At the close of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan yesterday, Vladimir held a press conference with the Russian journalists in his suite.
He gave a very detailed answer to the question of one journalist requesting information on the status of the war on the ground in Donbas. He said that he had just prior to this meeting spoken to Valery Gerasimov, Chief of the General Staff, who briefed him on the situation at each of the military commands – North, South, Center which he then repeated to the journalists. He declined to give time lines for accomplishment of the tasks before each group such as the capture of Slavyansk and Kramatorsk, saying that the war is very tough and he wouldn’t want to raise false expectations, but he assured his audience that Russia is advancing on the ground on all fronts in Donbas in a faster tempo than hitherto. There was a vague look of frustration on journalists’ faces with this evasion.
But evasion was the common characteristic of Putin’s responses to each of the questions put to him, even regarding the quite innocent matter of the plans for further developing the SCO: would it be by expanding to bring in new members or by creating greater alignment and coordination internally. Putin responded with words devoid of content.
The most striking feature of the press conference was with respect to prospects for negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. Here we heard the statements which led me to assign the given title to this essay. Putin said that Russia welcomed the efforts of all parties to assist with setting up meaningful talks with Ukraine, so long as this would not mean just spinning the wheels as hitherto. And then he added that he welcomed the further involvement of President Trump’s emissaries Witkoff and Kushner, who are ‘trustworthy men’ who enjoy the confidence of Trump, which is of decisive importance. “Trustworthy men”? I do not believe that a single reader of these lines will agree. What can on say? Putin is licking Trump’s boots – again.
It is interesting that the question of negotiations was wrapped within a journalist’s remark that CIA director Ratcliffe had come to Moscow to deliver Washington’s insistent advice that the Russians sit down with Ukraine and the USA to end the conflict. That this was Ratcliffe’s message was not denied by Putin, giving us at last an answer to the puzzle raised by the 8 hour visit to Moscow a week ago.
It is interesting to note news of today from the Kievan authorities as reported by The Financial Times. The mayor and other officials acknowledge that the constant Russian drone and missile attacks on the Ukrainian capital are disrupting entirely the economic and governmental functions. They expect these attacks to continue up to the Russian elections to the Duma on 18-20 September for the purpose of demonstrating to the Russian electorate that its government is doing something forcefully. Accordingly, the Ukrainians are putting in place measures to alleviate this hardship including carrying on the legislative work of the Rada in its underground bunker and allowing the metro to function in its open-air segments, as for example, on the Dniepr river crossings, even during air attack alerts. We know from many different sources, including this morning’s BBC, that Zelensky has just issued a threat that no one traveling to or inside Russia can ignore: he has declared Russian civil aviation airspace to be fair game in the war, warning airlines, insurers and the general public that planes will now be attacked by Ukrainian drones.
It is not my practice to direct the Community to podcasts of my peers or to issue critiques of what any given colleague is saying about the war. I will break that rule now because the expert whose views I will challenge here is one of the most authoritative persons you will find on youtube. He is the dean of the Realist School of international affairs, which I adhere to. And yet I believe he is seriously mistaken when he said a few hours ago on ‘Judging Freedom’ that Russia is winning the war and that it would be a mistake for the Russians to get into a war with NATO countries over their supply of drones and drone technology to Ukraine.
I have known Professor Mearsheimer as a follower of his writings and videos. I have also known him in person, about which I will speak below. I have the greatest respect for his courage, demonstrated by publication of his 2008 book (with Professor Stephen Walt) on the Israel lobby, which almost brought his career to an early end. I have still more respect for his 2014 article in the autumn issue of Foreign Affairs magazine explaining why the West was to blame for the conflict with Russia over Ukraine, a position for which he was pilloried by FA’s regular staff in their next edition. He followed up the article with a podcast speech that was seen by tens of millions of viewers. However, these achievements do not make him infallible as I saw in the past, when I first made his acquaintance.
