of last year to avoid prosecution. Moreover, what kind of democracy can Ukraine claim to be when its president has remained in power 18 months after the end of his mandate per Ukrainian law.
Knowing these easily verifiable facts, it is no service to your reputation, Mr. Prime Minister, that you persist in calling Ukraine a bulwark of democracy against the Russian enemies of democracy.
I will not go into the reasons why the Russian military action against Ukraine in February 2022 was not an act of aggression but rather a logical and necessary response to the provocative and existentially threatening advance of NATO to Russia’s borders in Ukraine, and specifically to the preparation of Ukraine as proxy for a war on Russia during the 8 years of the Minsk-2 accords. Moreover, it was a response to the murder of 15,000 Russian-speaking civilians under artillery attack in the Donbas since the 2014 coup d’etat, and to the impending final solution of the resistance by a force of more than 100,000 Ukrainian troops concentrated at the line of confrontation in Donbas in December 2021. All of this is readily available to you in excellent, readable histories if you wish to consult them.
I ask you to pause and reflect on these issues when you consider what the European Member States can do to return to confident economic performance.
Going back to the Benelux alliance that became the European Economic Community, Europe was a continent of growing prosperity that exerted enormous Soft Power globally. Regrettably, ever since the creation of the Union and especially since the beginning of Ursula von der Leyen’s term in office, the EU has turned from being a Peace Project focused on economic integration into a War Project focused on Hard Power. I urge you please to pay close attention to this issue in your thinking On Europe’s Future.
I conclude by noting that the present EU helter-skelter search for new global markets is a lot of motion without movement. The fit between India and the EU or between Mercosur and the EU is not compelling. If it had been so, the big trade deals now being concluded would have taken place 20 years ago. The opportunities for big EU exports in either of these directions is minimal, as will soon become clear. Meanwhile, Europe has foolishly turned its back on the entirely natural and vast trade possibilities with the big neighbor to the East. Given the ongoing and already substantial reindustrialization of Russia, the opportunities for mutually advantageous trade are still greater than when they relied only on raw materials. Take another look, and reconsider.
If Europe can have normal relations with a great many countries around the world which do not share ‘European values’ in their domestic policies, then why is that impossible to do with respect to Russia?
I stand ready to expand on the points made above in discussion with any of your staff should you wish to explore pragmatism as an option for EU foreign policy and not only for the regulating the energy balance or immigration rules.
News X World interview this morning on the Abu Dhabi talks and on continuing Russian oil production in Venezuela
I can enthusiastically recommend the twelve minutes of this podcast starting at minute 6.00 which above all gave me the opportunity to share with the News X global live broadcast audience what I learned on Sunday evening from the dean of Russian state television news, Dmitry Kiselyov – namely some very interesting facts about the content of the tripartite Russia-US-Ukraine talks in Abu Dhabi. If you look at Western Mainstream, all you would know is the empty statements to the press by presidential adviser Ushakov that the talks were ‘very constructive.’ But in what way you would reasonably ask and find no answer.
Per Kiselyov, the talks in Abu Dhabi proceeded in two parallel tracks. One was between top military intelligence officers from both Ukrainian and Russian sides discussing the conditions under which Ukrainian forces will withdraw from the part of the Donbas region that they still hold. This has been a Russian precondition for concluding a peace treaty. This track also would be discussing the creation of a buffer zone on both sides of the new Russian-Ukrainian frontier.
My interlocutor from News X World took at face value the assertion of President Zalensky following the talks that Ukraine is not giving up any territory. This I called an outright lie since the Russians would not have come for talks and would not have agreed to their resuming talks next weekend if their condition of withdrawal were not met.
In parallel in Abu Dhabi, the second track was U.S-Russian discussions of the steps towards normalization of state-to-state relations as the peace negotiations proceed to successful conclusion. In this track the new Trump emissary Gruenbaum was present to review the proposal of President Putin to accept Donald Trump’s invitation to join the Board of Peace now in formation and to pay Moscow’s 1 billion dollar contribution for designation as a permanent member by offering this sum from the frozen Russian state assets in the USA.
In the second segment of the interview, News X asked about the likelihood that Russian oil production under contract with the Venezuelan government will continue without interruption as the Russian ambassador in Caracas presently maintains. At this I noted that it is not only Ukrainians who know how to lie, that the Russians also are not necessarily truthful in matters of state: indeed, I do not see the Russian production in Venezuela as having much chance of continuing. Trump has succeeded in shutting down Russian oil production in Iraq and other Middle Eastern locations, so why would he tolerate its continuation in his own backyard in the Western hemisphere?
