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.
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.
Today’s interview with the Indian global broadcaster NewsX World was in two parts. I appear in minute 3.17
The first segment dealt with the Kremlin’s positive evaluation of latest statements by several European leaders that it is time to initiate direct talks with Putin. The second part dealt with Viktor Orban’s decision to distribute a ‘petition’ among Hungarian voters calling for refusal to participate in any further EU funding for Ukraine.
As I point out, in the past few days French President Macron, Italian Prime Minister Meloni and German Chancellor Merz have all said that direct contact should be made with Vladimir Putin. In the case of Macron, who is ever playing the chameleon and changing his political stance on Russia from warm to cold and back again, these latest statements are meaningless. Meloni is also not a particularly serious person at the international level. But Merz’s decision to reach out to Putin is entirely another matter and worthy of attention. A day ago, the Chancellor remarked that Russia is part of Europe and relations with Russia should be recalibrated. So, apparently, he has finally consulted a map!
What these statements suggest is that Trump has finally broken the solidarity in Europe behind foolish and self-destructive policies vis-à-vis Russia. Probably the biggest factor is their realization that NATO may well collapse if Trump proceeds to annex Greenland by force, which is entirely possible and could happen at any moment. If NATO collapses, then Europe will be entirely defenseless against the Russian bear whom they have been poking and provoking ceaselessly for three years and more. Under those circumstances, it is prudent to establish lines of communication here and now beforehand. It is also no longer clear in Berlin, Rome and Paris who is the more fearsome big bad wolf: Washington or Moscow.
The decision by Viktor Orban to solicit the opinion of Hungarian voters on whether to continue or to stop funding to the Kiev regime is a rare instance when real, meaning ‘direct’ democracy is put into practice by an EU Member State. In general, all that we have is ‘representative democracy,’ which, as we know, exists in the particular context of electoral laws that reserve seats in parliament for parties or movements backed by tiny minorities of the population and so deprive the most popular parties of a majority in parliament. All of that progressive electoral engineering results in most European countries having power-sharing coalition governments that are answerable to no one.
Virtually the only country in Europe that regularly practices direct democracy is Switzerland. And so, I salute Orban for asking Hungarian citizens to sign a petition on this key question of war or peace. If only other Member States would do the same, funding for the Zelensky regime would stop forthwith and this damned war would be over.
That being said, I note that there may be some quirks when they tally the ‘petitions’ in Budapest. This afternoon I had a chat with one of the receptionists at my sports club who happens to be a dual national – Belgian and Hungarian. I asked if he knew about Orban’s referendum and he sure did: he told me that Budapest is distributing the petitions by email and he already received three. He sent all three of these ballots back with his signature! As they say in the USA: vote early and vote often.
NewsX World hourly morning news wrap-up, 13 January
In this morning’s news bulletin, I come on for two segments beginning at minute 14. These deal firstly with the latest Russian attack on the Ukrainian city of Kharkov, where further destruction to the energy infrastructure has been inflicted. As I say here, repeating what the Russians themselves are saying about these attacks: the destruction of energy production and distribution is taking a page from the American playbook of their 1999 bombing campaign against Belgrade, though here the Russians have an ulterior objective of driving the population to flee to Europe, thereby reducing Ukraine’s economy while overwhelming social services in Germany and elsewhere by the refugee influx so that Europe sues for peace. Secondly, we spoke about the massive demonstration of French farmers in Paris protesting the terms of the Mercosur trade deal that has been concluded with the EU over objections from European farmers who claim there will be unfair trading that undercuts their markets. The problem is not unfair trading but the much greater efficiency and production costs in a very large market like Brazil versus France. I expect the treaty will be ratified and come into effect nonetheless, though with added provisions for review and modification of certain terms relating to agriculture after a year or two to avoid doing excessive harm to European farmers.
For those who may think that the almost daily commentary that this broadcaster requests of me puts them in the Alternative News category, I urge that you listen to the interview just prior to my appearance, where you will hear an account of the brutal repression of demonstrators by the Iranian authorities that could just as easily be shown on the BBC or Euronews. For the truth about Iran, you would do well to go to Glenn Diesen’s interview yesterday with Iranian professor Seyed Marandi – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFRO4bXzEQw&t=696s
This morning’s NewsX World hourly round-up: Trump cancels ‘international law’
I appear in this multi-segment broadcast at minute 19.26
The issue that I highlight in the title above is one of two or three highly topical issues which are widely discussed in media today but as I insist here are devoid of substance. The relevance of international law to allegations of Russian aggression in initiating its invasion of Ukraine is nil. The notion of double standards in applying international law to the case of Russia’s supposed aggression in Ukraine when it is not applied to the American invasion of Venezuela is also empty now that Donald Trump publicly canceling international law as a restraint in an interview with The New York Times a couple of days ago.
Another empty bit of ‘breaking news’ that we discussed is the invitation extended by U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Bessent to India and Australia to attend the upcoming G7 meeting for talk about finding new sources of rare earth metals outside of China. This is a PR exercise and nothing more, because any increase in mining and processing of these metals will come years from now and the crisis is here and now, when China has full leverage over the rest of the world in the growing confrontation with the West.
Similarly one does not have to spend more a minute considering how the U.S. seizure of a Russian tanker will affect the peace negotiations over Ukraine. The answer is very simple: there will be no peace negotiations or if they take place the guarantied outcome will be zero, and the war will continue until Russia gets what it wants, leaving Ukraine as a failed state.
I do not mean to suggest that there is no news worth reading or watching today. Such news, of course, exists, but it is not being covered by Mainstream while they fill their on air minutes and their news columns with the irrelevancies cited above.
Trump Greenlights ‘Russia Sanctions Bill’ | More Tariff Trouble For India?
I was honored yesterday evening to participate in a very Indian panel discussion which opens with Indian advertising that you will certainly not find on BBC, CNN or other global broadcasters. As for the discussion itself, note that I appear to be the only non-Indian expert.
The topic was one of great concern to the Indian government and business community, namely the bill presently before the U.S. Senate granting the President the powers to impose secondary tariffs of up to 500% on countries which continue to buy Russian oil. This bill enjoys bipartisan support and is sponsored by the viciously anti-Russian Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and his Democratic peer and fellow Russia-hater Senator Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut. I add parenthetically that I take special interest in these sponsors because Blumenthal just happens to be a classmate of mine from Harvard College, 1967.
We each had just a few minutes to make present our evaluations of the likely fall-out from the 500% tariffs when the bill comes into law, as it inevitably will given that 82 of the Senators have previously expressed their support, making it veto-proof. The subject became news when President Trump came out yesterday saying he will sign the bill, which is a concession to the realities of politics on The Hill.
You will see that all the Indian experts were figuring the angles for India and for the USA coming out of the new tariffs: how this would add greatly to inflation for American consumers on the one hand and how it would harm Indian exports in areas until now not affected by Trump’s tariffs like pharmaceuticals. Regrettably, I limited my remarks to how the new tariffs would founder on the rocks of Chinese opposition. After all, Trump’s early attempts to impose 150% tariffs on China months ago fell through when the Chinese struck back and said they would freeze all sales of rare earth metals to the USA, in effect bringing US industrial production, especially in electronics and military hardware to an abrupt halt. Trump backed down and the imposition of high tariffs on China so far is in a suspended state, which is where it will likely remain to the end of Trump’s term in office.
Regrettably, what I did not broach is the question of how such tariffs would affect Russia and change dramatically how the war in Ukraine is being conducted.
If indeed, Washington succeeds in forcing Russia’s major export markets to stop buying Russian oil and does great harm to Russia’s economy, we will not have to wait to see this damage impair the war effort. On the contrary, we may anticipate that Russia will proceed to do in Ukraine what some argue it should have done a couple of years ago, namely to smash Kiev and Lvov to bits, putting a dramatic end to the statehood of Ukraine and ending the war here and now. I can add based on today’s latest news, which I discussed with News X World this morning, that the message of such an escalatory path has just been given by Moscow to Kiev, London, Paris, Berlin and Washington by the use of an Oreshnik hypersonic missile in a midnight attack on Kiev. I await further news on this very important development to see what destruction actually resulted from the Oreshnik attack, which is only the second use of this missile in the Ukrainian campaign after an initial experimental strike on a hardened underground military production site in Dnipro in 2024.
‘Judging Freedom’ edition of 7 January 2026: Trump’s Maduro “Kidnapping” Is an Impeachable Crime
This session with Judge Andrew Napolitano was a sad start to the New Year, as he stated at both the beginning and end of our conversation. We are in a new world order created by what I call here Trump’s latest deal with the devil to raise his sagging popularity ratings at this critical time when the USA enters the season of midterm elections.
Whereas at the very start of his new term a year ago Trump made some very promising, even daring appointments, as for example Tulsi Gabbard to Director of National Intelligence, and whereas there were some wonderful actions to curb the Deep State, as for example, the virtual shut-down of US AID, the agency which had directed illicit funds to local NGOs and other actors engaging in regime change abroad, it appears that Trump has reversed course and has agreed to work with the power ministries for the sake of pumping up his political capital. Nota bene, that this political capital was surely depleted not just by Trump’s failure to achieve a genuine peace in Gaza, not to mention still less success in ending the Russia-Ukraine War, but most recently depleted when he issued the new National Security Strategy document that upended all of US foreign policy priorities since 1949 and must have raised a hullaballoo on Capitol Hill and within the Republican Party establishment.
The net result is that the CIA, State Department and War Department are now once again running the show, setting the targets for foreign and military policy and executing that policy in ways that are simply astonishing and take your breath away, as happened this past weekend in the U.S. attack on Caracas and kidnapping of President Maduro. What we see again is the hubristic behavior of American officials that we have seen without end since Bush Jr. invaded Iraq in 2003. These people, like Pete Hegseth and Marco Rubio, are overconfident in U.S. capability to ‘run Venezuela’ not to mention run the world.
The only thing that can stop this juggernaut is the other two world superpowers, Russia and China. So far both are silent, which does not inspire confidence in where the world is headed.
This interview opens with a discussion of the Coalition of the Willing summit in Paris, which has gathered 35 countries. Host Emmanuel Macron appears to be very satisfied, though surely the value of the exercise is nil. This gathering of losers is negotiating among themselves and have reached consensus on what is essentially a demand for Russian capitulation. Their insistence on a foreign peacekeeping force numbering perhaps 100,000 is an absolute nonstarter with the Russians. But then none of the participants wants the war to end.
Another segment dealt briefly with the latest Israeli violations of the ceasefire in Lebanon that have caused the deaths of hundreds.
We spoke briefly about House Speaker Johnson’s saying that the Trump intervention in Venezuela is NOT an act of regime change, just a measure to correct the behavior of the Venezuelan leadership. This play on words will fool no one and it only shows that American hubris is back with us. The, shall we say, naïve belief that the Venezuelans will accept American overlordship without any resistance will be shattered before long and then all hell will break loose, as it did in Iraq after the capture of Saddam Hussein.