In March 2015 in my capacity as co-founder, Board member and European representative of the American Committee for East West Accord, I organized a panel discussion on the subject of ‘revising the security architecture of Europe to bring Russia in from the cold.’ I was the moderator and the panelists were John Mearsheimer, Professor Stephen Cohen (ACEWA co-founder) and his wife, Katrina vanden Heuvel, owner-publisher of The Nation magazine. The presentation took place in Brussels’ International Press Club and received good media attention. A video recording of the event is still accessible on youtube:
After the presentation, all three panelists came to my home for dinner and we had a lively discussion during which John and I very courteously crossed swords over the question of Russia’s status as a great power. John said plainly that Russia was a country in decline that could only be a ‘spoiler’ in international relations. His view was at the time widely held among political scientists. Like them, John measured hard power by a country’s GDP. Russia’s GDP was in 2015 a shadow of its Soviet past and accordingly John, like the Yabloko Liberals within Russia, believed that the notion of Russia standing up to the United States was nonsense. I took and take a very different view of the measure of a country’s hard power, insisting that it depends heavily on WILL, i.e., on national determination properly harnessed by leaders. Indeed, if I may interject an observation from today, anyone who assumed that Iran would be a push-over for the combined might of the USA and Israel because of its very small GDP in conditions of economic disarray caused by the U.S. sanctions of 50 years, such person would now realize that he or she was deeply mistaken by missing the resilience factor and undiluted courage.
John Mearsheimer maintained his low estimation of Russia well into the Special Military Operation, but at some point had a eureka moment and has since then been speaking of Russia as a Great Power. Regrettably, he has not been following the logic of Professor Glenn Diesen and myself, that Russia has been frittering away its Great Power status by failing to respond to ever more brazen provocations and now serious physical attacks on its critical infrastructure from the Collective West.
As you will hear on today’s podcast, Mearsheimer says that Russia is winning the war. In terms of daily advances on the battlefield. He is perfectly correct. But in terms of end-game, I do not see a capitulation by Kiev in the cards so long as Europe is ready to provide all necessary funds and military materiel to keep a rump Ukraine west of the Dnieper and land-locked in the fight against Russia and to use its territory to launch ever more devastating missile and drone attacks on the Russian Federation far into the future.
Mearsheimer also says that Russia should not strike against NATO countries, because it has its hands full right now fighting Ukraine. Here I disagree most strongly. Russia is already at war with NATO de facto if not de jure. And I believe this is precisely the best moment for Russia to deliver a blow at the UK, at France, at Germany in a well-considered move against the military factories now supplying drones and missiles to Kiev. This would be permitted under international law. More importantly it will not trigger a united NATO response under Article 5.
NATO is toothless absent the USA, and the two years of Donald Trump in the Oval Office represent a rare opportunity for Russia. One can be fairly certain that Trump will not jump into the fight to save Britain or to save Germany if Russia hits the factories producing weapons being used against it.
Moreover, the longer Russia waits to respond, the more time it is giving Europe to rearm so that any eventual war would be fought on terms more adverse to Russia than at present.
These are my arguments. Let the chips fall where they may.
Do not be put off by the several minutes at the start of this podcast without video image only sound. The producers were obviously in a great hurry to prepare the podcast for uploading on the internet and sacrificed a bit of visuals. Be assured that I am speaking from the very start.
My nearly 20 minute long interview with News X World this morning was prompted by the breaking news coming from Trump – that, in his words, the latest productive talks with Iran have shown that a deal may be possible and accordingly he has suspended for 5 days his most recent threats of ‘obliterating’ Iranian power generating plants if they do not open the Straits of Hormuz to normal tanker traffic within 48 hours. Meanwhile, the Iranians deny that any talks have taken place with the United States.
What are we to make of this? As I say in the interview, I believe this is a surrender by Trump which he tries to mask in the language of successfully negotiating a deal, suggesting that he remains in control of the situation even when he does not.