The News X presenter then asked what are the prospects for Russia’s special defense relationship with Venezuela. This was still easier to answer: nil prospects, over which Moscow surely will have few regrets. The reality is that the Russian relations with Venezuela, with Cuba and with other friendly socialist minded Latin American countries are a legacy from the past when military technology was different from today’s and when these outposts had strategic value of deterrence for Russia. Today, with its hypersonic missiles on submarines, frigates and even mounted in containers on commercial ships, Russia has the means to destroy Washington or New York or Los Angeles within a very few minutes using its own ocean-going vessels. Bases are an unnecessary luxury today to maintain deterrence.
To this I can add here what time limitations did not allow me to go into on this interview, material which I gleaned from Sunday evening’s Vladimir Solovyov talk show. As several expert panelists noted, with the acquisition of control over Venezuelan oil, Trump is approaching a 35% control of global oil trading, making the USA a serious competitor to OPEC. Moreover, with US control of oil, Russia’s earnings from hydrocarbons will surely decline. Accordingly, these experts stress that Moscow must continue its policy of reindustrialization and diversification of the economy. I mention this as a response coming from highly responsible and authoritative Russian state actors and academics to the notion that is so widespread among Alternative Media cheerleaders for Russia that the USA cannot do anything to harm the Russian economy.
Host Dmitry Kiselyov was in excellent spirits this evening as he presented the astonishing collection of major developments of vital interest to Russia that occurred over the past week. I will be brief here in my description of what was shown on the first 45 minutes of his program, almost none of which has yet to be written or spoken about on Western mainstream media. I have in mind what took place during the visit of Trump’s envoys Kushner, Witkoff and Gruenbaum to the Kremlin on 22 January, Putin’s talks with President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian State on the same day, and then the talks of Russians, Ukrainians and the Americans in Abu Dhabi on 23 and 24 January.
Mainstream repeats what Russia’s presidential adviser Ushakov told reporters – namely that both the talks in Moscow and then the follow-on talks in Abu Dhabi were substantial and made great progress, without giving any hint of the content. Kiselyov could and did give us a better inkling of what is going on, including the fact that there were two lines of negotiation in Abu Dhabi. One line, between military experts from the Russian and Ukrainian sides, was over security issues, meaning in fact over conditions of the Ukrainian withdrawal from Donbas and the creation of a buffer zone between Russians and Ukrainians along the new borders. This line of discussion will resume next weekend in Abu Dhabi. The other line of discussion was between the Americans and the Russians over steps to normalize state-to-state relations as the war winds down and peace comes to Ukraine. These talks will resume early in the coming week and proceed at their own pace.
Kiselyov explained the presence of Trump’s newly appointed assistant for organizing the finances of the Board of Peace, Josh Gruenbaum, with regard to discussion of the terms under which President Putin has proposed to proceed: namely that Russia’s contribution of the 1 billion dollars entrance fee for permanent participation in the Board is to come from Russia’s frozen state assets held in the USA. Almost certainly, Russia’s decision to take part in the Board and to contribute its billion was the main subject of the talks that Putin had with President Abbas. Moreover, as Kiselyov discretely slipped into his remarks, it is likely that the remaining $4 billion in frozen Russian assets in the USA will now be earmarked for aid in the reconstruction of Gaza.
These points about the disposition of Russian frozen assets in the USA are highly relevant to the bigger issue of resolving the war in Ukraine. The release of the assets for the sake of reconstruction in Gaza sets the precedent for something I have advocated for more than a year: the $300 billion in frozen Russian state assets held in Belgium and other European States could constitute part of the $800 billion in reconstruction funds that Trump is said to be offering Kiev as the price for their withdrawal from Donbas and recognizing the territory as Russian in order to conclude a peace treaty.
It is clear from the reportage this evening on Vesti Nedeli that Vladimir Putin believes in the ultimate benefit of his standing by Donald Trump notwithstanding all of the shifting to and fro in Trump’s public statements over the months.
Finally, I mention that Kiselyov’s presentation of the Davos events showed Russia’s enormous satisfaction that Trump has shattered European arrogance and unity. Twice Kiselyov put up Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever’s statement in Davos that the Europeans have been utterly humiliated, his admission that they have been happy vassals and now face the ignominy of being unhappy slaves.
Let’s do our arithmetic on the sums being proposed by Witkoff and Kushner to resolve the Ukraine war and the stand-off over Greenland
I have just been in an exchange with former Assistant Treasury Secretary and professional economist Craig Roberts about a money issue: can we call what Witkoff and Kushner are penciling in as the sums of money that could end the Ukraine war or could end the stand-off over Greenland ‘cheap bribes’?