The best segment, in my view, came last when we discussed the treatment of Maduro when he came to the courthouse hearing in chains and was paraded before reporters. As I pointed out, the US has plenty of experience with this particular kind of political theater. I trust the Community will enjoy my comparing Maduro’s court appearance to the way France’s leading candidate for the 2012 French presidential elections. Dominique Strauss-Kahn was dramatically taken off a flight departing NYC for Paris and taken in handcuffs to a Manhattan court, shown off to the reporters on the way, to ensure that his political fortunes were destroyed, all over a phony allegation of sexually abusing a hotel maid. The CIA and FBI staff have lively imaginations for mischief. The removal of Strauss-Kahn resulted in the election of the nitwit Francois Hollande and five wasted years for France.
For the last 50 years at least, American hawks have time and again brought up a lesson from the past to justify their foreign and military policy predilections that amounted to war-mongering.
Every attempt to find accommodation, détente with America’s ideological adversaries was systematically denounced as “appeasement” in the tradition of Chamberlain seeking ‘peace in our time’ when dealing with the German Fuehrer, whose ambition was absolute political, economic, military domination in Europe.
Donald Trump’s absolutely shocking act of aggression this past weekend compels us to face a new reality: that the President of the United States is today the incarnation of Hitler with ambition on a world-wide scale.
I am not repeating here the cheap and empty political posturing of the Trump haters in America who have called him a fascist because he opposes their Green agenda, opposes their LGBTQ+ Rainbow parades and support for sex change operations among adolescents, and opposes other extreme Liberal values that amount to the destruction of the foundations of society in pursuit of I, Me, Me, I.
No, those complainers about Trump are abusing the notion of fascism to serve their own selfish hunger for political power at any price.
I am speaking about the notion of fascism writ large, as a program to destroy all those nations which do or could stand in the way of American global hegemony.
Trump has trampled on the sovereignty of Venezuela and makes no secret of plans to ‘run’ the country and extract enormous wealth for American corporations by setting them free to exploit Venezuelan oil. He has just renewed his claims to take possession of Greenland. He has threatened Iran with military intervention over the suppression of political disturbances that are a direct result of the country’s economic hardships under crippling U.S. sanctions that go back twenty years or more. Surely Cuba is also in his sights.
The operation in Caracas this past weekend is the template for what is to come. No big invasions, just a very carefully researched and executed decapitation strike that removes to American prisons the leaders of the countries on the Trump check-list.
And why bother adding to the prison detainees? In the past week the CIA targeted Vladimir Putin’s countryside residence with intent to murder. Minister of War Pete Hegseth in the past few days has threatened Putin with “we’re coming for you”.
*****
Given all of the foregoing, I am shocked that some colleagues continue to praise the moderation shown thus far by Russia and China in response to what Trump has done and said this past weekend. We are told that they appreciate the volatility, the narcissism, the oncoming dementia of the man in the Oval Office and are making their highest priority avoidance of a nuclear war by handling The Donald with kid gloves.
Dear friends, you are arguing the case for Chamberlain! And was not Hitler in 1938-39 understood to be mentally unbalanced, a madman if I may cut to the quick? The only argument that one might have made in defense of Chamberlain’s appeasement was the lack of preparedness for war of his country and its allies on the Continent. But that is manifestly not the case today, when we all understand that Russia’s conventional forces are more than a match for NATO in its shambolic present conditions, and that Russia’s nuclear triad, its strategic arsenal is years ahead of the USA at this moment. That will likely not be true 5 years from now, but it is true today. Accordingly, there is no logic to Russian pusillanimity, to its not threatening the USA with total destruction here and now if Washington does not pull in its horns and behave in accordance with the UN Charter.
Going back 5 years, I argued in an essay that Khrushchev was right to bang his shoe on the desk in the UN General Assembly. He was right to issue his famous threat to the capitalist world: “we will bury you.”
Khrushchev may have been boorish, but he was brave and he was ready to fight to the death if the U.S. side did not come to its senses. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 was a test of courage on both sides the like of which I do not see today. The annihilation of tens of millions of people was a possibility, to be sure, but it was offset by readiness to enter into serious and decisive negotiations going to the root causes of the confrontation. After all, in the end, not only did the Russians pull their nuclear tipped missiles out of Cuba but the USA pulled into missiles out of Turkey and Italy.
*****
‘Progressive humanity’ is today reporting on the demonstrations being held in capitals around the world to protest against the imprisonment of Maduro and U.S. aggression.
Regrettably, the net result of these demos will be nil. The only powers on earth that can stop the insane Hitler-like course of the Trump administration today are China and Russia. If they twiddle their thumbs now then you can be sure that the possible war today will be replaced by a certain civilization ending war in five years’ time.
The attack on Venezuela and snatching of President Maduro puts an end to my flirtation with Trump. He has just trampled on the National Security Strategy that he rolled out 3 weeks ago. He has proven that the Neocons control the government and he is nothing more than a figurehead.
I call for his impeachment so as to install JD Vance and give him two-three years to do what has to be done, namely to purge the Pentagon, the CIA, State of the Neocons who constitute the decision makers and implementers in the ‘power ministries’. This accomplished, Vance could then hope to carry out the NSS and position the USA as a major world power among peers, rather than a hegemon and Cold Warrior.
For those in the Community who may be puzzled by my turning against Trump, I recommend that they read the first chapter in my 2019 collection of essays entitled A Belgian Perspective on International Affairs: “Time to Impeach Trump,” dated 21 September 2017, pp. 1-4. You may have overlooked this book because its title was explained only in the Foreword, p. xiii: the ‘Belgian’ in question was not a collective part of this small nation that one could disregard until its Prime Minister Bart De Wever stood up to Ursula von der Leyen and Chancellor Friedrich Merz a couple of weeks ago and saved the global financial markets from the catastrophe that would have followed confiscation of Russian state assets held in Belgium. The word ‘Belgian’ in the title stood for one person, me, who had become a naturalized Belgian. My call for impeachment was precipitated by Trump’s barbaric declarations before the UN General Assembly threatening to annihilate North Korea, a nation of 22 million people.
My coddling of Trump’s vile activities in some global hotspots since taking office again, in January 2025, in particular his enabling the Israeli genocide in Gaza, was based on the reasonable assumption that that was the price to pay for him to enjoy the political capital in the heavily pro-Zionist Congress and in the foreign policy establishment in Washington necessary to pass his domestic and foreign policy programs. The same logic persuaded me to remain silent about his attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities and his enabling Israeli strikes on Teheran and other purely civilian targets in their 12-day war.
But the recent months of Trump’s superintending so-called peace negotiations to end the war in Ukraine have shown that at best his efforts are incompetent and so are condemned to failure. Holding separate talks with each of the warring parties and agreeing with each side to their entirely contradictory peace plans shows that he is posturing and that nothing of use can come out of these talks. Moreover, no peace agreement that met the Russian demands of resolving the underlying reasons for the war, namely turning back NATO expansion to Russia’s borders and getting Washington to consider revising the security architecture in Europe, will get approval in Congress now that everyone has read about Trump’s hopes to overturn 76 years of American foreign policy priorities by the language of his NSS document.
Accordingly, I view without prejudice and on their merits Trump’s attack on Venezuela and the kidnapping of President Maduro and his wife to face trumped up charges of drug trafficking in the USA. And on their merits Trump has egregiously violated international law. Sad to say, he has not set a precedent, but is following a pattern of ‘rogue state’ behavior established by President George H.W. Bush when he invaded Panama in December 1989 and seized president Manuel Noriega. Noriega then spent years in U.S. detention and died there.
Let us remember that ‘rogue state behavior’ was precisely what one of the chief popularizers of Neocon ideology, Robert Kagan, husband of the notorious Victoria Nuland, urged upon the United States in books and speeches. That is to say, scorn for all legal constraints on how foreign policy is conducted for the sake of maintaining U.S. global domination.
The difference between what H.W. Bush did in 1989 and what Trump has just down now in Venezuela must be called out. Bush was just ‘kicking ass,’ as they say in the States. Trump is implementing a farther- reaching geopolitical objective of driving all foreign powers out of the Western Hemisphere, which he seeks to maintain as Washington’s exclusive hunting preserve. To be more specific, Trump has attacked not just Venezuela. He has attacked China which is a main export market for Venezuela; conversely, China is highly dependent on Venezuelan oil and an American take-over would surely cause economic harm to Beijing. In this regard, the warm-up exercise to yesterday’s snatch operation was the U.S. capture of two Venezuelan oil tankers, one of which was carrying oil destined for and already paid for by China.
Going back still further, this American attack on Venezuela is a continuation of the attack on China’s commercial activities in Latin America that we saw still earlier in 2025 when Trump brought pressure on Panama to remove the Chinese from their control over the Canal.
*****
What lessons can the world’s two other superpowers draw from Trump’s outrageous attack on Venezuela?
As for Russia, the message should be crystal clear to President Vladimir Putin that he does not and cannot have a partner in Donald Trump. Russia must proceed on its own path to resolve the Ukraine war, and as I have been saying in recent months, the sooner the war is ended, whether by a decapitation strike on Kiev and other decision-making centers, or by storming Kiev with ground forces, the better. Russia now has a window of opportunity that it should exploit without hesitation. If President Putin is unable to act decisively in this sense, then he should resign and pass the torch to someone in a younger generation who is level-headed, has proven experience at high levels of the government and is decisive, not wishy-washy.
As for China, this attack on Venezuela is de facto an attack on China. Generally, Chairman Xi is more decisive and has more resources to threaten the USA than does Putin and Russia. If ever there were a moment for China to resolve the Taiwan issue it is here and now. The Americans have just stolen Chinese oil and are attacking a major supplier to China. Xi will not straighten out relations with Washington now by remaining silent and failing to respond appropriately. Such reticence will only encourage further provocations and give Washington time to better prepare for armed conflict.
In this interview recorded in the morning, we discussed Volodymyr Zelensky’s latest proposal that both sides create buffer zones on their sides of the present battle lines, meaning ‘demilitarization’ of the part of Donetsk still in Ukrainian hands and a similar ‘demilitarization’ of as many kilometers to the east of the battle lines by Russia.
As I remark, this is purely a propaganda initiative by Kiev. They know perfectly well that the proposal is completely unacceptable to the Russians for several reasons that are easy to see. First, this buffer zone on the Ukrainian side would remain under Ukrainian administration, meaning that the Russian speaking population would remain subject to the brutal repression which touched off their resistance to the newly installed ultra-nationalist government in Kiev in February 2014 and continued for eight years, prompting the Russians to launch their Special Military Operation.
Zelensky’s ‘demilitarization’ would mean removal of heavy military equipment. That sounds good, but in fact the war has evolved into a drone war and it is easy to envision that the Ukrainians would continue to launch drones against Russian positions to the East, while Russian responses would be condemned as violation of the peace justifying the entry of European “peacekeepers.”