Of course, with Trump you never know what is real and what is illusion. It is also possible that he is just buying time until more US forces arrive in the region and he can proceed with his attack on Iran, saying then that the negotiations failed.
Nonetheless, I stick with my interpretation of a surrender. If Trump declares that U.S. objectives of degrading Iranian defenses worked and there is no longer a threat of their building a bomb or continuing production of their missiles then, logically, he can accede to the most important concession which Iran is demanding of the US today, namely that the more than decade long economic sanctions be lifted. This would provide the country with a big inflow of export earnings, all the more so that their strikes on neighboring Gulf States and their restriction of tanker flows through the Straits of Hormuz have significantly raised the price levels and demand for their hydrocarbons. Thus, Iran could earn its own ‘reparations’.
Quite exceptionally, the News X World host asked for my advice to investors and I offered my thoughts on gold, stocks and Certificates of Deposit under present volatile conditions. I can foresee numerous comments from readers on that issue.
I am fully aware of the skepticism some of my colleagues have regarding the value of public sources and in particular over what is shown on Russian state television to understand and pronounce upon where Russian politics are headed. Nonetheless, I insist that public sources have with good reason been the stock in trade of American and other foreign intelligence on Russia going back to the origins of the Cold War. Today, when Russian state and private electronic media have become highly diverse and often quite free to pick up and transmit views from the talking classes, they are essential if we are to go beyond the use of unnamed, supposedly well informed Russian insiders that colleagues often allude to and instead have something clearly identified and debatable to talk about among ourselves.
And so, dear reader, I once again make reference to the Evening with Vladimir Solovyov talk show of yesterday in telling you that Putin’s handling of the war is coming under very great pressure from the Moscow elites who pull it to pieces before the audience without naming the Unspeakable One in the Kremlin but leaving no doubt whatsoever whom they are criticizing.
The U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran, the decapitation strike on the Ayatollah and on other top leaders in what Russians call the ‘decision-making centers’ of Iran, makes them all ask what the hell Mr. Putin is now waiting for to do the very same in Ukraine and to put an instant end to the long dragged-out war that is killing and maiming Russian service men every day and putting in question Russia’s deterrence, leading to ever more brazen provocations from the NATO Member States.
These same expert panelists last night asked how it can be that during the negotiations with Witkoff, the Kremlin has allowed the USA to conduct daily spy flights just outside all of its borders from the Far North in the Barents Sea to the Black Sea in the South. The purpose of these flights is perfectly well known: to prepare for a ‘preemptive strike’ on Russia similar to what was done to Iran and possibly using nuclear arms. ‘We should just shoot down these American spy planes’ they said last night with one voice.
The point of these panelists is that the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran violates all the basic rules of international conduct from the founding documents of the United Nations. There are now no rules and Russia must adapt to this situation and defend itself arms in hand.
Is Mr. Putin deaf? The whole of Russia is hearing these lightly veiled denunciations of his management of defense and so far he has not responded to the American attack on Iran with more than telephone calls to the Gulf States sheikhs, which are given full coverage in the first 15 minutes of Russian state television news, no doubt to the great irritation of viewers.
I use this opportunity to call attention to a remarkable document that the economist and former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts yesterday posted on his website:
Let us recall that Alexander Dugin has long been cited by Western commentators as a close adviser to President Putin. I have cast some doubt in the past on their alleged closeness, but I freely acknowledge that Dugin has been an influential thinker within the Kremlin elites. Here again we see a lightly veiled harsh attack on everything that Putin is doing on defense.
In closing, I have a bit of advice to offer to Russia’s Supreme Military Commander. Sir, your popularity with broad swathes of the Russian public is partly due to your use of pithy and often off-color folk sayings that resonate with simple folk. I return the favor by offering a rude American folk expression: if you cannot take a crap, get off the toilet seat! The moment of truth has arrived.
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.
Gilbert Doctorow 