When you do the arithmetic, you have to scratch your head at the notion that Trump’s boys are barking up the wrong tree, as we say in colloquial English. Of course, I could be off by a digit given that my hand-held pre-Modern Age calculator barely functions in the realm of billions. I welcome push-back from readers.
*****
On the question of ‘bribes,’ meaning the proposed payments to Denmark and to Ukraine: I make the argument in an essay I published this morning that real estate developers can be better emissaries for peace negotiations than professional diplomats with law degrees who are by definition traders in abstractions, in the decades-long tradition of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. They are people who try to solve POLITICAL problems as if they were strictly legal issues like sovereignty or aggression. They are not looking for a resolution which comes from breaking eggs to make an omelet.
I think that the Danish people will be very stupid to refuse Trump’s 800 billion for Greenland – if their authoritarian Prime Minister gives them the facts and let’s them express themselves in a referendum. At present and in the foreseeable future, meaning the next 30 plus years, Greenland is a budgetary charge not a budgetary contributor. The 800 billion divided by the 6 million population of Denmark comes to 133,000 for every man, woman and child in Denmark or about 6,000 per annum per capita if invested with a return of 5% in perpetuity. This income whether annualized or taken as lump sum would make the Danes one of the most financially secure nations in Europe. How can people call this a bribe? Or if you do so, it is a helluva bribe. Let’s call it what it is: a purchase price for peace.
For the Ukrainians, a similar global sum in exchange for the Donbas territory may be less attractive on a per capita basis, but the net worth of Ukrainians today is a lot lower than the net worth of your average Dane today. The money could finally give compensation to widows and orphans. The money could rebuild most of the infrastructure and residential properties that have been destroyed in the war. It would not compensate the Ukrainians for all that they have lost, but it was their own stupidity and/or lack of courage not to overthrow the Zelensky regime long ago which makes them net losers even if they are offered and accept 700 or 800 billion.
“Today’s Big Debate” on News X Live, 22 January“The Big Debate” was aired live at prime time in India (9pm) yesterday. However, there was a wide time differential with the cities where each of the three panelists from abroad weas based: 4.30 pm in Brussels, 11.30 pm in Hong Kong and 10.30 am in Washington, D.C. We have Zoom to thank for the way we were brought together seamlessly with the studios in India and with the Indian panelist.
I have identified the first of my fellow panelists, whose contribution was likely the most consequential: Raymond Vickery, former United States Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Trade Development who is a senior associate with the Chair in US-India Policy Studies at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, Washington, DC. Accordingly, Vickery is a person well-known to Indian elites. He has a law degree from Harvard. And he is an upstanding member of the Cold Warrior contingent in the U.S. foreign policy establishment, as becomes crystal clear from his remarks here. It was entirely in character for him to deplore Trump’s Board of Peace initiative for being “top down”, as if any of the global steering committees like the G-7 or the G-20 are “bottom up” – which would be against the laws of nature. It was also in character that he deplored the invitation onto the Board of non-democratic, authoritarian states like Russia.
The second panelist, based in Hong Kong, was singing from the same choral hymn book. This was Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen, a prominent Hong Kong politician and businessman who from 2016 until his retirement in 2025 was the President of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong.
The fourth panelist, Sumit Peer in India, was more welcoming to the Trump initiative and saw the refusal of China to join as giving the Indians a strong reason to sign up and take active part. His LinkedIn entry tells us that he is a renowned Geo-Political Commentator, visionary Columnist, Business Advisor, and a concerned citizen with a mission of contributing towards nation building.
I thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to explain why no one knows what the dynamics inside the Board of Peace and its subordinate Executive Board will be, so it is gratuitous and senseless to condemn or approve the Board at this point. I also expect Moscow to sign on because to refuse to join now would be an insult to Trump, with whom they wish to stay in good relations.
‘Judging Freedom’ edition of 21 January 2026: Trump through Russian eyes
The Russian views that Judge Napolitano solicited were firstly those of Putin, his direct spokesman Peskov and his Minister of Foreign Affairs Lavrov with respect to Trump’s ambition to take over Greenland and with respect to the evident CIA attempt to assassinate Putin by means of the drone attack on his countryside residence.