If we look further afield, the Zelensky proposal does not address the root causes of the war that the Russians insist must be resolved if there is to be a durable peace. This means the neutrality of Ukraine, the ensured absence of any foreign troops or military installations. Though the Russians are not saying this aloud, they seek regime change in Kiev as part of any settlement. The extreme nationalists who have controlled the Kiev government since 2014 must be removed.
For all of the above reasons, the latest Zelensky proposal is dead on arrival in Moscow, even if the Kremlin is saying now politely that they will study it closely.
‘Judging Freedom’ edition of 24 December: The Totalitarian EU
In today’s conversation with Judge Andrew Napolitano, we discuss the terrible sanctions recently imposed by the European Council on retired Swiss military intelligence expert Jacques Baud for what is said to be his pro-Russian disinformation (an outrageous defamation) and the precedents for such extrajudicial violations of citizens’ rights to free speech, to property rights and more. As I say here this goes straight back to the seizure of assets of Russian oligarchs early in 2024 after the start of the Special Military Operations on charges of their ‘being friends of Putin’ and other nonsense that would never be accepted in a court of law. The problem may be said to go still further back to the breach of international law when the U.S. seized embassy and consular properties of the Russian Federation during the Obama administration in December 2016 to hand a poisoned chalice to the incoming Team Trump.
My point is that rule of law works for all of us only when it is defended against each and every violator. Failure to bring legal action and/or high-level lobbying against violators can only lead to escalation and spread of abuses over time. That is how we have reached a situation where none of us in the Alternative Media today can feel safe in the European Union, although as I say here, it is highly unlikely that any American will be put on EU sanctions lists for fear of enraging Trump and putting in jeopardy America’s nuclear umbrella and NATO support for Europe. But if you are a Swiss or some other third country national: watch out!
We also delve into the deeper problem that makes cases like Baud’s so intractable: the absence of any system of checks and balances, of division of powers whereby an independent judiciary could review cases of abuse like this and compel the offending executive to back down. This fundamental problem must be put at the door of the Left-leaning highly intellectual caviar socialists who played a very important role in writing the foundation documents of the EU, and who assumed that their successors would be equally well-intentioned and tolerant of others’ views. Well read, they may have been but they did not pay due attention to the 19th century political scientists who reasoned that men can be overbearing, oppressive and must be held in check by limitations on the power written into the constitution. In this regard, it should come as no surprise that the EU institutions today lend themselves to totalitarianism. Elon Musk is right: the EU must be deconstructed and rebuilt in a way that better protects democracy and specifically protects all human rights of its citizens, starting with freedom of expression, which is now being trampled upon.
The addition of retired Swiss intelligence officer Jacques Baud to the list of persons sanctioned by the European Council a little more than a week ago has shocked the community of Alternative Media, precisely because it indicates that the European Institutions have gone rogue, are trampling on the concept of freedom of expression with impunity and operating in completely opaque fashion so as to frustrate any possibility of recourse to justice by any of our dissidents.
Baud has now appeared on ‘Deep Dive’ and other widely watched podcasts to explain his situation. He has received moral support from serious people including state officials from a number of European countries. Though his bank accounts have been frozen and he is under a travel ban, friendly and decent people are giving him some assistance. Working through the proper channels, he may even get some humanitarian allowance access to his own funds. But I do not see that he is getting legal aid.
The issue raised by his case compels us all to put on our thinking caps and also to look in the mirror to see if we all have not in some way allowed government arbitrariness and disregard for due process, trampling on the sanctity of private property to go unchecked for too long, so that the latest acts of tyranny happening around us today are merely a continuation of preexisting trends.
I will not beat around the bush: what we are now witnessing is shocking because it is happening to us. Four years ago, at the start of the Special Military Operation, when it happened to Russians, we all had a good laugh. Just think, this or that jurisdiction just seized the yacht of some Russian oligarch. It was ‘rob the robbers!’ nothing more.
I ask myself why I did not get hot under the collar when Peter Aven’s bank accounts in the UK were frozen so that he sat penniless in his London mansion and could not pay his butler. Aven was the co-founder and co-owner of one of Russia’s most successful commercial and retail banks, Alpha Bank, that he has since sold off to be free of the associations that were used to put him on the sanctions list. Why was the seizure of his assets not troubling? Perhaps because Aven was/is quite obnoxious as a personality.
But being obnoxious is hardly a criminal offense. Nor was he given a proper day in court when his assets were frozen. That came only years later.
Many of the wealthy Russians who were put on the personal sanctions lists of the EU, of the UK and other jurisdictions were accused of nothing more than ‘being a friend of Putin,’ or supporting the Putin regime and not denouncing the war. As in the case of Baud today, these supposedly incriminating charges are vague and unenforceable in a court of law. The sanctions were a political act of the given government of the day, not a judicial act, exactly as is the case of Baud today.
If we are troubled by the implications of the arbitrariness and extrajudicial nature of Baud’s being sanctioned, then we must go back to the very beginning of the confiscatory behavior of countries well outside the EU and including, by the way, the USA.
****
On thinking through the Baud case, I have been looking for some special reason why this man who made every effort to be objective in his written and spoken comments about the Ukraine war has nonetheless landed on the still rather short list of victims of EU tyranny.
My first conjecture was that maybe he had some personal enemies who decided to use the opaque procedures of denunciation to bring him down. However, on second thought I see a more likely explanation in Baud’s very professionalism and respectability. By career line, he had been one of theirs, not some shambolic peacenik. But then in his retirement he has spoken his mind, which does not match the mainstream narratives.
What I see in Baud’s punishment without a crime is the same as happened to a Canadian former diplomat, Patrick Armstrong, who had done service in Canada’s Moscow embassy in mid-career, if my memory serves me right. In the run-up to and first year of the Special Military Operation he was retired and occupied his mind by writing very good blogs on his own internet platform, all in the dissident vein. Then one fine day in 2023 he received a visit from the Canadian thought police who told him that either he shut down his blog and instead looked after his garden OR his bank accounts would be frozen and his pension payments would stop. Patrick made the right decision and we have hardly heard from him since. This was just an example of the awful human rights watch of Justin Trudeau as Canadian prime minister, panderer to the neo-Nazi Ukrainian community in Canada.
The situation is not hopeless. On 19th December here in Brussels there was an historic turning point when respect for international law won out over unprincipled theft and lawlessness at the level of the European Institutions. Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever successfully stopped in their tracks Ursula von der Leyen and Friedrich Merz by refusing their demands that Belgium confiscate Russian sovereign assets on deposit in Euroclear to support a loan to Ukraine. A sovereign state finally brought down the EU’s tyrants and the Belgian solution of a mutualized EU loan to Ukraine was decided upon. That should give us courage to take the European Council to court for violation of freedom of speech and other human rights. This may not be pursued in EU courts but there are international courts that surely will hear the case if it properly presented, and that is also doable if authoritative expert lawyers come forward on a pro bono basis to help out.
I assume that the Community is well aware of the savage act of censorship and intended financial ruin directed by EU authorities a week ago against the Swiss intelligence veteran and widely read author on the Russian Way of War, Jacques Baud. I refer you to his Wikipedia entry for details on his career in his homeland, in United Nations operations and on his most recent writings.
Baud’s bank accounts and other assets in the EU have been frozen. This is all the more painful in that he in fact lives in Brussels. He is under a travel ban which in principle excludes the possibility of his going to Switzerland to pick up some cash and then returning to his Brussels residence. He is now dependent on the generosity of friends and supporters to put bread on the table, and those who assist him are themselves risking being sanctioned for that very act.
Worst of all, the sanctions have not been handed down by a court. The rule of law does not apply, because the sanctions are an act of political fiat within the EU’s executive body, the Council, against which it seems there is no appeal to European instances of justice. So much for checks and balances, which the architects of the EU in the 1990s, all highly educated intellectuals in the Leftist camp seem to have overlooked due to their unfounded optimism about the goodness of human nature, especially among the well-educated social strata like themselves. This situation is one further argument why the structure of the EU must be reinvented if democracy and civil liberties are to have any future here. The problem is not just the very low intellectual and educational level of the present national leaders and bosses within the EU Institutions; it is rooted in the EU’s founding documents.
Those of you who have sampled Baud’s writings or heard his occasional interviews on leading podcasts know that the man is as far removed from being a propagandist in general and an asset for the Kremlin, in particular, with which he is charged, as is humanly possible. I found his book on the structure of the Russian armed forces to be impenetrable beyond the first chapter, suitable for experts not for the layman. Moreover, he has shunned invitations to appear on RT, he has avoided using Russian sources in his research. He has minded his tongue on the few video appearances he gave to Alternative Media. In short, he has tried consciously to avoid any suspicion of being biased on the war. All to no avail!
Indeed, the case is so strange that I suspect he has been put under sanctions at the urging of some personal enemies, not by disinterested examiners of his case within the EU. But that is just my guess.
Now, to cut to the quick: what does the Baud case mean for the panelists, for the hosts of programs like ‘Judging Freedom’ or Glenn Diesen’s channel, to mention just two of the most prominent podcasts? Most every participant and host daily violates the political correctness of Euro-speak and could be accused of promoting Russia’s views of the war.
In yesterday’s ‘Judging Freedom,’ Scott Ritter stated flatly that he will no longer travel to Europe, because he fears detention and other serious unpleasantness over his political statements and participation in Russian media.
This issue is one that I must take with the utmost seriousness, given that I do not just travel through Europe but actually live there – for 45 years and counting.
I will take precautions, to the extent possible, not to be caught out as has Jacques Baud. However, I believe that it is highly unlikely that the European Council will sanction Americans under present conditions of ideological warfare with the Trump administration. I point to the speech of Vice President J.D. Vance at the Munich Security Conference in February and now, a couple of weeks ago to the newly issued National Security Strategy document which denounces the European Union for violation of civil liberties, for depriving citizens of freedom of speech. Any EU sanctions against individual American citizens for expressing their opinions on the war would go directly against the frantic efforts of the Commission to keep Trump on side over the Ukraine war and ensure provision by the U.S. of essential participation in any post war security guaranties to Kiev.
*****
All of the foregoing brings me back to the core issue that I am publicizing in my latest critical comments on the Russian ‘gently, gently’ conduct of the war. Indeed, I am saying before any microphone offered to me that Putin should move to end the war here and now by a decapitating strike on both civilian and military decision-making centers in Ukraine.
I say this not for the sake of sparing further loss of life among Russian or Ukrainian soldiers and civilians, important as that may be. I say it out of concern for the milieu in which I live.
Wars do not bring out the best in society, unless you enjoy watching ceremonies recounting heroism on the field of battle. All too often, the medals are given out posthumously to the widows.
No, wars mostly bring out the worst instincts of society to suppress liberties and enforce the rule of authoritarians. Two or more years of war in Ukraine, which is what the Putin and EU strategies are envisioning, will further poison the political life of Europe, will keep in power the monsters and fools who rule us presently. This is patently not in the interests of everyone living on this Continent and it is also not in Russia’s interests because it will lead straight to a Russia-NATO kinetic war two or three years hence.
Prime Minister Bart De Wever’s address to the Belgian parliament this morning
As I noted yesterday on the basis of news in the Belgian daily ‘Le Soir,’ early this morning Prime Minister Bart De Wever convened a session of the Belgian parliament (Chamber of Representatives) to deliver a speech about his planned actions later in the day at the European Council meeting of heads of government and state of the 27 EU Member States when they discuss the proposal of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to free the 185 billion euros in frozen Russian assets held in Euroclear (Belgium) to be used as collateral for a massive ‘reparations loan’ to Ukraine.
Here below is the link to this session. Regrettably there is not yet a version available on the internet with English translation. As you will find, De Wever opens with a few words in French and then switches to Flemish (Dutch) for the remainder of his speech. Nonetheless, in the Q&A with deputies which follows some of the questions are from French-speaking deputies and De Wever answers each one in French. I refer you to minute 21 and minute 33 and following, for example. He also weaves into his speech and into his answers English turns of speech.
I call attention to his statements in French which I could pick up and which are highly relevant to anyone who wants to understand how and why he dares to go up against the majority of EU Members and still more courageously against the authoritarian and vengeful Frau von der Leyen as he is doing. De Wever says that he has backers for his opposition to the notion of seizing the Russian assets among other European leaders, in particular Italy, Malta and Bulgaria, as well as several others which are still unnamed, and on this basis he assures the deputies that Belgium does not stand alone, that it is not isolated. These countries agree that the proposed ‘reparations loan’ is, as he says here in English: ‘sailing in uncharted waters.” The countries siding with Belgium have told him that if the Russian assets were being held in their countries as they are now in Euroclear (Belgium) they would act precisely as De Wever is doing.
De Wever insists that the Member States consider instead issuing an EU guarantee for any loans to be extended to Ukraine directly, not using Russian assets, per what von der Leyen called ‘Plan B’ a couple of weeks ago. This would be less expensive and less risky, he says.
Clever words! Of course, he knows perfectly well that Germany, The Netherlands and several Nordic countries are stingy and will resist strongly any attempt to draw them into mutualizing a loan to Ukraine.
The has been a torrent of news these past several days bearing on the title given to today’s discussion with Judge Andrew Napolitano.
From the results of the paper voting of EU Member States last Friday in which von der Leyen invoked emergency powers to override any possible vetoes, she succeeded in ending the six-monthly renewals of the freeze on Russian state assets held in Euroclear (Belgium) and making the freeze unlimited in time. For this she surely benefited from the argument that this would provide the EU with leverage against the United States and reserve for them a seat at the peace negotiations table which they otherwise would not enjoy.
Then on Monday, at a meeting of the Coalition of the Willing hosted by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and attended by Trump’s emissaries Witkoff and Kushner, as well as by Volodymyr Zelensky, the decision was taken to approve a peace proposal that incorporated all conditions that the Ukrainians have sought from the beginning of the conflict: a ‘security guaranty’ would be include NATO member states providing ‘boots on the ground’ in Ukraine, the armed force would be trained by European advisers and would number 800,000, the U.S. would participate in defending Ukrainian sovereignty by clauses similar to Article 5 of the NATO treaties, no territorial concessions to Russia would be made, the Russians would be obliged to pay reparations to Ukraine and the Russian leadership would be brought to justice.
Incredibly, Trump’s emissaries sat through these discussions and said at the conclusion that peace was now closer than ever before, an idea which Donald Trump himself repeated publicly later in the day.
In a speech to Dutch legislators in The Hague on Tuesday, Zelensky boasted about these terms and said that the Russian aggression would be punished, thereby reinforcing international law.
This utter collapse of the Trump position on the peace which favored realism and acknowledgement of the Russian military victory did not promise anything good for the meetings in Brussels tomorrow and Friday to decide on confiscation of the frozen Russian state assets.
However, this morning’s edition of ‘Le Soir,’ the main French-speaking daily newspaper in Belgium has two full pages devoted to the issue of the disposition of the Russian assets and the domestic politics here relating to the coming Council meeting. Per Le Soir, De Wever now has the support of ALL political parties in Belgium, north and south, left and right for his veto on von der Leyen’s plans unless she can produce written binding guaranties of all Member States to share the financial risks of the loan operation in case the loan is called by the lending banks. This could happen under two different scenarios: that the Russians win a law suit against Euroclear for damages over what is effectively the confiscation of their assets OR if the Russians defeat the Ukrainians on the field of battle and force a capitulation, meaning that the peace term do not foresee any Russian reparations to Ukraine.
My present guess is that von der Leyen simply cannot provide such written guaranties to Belgium because there are many naysayers among the Member States to risk sharing, including such heavyweights as France and Italy.
This means that the only fallback position of the Ukraine cheerleaders in the EU will be to raise an EU loan from their own pockets, meaning going to their parliaments to get budgetary approval, and most Member States are loathe to do that.
Accordingly, if the loan scheme fails this Friday in the European Council, then it is highly likely that Ukraine will be bankrupt in Q1 2026 and the war will end at the negotiating table in capitulation of Kiev.
As we also discuss in this Judging Freedom episode, the shocking flip-flop of Trump on the peace terms that we have seen these past two days is setting off a fierce fight within the highest decision-making levels of the Kremlin. Putin’s bet on Trump is shown up to have been a strategic mistake. Hardliners including the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Ryabkov who said that diplomacy had exhausted its utility several weeks ago are now the winners in the debates around Putin. The president’s ‘gently, gently’ approach to managing the war is shown to be wrong. We may therefore expect a big change in Putin’s next moves towards escalation. It would be best if he followed the advice of many in the elites who want him to blow up Kiev and end the war with a decapitation strike.
One of the benefits of being in multiple ‘press pools’ is that you get drawn into reporting on breaking news even before major media put out their accounts. Thus, early this morning I received a WhatsApp invitation from RT International to comment briefly on the Statement issued by the participating EU Member States at a meeting in Berlin yesterday hosted by Chancellor Friedrich Merz.
Note: the meeting in Berlin set out Europe’s terms for a cease fire and peace to be concluded between Russia and Ukraine. It amounts to a Russian capitulation along the lines that Volodymyr Zelensky has demanded for more than three years now.
The Americans Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner took part in that meeting. They are shown in photographs released today by The Financial Times standing next to the other participants and appearing to be relaxed and accommodating. We are led to believe that they agreed to the terms of this so-called peace deal, though that strains my credulity.
However, the importance of the Statement is not in settling with the Americans what terms for peace will now be presented to Moscow. It was a measure to get the EU states aligned for the decisive meeting of the European Council tomorrow and on the 19th to vote on disposition of the frozen Russian state assets being held in Euroclear (Belgium) as Ursula von der Leyen wants and the Belgian prime minister has so far vetoed. In this context, it is important that we see Italy’s prime minister Meloni has signed the Statement, considering that among its terms it envisions using the frozen assets to serve as reparations to Ukraine for the damage Russia has caused by its war of aggression. That is precisely what the European heads of government and of state will be voting on in Brussels and on that issue Meloni had joined Belgium, Bulgaria and Malta in a statement last Friday which expressed opposition to the collateralization of the assets for purposes of lending 145 billion euros to Ukraine.
As I have said in the RT interview, which will be posted on the internet and for which I will share the link as soon as I receive it, the greater meaning of the meeting in Berlin yesterday as reflected in the Statement now on the Commission website is that it seeks to perpetuate all of the preconditions that Moscow has called the root causes of the conflict and what prompted them to launch their Special Military Operation. By its terms, NATO-Russian relations will be those of enemies who are armed and ready for the next round of battle at any time. Ukraine will be armed to NATO standards, with NATO military personnel present on the ground as a trip-wire to set off World War III at any time. And the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev will remain in power, with hundreds of billions of euros in Russian ‘reparations’ to sustain the criminal feeding frenzy of its civilian and military leaders.
Chancellor Merz and Ursula von der Leyen have gotten what they wanted from this meeting. They are well on their way to ensuring their continued rule for years to come while turning the EU from the Peace Project which it was in the 20th century to the War Project that it is today.
Meanwhile, the brutal suppression of civic freedoms in Europe that J.D. Vance denounced at his speech to the Munich Security Conference continues unchecked. Yesterday one reader alerted me to the latest EU sanctions applied to Jacques Baud for allegedly acting as a spokesperson for the Kremlin and spreading disinformation about the Bucha massacre and other issues relating to the ongoing war.
For those who do not know Baud, from among the books he has published about the war, I can recommend his ‘The Russian Art of War: How the West Led Ukraine to Defeat’ (2024). You will quickly understand that this former colonel and member of the Swiss strategic intelligence service who also advised United Nations peacekeeping operations, is a serious scholar. He has been interviewed by Glenn Diesen on his youtube channel and been a guest on other major Alternative Media programs.
The EU sanctions now potentially mean that Baud will not be allowed to travel to any EU country and any assets he may have in Europe will be confiscated.
I point out that the sanctions imposed on Baud could just as easily be imposed on any of the American and other non-EU passport holders appearing on any of the Alternative Media programs that readers of these pages are likely to consult.
In brief, this development should be brought to the attention of J.D. Vance because it bears directly on his denunciation of the EU Institutions for violating free speech principles. It also provides grist for Elon Musk’s call to disband the EU and restore sovereignty to the Member States.
I open with a word of gratitude to the NewsX World production team for inviting my commentary on the Russia-Ukraine war and peace efforts day after day given that they know very well how my interpretations of events contradict directly the Western mainstream spin that turns the news bulletins on Euronews, on the BBC and on some other Indian broadcasters into crass pro-Kiev propaganda!
Today’s discussion, beginning at minute 21 focuses on the latest wave of Ukrainian drones sent deep into the territory of the Russian Federation, with 15 targeting Moscow. As I say here, this wave drone attack as well as the attack with an even greater number of UAVs on the previous day may be seen as a Public Relations effort. Zelensky has placed PR above purely military objectives in order to impress Western backers with Ukraine’s robust fight and wheedle still more financial and hardware support from them. In fact, there seem to have been no Russian infrastructure struck by these drones, only one incidence of reported damage due to falling debris from a drone struck by Russian air defenses.
I also was given an opportunity to decode Zelensky’s stated willingness to make concessions now on NATO membership so long as Ukraine receives strong security commitments from the US and other allies. His intent is clear: to demand that his Western supporters, especially the USA install themselves in Ukraine for purposes of the country’s security. That, of course, is precisely what the Russians saw as an existential threat to themselves in the run-up to their December 2021 demand that NATO move back its men and installations to the pre-1996 borders. It was to end the de facto NATO presence in Ukraine that the Russians they launched the SMO in February 2022. A Russian rejection of peace over the stationing of Coalition of the Willing troops in Ukraine will be trumpeted as demonstration of ‘Putin’s unwillingness to end his war of aggression.