My response on the first issue was that Putin and his direct assistants are being very cautious: they note that Trump is not respecting international law and this displeases them but otherwise they do not criticize Trump directly. Meanwhile, the chattering classes, the Russian elites, meaning Duma members, top commentators on international affairs who appear on the most authoritative talk shows like Evening with Vladimir Solovyov, show no such restraint: they are approving Trump’s using the Greenland acquisition to destroy NATO from within. They are enjoying Trump’s personal attacks on Keir Starmer for his ‘stupid’ hand-over of Diego Garcia to Mauritius in exchange for a lease agreement, his attacks on Emmanuel Macron’s decision not to join Trump’s Peace Board on Gaza, saying, no matter, Macron will be out of office in a few months.
As regards the drone attack, Putin and his circle clearly do not believe that Trump was in any way involved, saying instead that it was the CIA acting on its own, just as the CIA had murdered John F. Kennedy on its own. They understand that Trump cannot control fully his government and they wish him well in his war on the Deep State while cautiously hedging their bets and pursuing the war in Ukraine at their own pace, confident in full victory.
I state openly here that while one of Judge Napolitano’s guests yesterday said Trump should be taken away in a straight jacket, I hold an entirely different view. Trump seeks normal relations with Russia within a broader context of his Realist concept of the future world order, in which three Great Powers, Russia, China and the USA have each their own sphere of influence based on regional hegemony. This concept entailing ‘balance of power’ he received from his mentor at the start of his first term in office, Henry Kissinger.
I used the interview to explain what relevance the cession of Diego Garcia to Mauritius by Britain has to the pending issue of who owns Greenland. The conversion of this powerful base to a lease may be compared to the proposal that the USA lease Greenland rather than take possession of it as owner. From his background in real estate, Trump is acutely aware of the weak sides of leasing. If he thought for a moment he could point out that Russia had taken a 40-year lease from Ukraine on its strategically important base in Sevastopol, but following the coup d’etat of February 2014, it was widely expected that the lease would be revoked. One could add another example of weakness of leases: in Seychelles, the USA had a major observation base atop the hill overlooking the Seychelles capital of Victoria. The local government decided to raise the annual rent multiple times and finally Washington was obliged to give up this base. The property is now owned by the United Arab Emirates who have built a palace there they use for discreet diplomatic negotiations with…the Russians among others.
Today’s “Big Debate” on Indian global broadcaster News X was a pleasure for me as one of four panelists and I am hopeful that the Community will find it worth a listen. Our task was primarily to make sense of Trump’s conflict with Europe over his planned takeover of Greenland.
My fellow panelists were a mixed group in terms of political perspectives, indicating that the producers knew very well what they were doing in bringing us together.
The view of the U.S. Deep State was well represented by an American professor of political science at Macalaster College, Andrew Latham, though I do wonder what benefit his students will gain from expertise in international security and strategic studies coming from a prof who says, as Latham does in his response to my remarks on the coming implosion of NATO, that Europe will do just fine as it puts together its own defenses. He seems to overlook the small detail of how much time it will take Europe to regroup and arm itself. De facto, if NATO implodes now, in 2026, then Europe will be utterly defenseless against the Russian bear it has been taunting and provoking for the past several years while feeling secure in hiding behind Daddy Sam. Heaven forbid, they might feel compelled to find that new ‘balance’ of interests with the Big Neighbor to the East that Chancellor Merz said is on the agenda. By the way, the good Chancellor has just recalled his 13 officers and soldiers from Greenland, probably in a late effort to have his country removed from Trump’s latest tariffs.
Indian panelist Keith Vaz was a conventional as can be in his own way. Vas is a respected representative of the Indian contingent in the Labour Party of Britain. He has clearly been well integrated into the power hierarchy of the U.K. Wikipedia tells us this about him: “Nigel Keith Anthony Standish Vaz is a British politician who served as the Labour Party Member of Parliament for Leicester East for 32 years, from 1987 to 2019. He is the UK Parliament’s longest-serving British Asian MP. Vaz served as the Minister for Europe between October 1999 and June 2001.” As one could imagine, he thinks Keir Starmer is a swell guy who has been very diplomatic in dealing with Trump.
And then there is a rather unconventional Indian panelist Sumit Peer. His LinkedIn entry says this about him: “…a renowned Geo-Political Commentator, visionary Columnist, Business Advisor, and a concerned citizen with a mission of contributing towards nation building.”
I am appreciative that the host allowed me to take my disruptive discourse to its logical conclusion as I explained that Trump’s main objective in his Greenland adventure is to so rough up the Europeans by his violation of sovereignty and national borders that they vote to leave NATO. This would enable Trump to proceed with his normalization of relations with Russia over the semiconscious and prone body of Rump Ukraine.
Gilbert Doctorow 