Today’s conversation goes on for 52 minutes, and could have run still longer if we were to examine more than the several aspects of the latest U.S. National Security Strategy document. I am pleased, nonetheless, that we had ample opportunity to explore the ways in which this 2025 document compares with Trump’s first NSS of December 2017, to see how there is continuity in thinking from then to now. Trump was then a Kissinger-mentored Realist. He is one today, as well.
His embrace of an interest driven foreign policy means that he is ready to seek compromises and compromises are arrived at by diplomacy, which is why he has placed emphasis on reestablishing communication lines with Russia. The efforts of the Biden administration to break off all contact with Russia, to close down diplomacy and to rely solely on a militarized foreign policy, was not the idiosyncratic wish of one man: it came directly from the Idealist, values driven approach to foreign policy that every U.S. administration since Richard Nixon has prioritized.
In this chat, I explained what insights into the NSS come from close textual analysis of the document, from decoding innocent statements like our favoring pragmatism over pragmatists, realism over realists; or by the mention of how Germany is deindustrializing because its industrialists are moving production to China to take advantage of cheap Russian gas there.
I also had a chance to explain the mechanisms in European politics which make it impossible to reverse course on failing policies, so that the meddling that Trump proposes in the NSS and which the Germans have denounced, is very much needed if Europe is to be saved from its present suicidal course.
There is a great deal more here for the Community to explore.
By the way, I perhaps abused my privilege as guest to promote my 2019 book of essays entitled The Belgian Perspectiveon International Affairs, sales of which are just beginning to take off, six years after its launch. Perhaps prospective readers were turned off by the notion that Belgium dominates the content and Belgium is too small to be of value for understanding world politics. However, I had used a play on words, since the Belgian perspective was in reality, my perspective, now that I had become a naturalized Belgian two years earlier. It is in that book that you will find my detailed analysis of Trump’s 2017 NSS, which largely sets out the thinking he has stayed with in 2025. It is there, in chapter one, that you will find my call for Trump’s impeachment over his vile speech to the UN General Assembly in September 2017 when he proposed to utterly destroy North Korea and obliterate its 22 million population. I am viewing Trump very differently these days, focusing as I do on his top priorities for global power sharing with Russia and China and choosing to overlook his bullying, imperialist ways in Venezuela and his enabling genocide in Gaza.
[I post below an article of considerable importance which I released on http://www.gilbertdoctorow.substack.com, the platform on which I publish my essays several times a week – available by subscription. The issue discussed here is critical: I insist that what the Belgian prime minister is doing may have greater impact on an early end to the Ukraine war, due to impending bankruptcy of the Ukrainian state, than the much celebrated Russian military victory in Pokrovsk or than Viktor Orban’s theatrics)
PM Bart De Wever presents the most effective resistance to the usurper President of the European Commission and European war mongers that we have today
The European leader who is best known in Alternative Media for standing up to the imperious, autocratic Ursula von der Leyen is surely the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. He has decried the Commission’s policies towards Russia and threatened to veto funding of arms to Ukraine as well as every new round of sanctions against Moscow. He has gone twice to Moscow, on a peace mission without any ‘by your leave’ from Brussels, as Chancellor Merz pointed out in acid criticism of Orban yesterday. He will be headed back there in a week or two as head of a big trade delegation.
Orban sought and obtained from Trump permission to continue buying Russian gas and oil without facing secondary sanctions.
But note: Orban has been acting strictly in defense of his country’s economic interests. He wants the Ukraine war to end for fear that it will escalate out of control into a pan-European war. He has used the threat of vetoes in the European Council to extort various economic and financial concessions from the EU. When the day of voting arrives, each time Orban steps back and joins the conformist 26 other European Member States to vote ‘yes.’
Now I propose for the Community’s consideration as the more impactful hero of our times an unlikely candidate whom you have probably never heard of: Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever.
In his public pronouncements, De Wever has stuck to the official EU line of unwavering support for Kiev in its just cause against the Russian aggressor. But in practice, he is now striking a blow at von der Leyen’s jugular by withholding his approval of her plans for what amounts to confiscation of roughly 200 billion euros in frozen Russian state assets for the purpose of financing Kiev in two more years of war against Russia.
By doing this, De Wever, like Orban, is doing his job as protector of his nation’s prosperity. Should the von der Leyen initiative pass, should the frozen assets secure massive loans to Ukraine that will not and cannot be repaid, should Russia win its expected law suits against confiscation, which clearly violates international law so that the confiscated assets are ordered returned to Moscow, then Belgium as a state will be financially ruined – obliged to pay back the equivalent of one-third of its annual GDP. Unlike Orban, De Wever, is unlikely to be bought off by some financial concessions from the EU budget. He is likely to go all the way and carry his veto to the next and decisive session of the European Council on 18-19 December.
This past Friday both Ursula von der Leyen and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz foisted themselves on De Wever for a dinner at which they intended to bring him around. Merz reportedly even cancelled a state visit to Norway otherwise scheduled for Friday with reception by the Norwegian king to instead apply his force of will against the leader of that little country that Germans had twice overrun and occupied in the last century.
Had they paid closer attention to what De Wever did the day before, von der Leyen and Merz would have found reasons to pass up the dinner with De Wever as mission impossible. In fact, the day before De Wever spoke to the Chamber of Representatives (lower house of the bicameral Belgian legislature) and reiterated there why he objects to the confiscation as carrying unacceptable risks for the country. He received a standing ovation and as the French-language daily Le Soir remarked in its well-hidden online article about the parliamentary session, a very rare moment in political life took place: the leader of a Far Left party stood up in the chamber and congratulated De Wever on his speech, saying that he shared De Wever’s reasoning. Those of you who have some experience of the highly politicized and poisonous relations between Right and Left in European legislatures will savor this account. De Wever is the head of a conservative, Thatcher-style economics party.
Surely, von der Leyen and Merz had indigestion when they left the dinner table from their time with De Wever.
You read nothing about the outcome of this meeting in mainstream US and UK media because, as Le Soir announced in its two paragraph coverage yesterday, the parties agreed to continue talking about the problem and trying to find a solution that satisfies Belgium’s demand for water-tight legal guarantees from all other EU Member States that they will share the risks of the confiscation in case it goes wrong and the funds must be reconstituted and handed over to Moscow. We can be nearly certain that such guarantees will not be delivered on 18 December because numerous Member States, including notably, France, refuse to cooperate.
*****
Though Ursula von der Leyen has spent more than six years at her Commission job in Brussels, and though she was born in the Brussels central borough of Ixelles and so became fluent in French during her childhood, which is a key reason why Macron backed her for the job, she seems not to have spent enough time in the North of the country and has no understanding of how stubborn a true Fleming can be. Perhaps during her years here she was too cozy with corrupt Belgian French speakers from the Liberal MR Party like her Commissioner of Justice for five years, Didier Reynders, now facing prison time for money laundering, something he understood inside out from his many years as Belgium’s Finance Minister in several successive coalition governments. Or she became cocky after taming Reynders’ former boss at MR, Charles Michel, with whom Ursula crossed swords during his time as head of the rival executive body of the EU, the European Council; at the start of his tenure, he challenged von der Leyen for the one vacant seat at a meeting but by the time he left office, von der Leyen was wiping the floor with Michel.
Prime Minister Bart De Wever, a Flemish nationalist, is giving her a good lesson in what it means to be a true Fleming and to be concerned about national survival instead of about feathering one’s own nest.
The entire conflict arose because the President of the European Commission is desperate to use frozen Russian state assets held in Europe to finance Ukraine’s budgetary needs and procurement of weapons so that the war may continue for another couple of years while Europe restores its military industry and raises its numbers of soldiers at arms through conscription and volunteer enlistment schemes in order to be ready to engage Russia in a kinetic war by the end of the decade.
The Commission leadership, like the vast majority of heads of government in the EU Member States has invested all its political capital in a Ukrainian victory. They understand fully well that Ursula and her team may lose their grip on power when the Ukrainians conclude a peace on Russia’s terms, which presently is what Donald Trump is facilitating by his mediation.
The single largest repository of frozen Russian state assets happens to be in Euroclear, a financial entity in Belgium. The top management of Euroclear opposes what would effectively be the confiscation of the assets under the various schemes proposed by von der Leyen. The head of the European Central Bank has sounded the alarm, warning that the damage to the Euro might be irremediable and refusing to act as a back-stop to any loan in which the assets are used as collateral. And the Belgian prime minister has used these arguments to justify his rejection of the confiscation schemes, together with the argument that confiscating the frozen assets would undermine the ongoing peace negotiations. Also in these past few days De Wever has reportedly said publicly that the notion of Russia being defeated ‘is a fairy tale and total illusion,’ though he may have retracted this later (per Echo de la Bourse), when the security services claimed the statement was ‘serving Russian disinformation.’
In the final section of this essay set out below, I provide an overview of how the dramatic actions of the Prime Minister have been covered by the leading French and Flemish language daily newspapers.
*****
I have just cited a tiny article in the 5 December issue of the largest French-language financial daily in Belgium, L’Echo. The same issue has two full pages of articles on the question of risks to Euroclear if the frozen Russian assets are touched, on the planned Friday visit with De Wever by the German Chancellor and Commission President Ursula von der Leyen ‘to try and force De Wever to yield on the Russian assets,’ as well as a long column editorial on the Russian assets – ‘to construct a moral framework at cheap cost.’
Let us begin with the editorial, which it seems to me dances from foot to foot. The editors remark that the money locked in the Russian assets would resolve a triple threat facing Ukraine in the near future: “the drying up of means to sustain Ukraine financially and militarily in the context of the ever more evident departure of the United States; the future bankruptcy – said to be in a few months – of the Ukrainian state; and more recently, the whims of Donald Trump that we see in his ‘peace plan’ – to himself seize part of the Euroclear assets.”
The editors identify a collective lack of motivation with respect to Ukraine among the EU Member States that reveals itself in the negotiations over the frozen Russian assets.
This brings the editorial board to the punch line: “Belgium’s partners only pay lip service to the solidarity that our government rightly demands.”
To my reading this is a thumbs down to Ursula and a vote of confidence in Bart De Wever’s stand.
The article in L’echo de la bourse on the plans of Berlin and the European Commission to try to bend De Wever to their will has some very interesting detailed information. First, the author claims that the vote of the 27 heads of government on 18 December over the use of the assets in Euroclear will require approval only from a qualified majority, not unanimity, so that opposition from Belgium can be overruled. If that is true, and I have my doubts, then one wonders why Merz and von der Leyen would spend their time trying to bring De Wever around to their plans.
Another point in this article may be more useful and factually correct: that the von der Leyen plan is to loan Kiev a total of 165 billion euros, of which 45 billion euros would be made available in 2026 and the same amount in 2027, reserving the rest for later years. The allocation of these sums would be 110 billion for purchase of arms and 55 billion for the needs of their Treasury. We may assume that this is to cover government employee salaries and pay to soldiers. This sum would be guaranteed by 210 billion euros in Russian assets held in Europe, of which 185 billion are in Euroclear (Belgium) and 25 billion in France, Germany, Sweden and Cyprus. The difference between the loan to Kiev of 165 billion and the 210 billion would be used to reimburse a G7 loan extended to Ukraine in 2024.
This article further informs us that the Commission intends to use article 122 of the EU Treaty to forbid the transfer of the frozen assets to Russia. This they say is “An audacious interpretation of the article conferring emergency powers and making it possible to get around the need for unanimity in case of economic crisis.” I am left to wonder if the author has not assumed that the aforementioned vote on the Euroclear assets will be by only qualified majority because article 122 is being invoked.
Finally this L’Echo article describes the overall political contest between the EU and Belgium as follows: it is a fight between, on the one hand, the European centrist majority of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), the Socialists (Socialists and Democrats), and the Liberals of Renew (the Macron faction) versus the group of European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), a Right radical, neo-Atlanticist party close to Trump in which De Wever’s N-VA party belongs.
The author, Vincent Georis, sees the solution in getting Europe to offer sufficient guarantees to Belgium. But the Editorial, as noted above, does not expect this to happen.
The L’Echo article by Xander Vlassenbroeck on the risks that Euroclear faces if the frozen Russian assets are touched opens by mentioning that Euroclear is a repository presently holding 42 trillion dollars in global assets. The proposed loan to Kiev based on the frozen Russian assets as collateral is the present “Plan A” of the Commission. Its “Plan B” is for the EU to finance the loan directly from its own budget, but that is said to be less realistic because of the tough legislative process it would face.
As for Plan A, the author notes that the CEO of Euroclear Valerie Urbain has sent a letter to the Commission stating that the rather vague guarantees of risk sharing so far produced by the Commission are not sufficient reassurance. She considers that the Plan A would be seen as ‘confiscation’ outside the EU and would dissuade investors from depositing money in Europe, including in State bonds, all of which would have a bad impact on interest rates. She said in an interview with Le Monde, that she did not exclude the possibility of taking the European institutions to court if the ‘fiduciary obligations’ of Euroclear were compromised. After all, Euroclear is a systemic institution whose bankruptcy could cause a major crisis for all exchanges. It depends more than other banks on the confidence of its clients, for whom it is responsible for 42 trillion euros of assets in the world. Euroclear is seen to be politically neutral, but if this is compromised by a confiscation that is politically motivated, then there will be repercussions not only on Euroclear but on the European capital markets. Apparently, the Chinese have already signaled to Euroclear that they are following this case very closely. Meanwhile, people are asking what the shareholders of Euroclear are thinking about this issue. They include the French Caisse des depots, but also the sovereign fund of New Zealand, that of Singapore, Chinese and Australian public entities. Up till now, they all have been very discreet.
Finally, I turn to the 5 December issue of the Flemish newspaper De Standaard. I have in front of me an article with the peculiar title “De Wever’s statement that it is not desirable for Russia to lose fuels anti-Belgian sentiment”
The first paragraph of this article points to disinformation about what De Wever did or did not say during a lecture he delivered in French in the Bozar auditorium in downtown Brussels in the past week:
“With tensions rising over the Russian billions, criticism of Belgium and Prime Minister De Wever is also increasing. It was already harsh, but a sentence from a French-language lecture has given it a further boost.”
“At press conferences, in an official letter to the European Commission, and during interviews, Prime Minister Bart De Wever repeatedly explains why it is particularly risky to use Russian assets frozen in Belgium for the reconstruction of Ukraine.
“That was no different on Monday evening at a lecture for a French-speaking audience at the Bozar art center in Brussels.
“The editor-in-chief of La Libre Belgique interviewed De Wever after that lecture and asked a question about the delicate financial issue, after which a summary of that conversation appeared in the French-language newspaper.
“In it, De Wever uttered a few sentences that reinforced the critics’ vision of a country that would not side with Ukraine. ‘Who really believes that Russia will lose in Ukraine?’ said De Wever. ‘That is a myth, a total illusion. It is not even desirable for her to lose and for instability to arise in a country that possesses nuclear weapons.’
“The specific passage from the printed interview, particularly the section entitled “It is not desirable for Russia to lose,” has been widely shared on social media since Thursday. Among others, a former Ukrainian diplomat drew attention to De Wever’s statements.
“For weeks, a campaign has been raging on X and Telegram, with predominantly pro-Ukraine voices accusing Belgium of being selfish, endangering European security, and abandoning Ukraine. Even during World War II, Germany’s money was not confiscated,’ said the prime minister.”
Another article in the same issue of Standaard has the title “De Wever enjoys support from PVDA and Vlaams Belang on Euroclear.” This is not intended as a compliment. PVDA is the Workers’ Party of Belgium, a Marxist party headed by Raoul Hedebouw. Hedebouw is the deputy who offered his support to De Wever in the Chamber of Representatives, as noted above. Vlaams Belang is a Flemish separatist party that long has had a taint of racism, though its domestic policies are more socially minded than De Wever’s N-VA.
If I may summarize, my reading of the Belgian press demonstrates that opinions are divided on De Wever’s stand with respect to confiscation and on the Ukraine-Russia war, between different newspapers and even within the staff of a single newspaper like L’Echo.
Against this media background in his own country. Bart De Wever’s principled stand against the von der Leyen plan to confiscate Russian state assets in Euroclear is all the more impressive and praiseworthy.
This unhurried interview covered several major news items of the day relating to the Ukraine war and also to the newly issued U.S. National Security Strategy.
As regards the NSS, Moscow has commented favorably on it as if this represents a wholly new direction in U.S. foreign policy. However, in fact, as I describe in detail in today’s essay on Substack, the new NSS pick up where Trump’s first NSS in December 2017 left off. It enshrines an interest-driven foreign policy as opposed to a values driven foreign policy. It anticipates an early end to the Russia-Ukraine war so that Washington can proceed with the reintegration of Russia into normal commercial, diplomatic, cultural relations not only with the USA but also with the European Union. Indeed, if you look closely, the NSS intimates that Europe should resume importation of Russian pipeline gas: the document notes that German industry is leaving the country for China, where it can have access to cheap Russian gas!
We also discuss the widely quoted remark of General Keith Kellogg that peace in Ukraine is now within reach, that the sides have just the last 10 meters to reach it. As I note, the old folk wisdom of ‘missed by a meter, missed by a mile’ is relevant here: either you have reached the successful conclusion of a peace or you have not and the daily missile and drone attacks continue unabated. I insist that Kellogg does not speak for the administration, that he was just window dressing for Trump to mislead his enemies into thinking that he sided with Kellogg’s pro-Ukrainian stance.
The massive Russian overnight strike on the Ukrainian city of Kremenchuk is brought up, and I say that this success is an impressive show of technical capabilities of the Kinzhal hypersonic missile and other Russian Wunderwaffen, but it does not bring the end of the war one day closer. The rule of ‘whack a mole’ has to be invoked: you smack down a molehill and the mole emerges somewhere else. Military victory is not won by aerial strikes but by feet on the ground. This war has gone on for much too long and could have been vastly shorter and less deadly if the Russians had from the beginning mobilized the necessary attack force to get the job done.
Another News X World interview for the amusement as well as edification of their global audience
This afternoon’s interview has just been posted on youtube and I offer it to the Community because we discussed several new developments in the war and the peace negotiations while lightening this heavy going with some justified levity.
I think in particular of the foolish remarks of the U.S. Ambassador Matthew Whitaker on the state of play during the ongoing talks in Miami. As I comment here, Whitaker’s claim that Russia and Ukraine are closer than ever to peace sounds as persuasive as the comment by U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan at the end of September 2023 that he had never before seen the Middle East so peaceful.
My speculation that Whitaker was a career diplomat from before the Trump administration was misplaced. No, he was a lawyer with private and public practice. But perhaps this information about him in his US Mission web page tells us something highly relevant to his latest observations:
“A graduate of the University of Iowa, Whitaker earned a Master of Business Administration, Juris Doctor, and Bachelor of Arts. During his time at Iowa, he was a three-year letterman on the football team, contributing to a Big Ten Championship and playing in the 1991 Rose Bowl. He was also awarded the prestigious Big Ten Medal of Honor for his academic and athletic achievements.”
Playing in the Rose Bowl can carry you just so far…
Otherwise in my News X World interview this afternoon, we also discussed how drone warfare is a great leveler. But I consider the most important part of our discussion was about the latest edition of the US national security strategy that came out yesterday. Judging by the overview published in the Financial Times online edition today, this is a document that should be required reading for every subscriber to this Substack account. It is a continuation and expansion of what J.D. Vance said at the Munich Security Conference in February.
Reading between the lines, we see here that Trump has a clearly defined foreign policy which is to end the Ukraine-Russia war, to normalize relations with Russia, to continue the US pivot to the Pacific region, and to bring down the leadership of the European Institutions in Brussels and the governments in 24 of the 27 EU Member States because they are destroying European civilization and destroying traditional Christian values. These ‘allies’ did what they could to prevent Trump’s election to the presidency in 2016 and again in 2024. They are ideological enemies and he is unforgiving in seeking to unseat them.
This 30-minute conversation covers very efficiently many of the issues surrounding the negotiations, the issues surrounding the European efforts to sabotage the peace initiative of Donald Trump. Accordingly I can recommend it heartily to the Community.
At the same time, I use this opportunity to say that the deluge of news on and about the war does not let up and the concerns set out in this video have in a way been bypassed by the latest news out of Brussels regarding the European Commission’s dramatic plans to push through the confiscation of Russian state assets to continue funding the war. The Financial Times online this evening sets out in great detail what von der Leyen is planning to do in order to overcome objections from Belgium, the jurisdiction of Euroclear where the single largest amount of these frozen assets are held, and also to overcome possible vetoes to her plans by Hungary and other states. The plan is monstrous and entails the utter destruction of the European Union institutions for one purpose only: to perpetuate the war at all costs.
As I said on the Judging Freedom show earlier today, essentially what is proposed is to prepare a 200 billion euro debt for the Member States without any of the parliaments voting on this vital question and in the knowledge that they will be hit for payment at some future date when the Russians eventually win justice in the courts. At that point, the citizens of Europe will be faced with costs that they never authorized their governments to incur.
Frau von der Leyen is a usurper of power, a dictator on the scale of Hitler. What is surprising, shocking is that the prime ministers of 23 of the 27 European Member States go along with her. You have to ask where are the men in the room? Have they all been castrated?
For those of you who may have wondered how Europe could have blundered into WWI, we now know, because each day we see the present European leaders and the governing elites in Europe displaying utter ignorance of what a Continent-wide war will bring, namely the destruction of what remains of civilization here and the loss of tens of millions of lives.
‘Judging Freedom’ edition of 3 December 2025: Are US/Russian Negotiations a Waste of Time?
I gladly present this chat with Judge Napolitano because we departed from the strict and often dry terms of foreign policy analysis to other methods which Andrew Napolitano cultivated during his time on the bench but which political scientists, for reasons best known to them, do not deal in: body language.
We both viewed segments from the most recent public statements by Vladimir Putin, most likely made after the conclusion of his talks with Witkoff and Kushner over peace in Ukraine. My reading of Putin’s body language was that he was supremely confident of the superiority of Russian arms over anything in the European arsenals when he said that Russia is ready to go to war with Europe if that is what they want, and can do so right now. He went on to say that the war will not be very long.
This brought to mind the lyrics of Tom Lehrer’s song to his mother that he would be back from the war in a half hour or so. For those not clued in: Putin was saying in veiled language what Russian nationalists have been saying for some time, namely that Russia will not pussy foot with the Europeans in war conditions as it has done with Ukraine because of the residual brotherly feelings towards Ukraine which are absent with regard to Europe. Russia will not fight in the trenches, but will use its tactical nuclear weapons to annihilate any European forces sent against it.
I do hope that in the chancelleries of Europe, and especially in Germany, they have paid close attention to these remarks of Putin, because they make a mockery of the European rearmament efforts at present. No amount of new tanks or artillery, no new fighter jets, no additional recruits to their armed forces, whether volunteer or by a draft, will provide any defense whatsoever for Europe if they go head to head against Russia today.
In this essay, I will take on the Putin Hero Worship that is all too common among Russian cheerleaders in Alternative Media. Their misreading of the man and his conduct of the war will multiply 10 times over when a peace is concluded that meets many, though not all of Russia’s objectives. Yes, we told you so, they will be crowing: peace has come because Putin has made all the right moves and trashed the West.
However, there is a strong argument to make for exactly the opposite interpretation of what has been going on for the nearly four years of this war, namely that it got off to a very bad start and has been drawn out needlessly because of the peculiar strategy that Team Putin put in place and has stuck with notwithstanding mounting fatalities and a worsening international environment that threatens to escalate from the present proxy war against Russia into a Europe wide kinetic war that will devastate the Continent
. If indeed the war ends in the next couple of months, it will be largely due to the efforts of Donald Trump, who is determined to reach a geopolitical settlement with Russia for his own Realpolitik reasons, namely to break up the Russia-China alliance. Regrettably, I agree with Trump that Putin would fight on for years to come in the flawed belief that he is sparing lives by his war of attrition approach and that a total military victory is achievable. It is not, given the go-for-broke irrational commitment to continuing the war by the EU Member States.
As I have been saying for some time, this war will end and there will likely be Ukrainian capitulation thanks to the political collapse of the Kiev regime, not because the Ukrainian army has been driven from the field of battle. And Kiev is being pushed towards political collapse today by Team Trump more than by anyone else.
****
If we may go back to the very start of the Special Military Operation, I maintain that Team Putin had not done due diligence regarding the likely Ukrainian army response to an invasion and had not fielded an invasion force in the numbers essential for it to succeed.
In my chat with Peter Lavelle on the podcast The Gaggle a couple of weeks ago, Peter reminded me that in the weeks before the start of the Special Military Operation, when I was still a regular guest on the RT show ‘CrossTalk,’ I had been one of the very few analysts in Alternative Media to have predicted the Russian invasion. I do not remember that, but it could well have been so because I am no military expert and would not have seen that the 150,000 troops that the Russians amassed across the Belarus border from Ukraine were only one third the number that normal military doctrine tells you are needed to perform such an operation as crossing into enemy territory to capture the capital and force regime change.
Just a few months into the SMO, I heard from a taxi driver during the hour-long trip from my apartment in an outlying borough of St Petersburg to the city center how Team Putin has stunned his own military intelligence people by not consulting with them before staging the invasion. And what would a taxi driver know about such things, you may ask. Well, this driver just happened to be a retired military intelligence officer who remained in touch with his former colleagues and heard the story from them.
Yes, in Russia at various times taxi drivers have been exceptional sources of information. Just remember that Vladimir Putin himself admitted in a public Q&A a year or so ago, that at the start of the 90s he, too, had been a taxi driver for a while just to put bread on the table, given the general economic collapse.
It is fairly obvious that Team Putin expected the Ukrainian military to raise the white flag at the first sign of Russian troops invading, just as they had done in 2014 on Crimea. One might guess that Putin and his close advisers did not appreciate how effectively British and other NATO trainers had been during the intervening 8 years in reshaping the Ukrainian army. The Russian appeals to the Ukrainian officers to rebel against the extremist nationalist government in Kiev and against the Nazi battalions in their own midst fell on deaf ears.
Indeed, you may go on to ask whether a good people manager like Putin could really ignore the protocol of government administration and not consult with the agency responsible for providing military intelligence. But this very behavior has in the past two weeks been repeated in a manner for us all to see when Putin completely sidelined Sergei Lavrov and the entire Ministry of Foreign Affairs from the peace negotiations with the USA and Ukraine, relying instead on a relative outsider and neophyte in such matters, Kirill Dmitriev.
Indeed, if the Russian command had poor military and political intelligence on the enemy at the start, it has not become better informed ever since. I point to the ‘surprise’ Ukrainian incursion into the Kursk oblast of the Russian Federation that it took more than six months of fierce fighting to uproot and expel. It is hard to understand why his Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov was not sacked over this disgraceful failure to secure the Russian Federation borders, why no one had checked the fortifications that were supposed to have been built with federal money in Belgorod and Kursk, but never were, or were built with inferior concrete because of local government corruption.
The whole strategy of waging war ‘the Russian way’ brought in by Vladimir Putin in February 2022, in contrast to the U.S. style ‘shock and awe’ to overwhelm the enemy, has dragged out the war vastly longer than was necessary, has created more killed and severely maimed Russian and Ukrainian soldiers, and has invited Western intervention which all could have been avoided had Putin followed Soviet practice in such matters and used a hammer to crush the fly instead of a napkin.
The lessons of the Soviet invasions of Hungary in 1956 and of Czechoslovakia in 1968 were precisely that massive troop presence must be brought to bear for successful regime change by force of arms. In both cases, the Soviet invasions were cruel, but in the end relatively few people died and the whole exercise was over in a matter of days, at most weeks, not years as is the case today.
These lessons have not been absorbed by Team Putin to this day. For inexplicable reasons the Boss in the Kremlin refuses to make a decapitating strike in Kiev to end the fighting at once without further loss of life.
As I say above, it is the intervention of Donald Trump that is bringing down the Kiev regime. The United States stands behind the anti-corruption investigations that already have greatly weakened Zelensky’s position following the forced resignation of his head of the Presidential Administration and power behind the throne, Andrii Yermak. It is Team Trump who have been sidelining Europe, letting the air out of the balloon of the Coalition of the Willing, and preparing the way for capitulation by Kiev before anyone in Brussels can raise a finger.
Don’t get me wrong. I have the greatest respect for Vladimir Putin as the man who put Russia back on its feet economically, socially and in military might after the collapse and disgrace of the 1990s. For these achievements, he may be honored for decades to come with monuments all around the Federation. But as we say in the business world: ‘horses for courses.’ And Putin, the nation builder in peacetime has been making too many wrong moves as Commander in Chief of a nation at war.
Ukrainian capitulation in the coming weeks may be expected….thanks to Mr. Trump
I frankly admit that I have underestimated Trump’s capacity for duplicity that he has used to outmaneuver his opponents abroad in the EU, in Ukraine and at home in the USA, on Capitol Hill and in the media.
I have no doubt that Team Trump are behind the corruption investigation raid on the home of the power behind the throne in Kiev, Andrii Yermak, who was forced to resign late today. The fall of Zelensky on corruption charges cannot be more than days away.
Accordingly, I must revise my views on what happened at the US-Ukraine meeting in Geneva at the start of the week that produced a revised 19-point plan to suit the Zelensky gang which we were told would be foisted on the Russians. No, that was pure political theater and we may assume that the original 29- point plan developed jointly by Steve Witkoff for the American side and Kirill Dmitriev for the Russians will be the basis for the renewed US-Russian talks on ending the war that likely will take place next week in Budapest chaired by Trump and Putin.
This is all happening with blinding speed that has left the Trump’s opponents speechless.
However, one European leader did have something to say in the past day that also contributes to the foreseeable political collapse of Ukraine and possibly to the collapse of the war mongers who dominate present European politics. I have in mind the Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever who rejected von der Leyen’s insistent promotion of confiscation of frozen Russian state assets held in Euroclear now not only because of financial risk that the confiscation will be reversed in court challenges by Russia that will follow but, more importantly today, because the confiscation would work directly against the ongoing peace negotiations. So von der Leyen’s perfidy to European interests in peace on the Continent has been called out.
In today’s chat we discussed several very important issues of the day as a flood of news relating to the peace negotiations come out of Washington, Moscow, Abu Dhabi and the European capitals.
I report on the very evident split between Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Vladimir Putin over the unconventional and now apparently failing procedure by which negotiations for peace are being held. Lavrov yesterday strongly criticized the use of back channels and entirely sidelining his own ministry which normally should be in charge of such important talks that require great secrecy and also great diplomatic competence on the part of the leading figures in the talks. Lavrov said that he has not seen the revised plan, now counting 18 points and so cannot comment but does not expect to see anything good in it, since the leaks allowed the wrecking team from Europe to nullify what was good about the original 28-point plan.
Today, President Putin’s special advisor on foreign relations Yuri Ushakov made a public statement to the effect that he has seen the revised plan and that it can be used as a basis for further talks. Let me be clear: Ushakov is a seasoned diplomat with a lot of relevant experience considering that he was the Russian ambassador to Washington from 1998 to 2008. But today he is a law unto himself, not a member of the diplomatic corps. He may be said to speak for Putin. And now we find that his position on the peace process is diametrically opposed to that of the Foreign Minister. This is a remarkable development in Moscow that one very rarely sees. What we may guess is that Putin’s prioritization on establishing good relations with the United States has drawn him into the backchannel solution, which now is going sour.
Judge Napolitano raised the issue of Ursula von der Leyen’s pack of lies and hypocrisy speech yesterday regarding the way forward on the peace talks. A two-minute excerpt from that speech was put up on the screen. The woman is very dangerous for the future of Europe. Let us assume that she has a very solid bomb shelter beneath the Commission headquarters. But that gives little comfort to the rest of us. Should she have her way, in a year or two Western Europe may look a lot like war ravaged Ukraine does today.
Links to today’s interview segments from News X World and an excellent briefing on the Peace Plan by Ray McGovern
The producers at NewsX World were very fast off the mark this morning and have just posted on the internet the two interview segments from earlier today that I described in my latest essay on these pages.
Russian defenses intercept drones in unprecedented wave
Canadian PM Mark Carney & German Chancellor Friedrich Merz discuss Ukraine Peace Deal
I also use this opportunity to bring to the attention of the Community a just released interview with my friend and colleague in the Alternative Media, Ray McGovern, taken by Professor Glenn Diesen.
I recommend this because Ray sets out very clearly the sequence of events starting from the presidential summit in Alaska in mid-August that led to compilation of Trump’s 28-point peace plan, which now has been provisionally approved by Vladimir Putin as the basis for a settlement and awaits a final ‘yes’ from Volodymyr Zelensky. Ray pays special attention to how Putin explained this story during the well -choreographed opening minutes of last Friday’s weekly Russian Security Council session.
All of this is an essential context for our appreciation of the Trump document. He makes reference to the dire situation of the Ukrainians on the field of battle where they have suffered very serious losses of fortified cities like Kupyansk, Pokrovsk, Volchansk which have protected their hold on the Donbas from the start of the Special Military Operation to present.
What is missing from Ray’s explanation is the European context for Trump’s present demand that the Plan be signed before Thanksgiving, 27 November. Sitting as I do in Brussels, I am much more sensitive than my American colleagues in Washington or New York to the European dimension, namely war hysteria in the media and the ever more brazen, ever more irresponsible and provocative measures that the European heads of government are prepared to take to ensure that the war continues.
As I say, Trump’s Plan is as much a preparation for -regime change across Europe, for the ousting of the war mongers in power here as it is for a cease-fire and outbreak of peace between Russia and Ukraine. These issues are directly interlinked.
In these circumstances, it is foreseeable that at their next gathering in Brussels mid-December these same members of the European Council will do the unthinkable, will violate international law, will do what no one dared to do even in the midst of WWII and will confiscate the 185 billion euros of Russian state assets now frozen in Euroclear for the purpose of funding the war in Ukraine for two more years.
Conversation with Professor Glenn Diesen: Trump Neutralizes Europe with Peace Plan
In this 45-minute chat, we discussed why there is reason for optimism that Trump’s 28-point plan will achieve its several interrelated objectives. From the moment of its signing as the master plan for a to-be-negotiated detailed set of agreements between Russia, Ukraine, Europe and the USA this initiative will begin to dramatically clear the air, reduce tensions in the region and across Europe.
Assuming that it is accepted by both Volodymyr Zelensky and Vladimir Putin within the 27 November deadline set by Trump, the signing will be followed immediately by a withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from all of the Donbas and withdrawal of Russian forces from all oblasts of Ukraine aside from the Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions. The withdrawal process will be accompanied by a full ceasefire. So far, so good, but that is only the very beginning of the process that will be set on its way.
Some of my peers have chosen to ignore the foregoing and speak of the Plan as something that will be discussed and discussed for months before anything happens. They are dead wrong. They are missing the reasons why Trump has set just 7 days for acceptance or rejection of the document by Russia and Ukraine. These are the same reasons why it apparently was drafted by respective emissaries of Trump and Putin outside the normal institutional channels. The point has been to catch Zelensky at the present moment of great weakness following the revelations a week ago of immense corruption among his close entourage and also amidst the deeply humiliating loss of Kupyansk and Pokrovsk to Russian forces, which show beyond any doubt that Ukraine’s hopes for holding the Donbass are illusory. The point has been not to allow the Europeans to reorganize a counter strategy to keep the war going built, likely, on confiscation of Russian state assets in Euroclear. The point has been not to give Britain and France time to send troops down to Ukraine and massively escalate the war.
I consider this interview as setting forth my final word on how Trump is setting the stage for regime change across Europe by removing the whole logic of a security threat from Russia which the warmongering leaders of 24 EU Member States have been using to consolidate their hold on power. Normalization of relations with Russia, revising the security architecture of the Continent puts paid to the ongoing distortion of the EU from a peace project to a war project.
The BBC this morning already began giving the microphone to the usual Neocon academics at Stanford who berated the 28 point peace plan that was delivered to Zelensky in Kiev yesterday, and which he said he would respond to shortly. Trump is being accused by mainstream commentators of selling out an ally, pandering to a tyrant (Putin) and doing a disservice to American interests worldwide.
I imagine that ultra-nationalist Russians will appear on Russian state television talk shows later today to issue their condemnatory words on the peace plan from the perspective of the other side of the barricades.
For my part, after reading through the plan, which The Financial Times published several hours ago and which I reproduce below, I say ‘bravo’ to the American President, whose team has cobbled together a road map to long-lasting peace not just between Russia and Ukraine, but between Russia, Europe and the United States. Those determined critics of Trump in both Western mainstream AND in Western alternative media who have predicted the same kind of faux peace that was imposed on Hamas and Israel will ultimately have to admit that The Man does some things right when he and his close advisors set their minds to it.
I will issue a proper evaluation of the document point for point in the coming day or two. For the moment, I take pleasure in noting that the concept of using the frozen Russian assets as a means of not merely ensuring quick reconstruction of both the Ukrainian held and the Russian held parts of what was pre-war Ukraine but also involving the United States in the process, to ensure the funds are not diverted into private pockets and really do some good. This is a variation on my long-held proposal for these funds. Moreover, the plan obliges Europe to contribute $100 billion to the very same cause, which is a far more worthy objective for extracting funds from European taxpayers than further financial and military aid to the bankrupt regime in Kiev.
That the concept of denazification is also addressed in this plan is especially worthy of note. There are those who were asking just days ago how this could be realized. Here in the plan we see very specific proposals for its being implemented – without purges, without recrimination and with a positive approach to shaping the future society in Ukraine.
I also note especially the requirement that elections be held in Ukraine within 100 days of concluding the agreement and start of its implementation, which includes, of course, a comprehensive cease-fire. This, not forced regime change by American or British intelligence operatives, is the best possible way to ensure the evolution of Ukraine towards democracy and peaceful coexistence with its neighbor.
Among the 28 points are issues not directly related to the Ukraine-Russia conflict but having decisive importance for restoring calm in international relations and taking us all back from the risks of nuclear war. The outstanding point in this regard is the call for extension of the START treaty without any mention of bringing China to the table, which of course would at this point condemn the initiative to failure.
The full text of Trump’s 28-point Ukraine-Russia peace plan
1. Ukraine’s sovereignty will be confirmed.
2. A comprehensive and comprehensive [sic] non-aggression agreement will be concluded between Russia, Ukraine and Europe. All ambiguities of the last 30 years will be considered settled.
3. It is expected that Russia will not invade neighbouring countries and NATO will not expand further.
4. A dialogue will be held between Russia and NATO, mediated by the United States, to resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation in order to ensure global security and increase opportunities for cooperation and future economic development.
5. Ukraine will receive reliable security guarantees.
6. The size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces will be limited to 600,000 personnel.
7. Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO agrees to include in its statutes a provision that Ukraine will not be admitted in the future.
8. NATO agrees not to station troops in Ukraine.
9. European fighter jets will be stationed in Poland.
10. US guarantee: The US will receive compensation for the guarantee. If Ukraine invades Russia, it will lose the guarantee. If Russia invades Ukraine, in addition to a decisive coordinated military response, all global sanctions will be reinstated, recognition of the new territory and all other benefits of this deal will be revoked. If Ukraine launches a missile at Moscow or St. Petersburg without cause, the security guarantee will be deemed invalid.
11. Ukraine is eligible for EU membership and will receive short-term preferential access to the European market while this issue is being considered.
12. A powerful global package of measures to rebuild Ukraine, including but not limited to: a. The creation of a Ukraine Development Fund to invest in fast-growing industries, including technology, data centres, and artificial intelligence. b. The United States will cooperate with Ukraine to jointly rebuild, develop, modernise, and operate Ukraine’s gas infrastructure, including pipelines and storage facilities. c. Joint efforts to rehabilitate war-affected areas for the restoration, reconstruction and modernisation of cities and residential areas. d. Infrastructure development. e. Extraction of minerals and natural resources. f. The World Bank will develop a special financing package to accelerate these efforts.
13. Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy: a. The lifting of sanctions will be discussed and agreed upon in stages and on a case-by-case basis. b. The United States will enter into a long-term economic cooperation agreement for mutual development in the areas of energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data centres, rare earth metal extraction projects in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities. c. Russia will be invited to rejoin the G8.
14. Frozen funds will be used as follows: $100 billion in frozen Russian assets will be invested in US-led efforts to rebuild and invest in Ukraine. The US will receive 50% of the profits from this venture. Europe will add $100 billion to increase the amount of investment available for Ukraine’s reconstruction. The remainder of the frozen Russian funds will be invested in a separate US-Russian investment vehicle that will implement joint projects in specific areas. This fund will be aimed at strengthening relations and increasing common interests to create a strong incentive not to return to conflict.
15. A joint American-Russian working group on security issues will be established to promote and ensure compliance with all provisions of this agreement.
16. Russia will enshrine in law its policy of non-aggression towards Europe and Ukraine.
17. The United States and Russia will agree to extend the validity of treaties on the non-proliferation and control of nuclear weapons, including the START I Treaty.
18. Ukraine agrees to be a non-nuclear state in accordance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
19. The Zaporizhzhya [sic] Nuclear Power Plant will be launched under the supervision of the IAEA, and the electricity produced will be distributed equally between Russia and Ukraine — 50:50.
20. Both countries undertake to implement educational programmes in schools and society aimed at promoting understanding and tolerance of different cultures and eliminating racism and prejudice: a. Ukraine will adopt EU rules on religious tolerance and the protection of linguistic minorities. b. Both countries will agree to abolish all discriminatory measures and guarantee the rights of Ukrainian and Russian media and education. c. All Nazi ideology and activities must be rejected and prohibited.
21. Territories: a. Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk will be recognised as de facto Russian, including by the United States. b. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia will be frozen along the line of contact, which will mean de facto recognition along the line of contact. c. Russia will relinquish other agreed territories it controls outside the five regions. d. Ukrainian forces will withdraw from the part of Donetsk Oblast that they currently control, and this withdrawal zone will be considered a neutral demilitarised buffer zone, internationally recognised as territory belonging to the Russian Federation. Russian forces will not enter this demilitarised zone.
22. After agreeing on future territorial arrangements, both the Russian Federation and Ukraine undertake not to change these arrangements by force. Any security guarantees will not apply in the event of a breach of this commitment.
23. Russia will not prevent Ukraine from using the Dnieper River for commercial activities, and agreements will be reached on the free transport of grain across the Black Sea.
24. A humanitarian committee will be established to resolve outstanding issues: a. All remaining prisoners and bodies will be exchanged on an ‘all for all’ basis. b. All civilian detainees and hostages will be returned, including children. c. A family reunification programme will be implemented. d. Measures will be taken to alleviate the suffering of the victims of the conflict.
25. Ukraine will hold elections in 100 days.
26. All parties involved in this conflict will receive full amnesty for their actions during the war and agree not to make any claims or consider any complaints in the future.
27. This agreement will be legally binding. Its implementation will be monitored and guaranteed by the Peace Council, headed by President Donald J. Trump. Sanctions will be imposed for violations.
28. Once all parties agree to this memorandum, the ceasefire will take effect immediately after both sides retreat to agreed points to begin implementation of the agreement.
This nearly hour-long interview covers the waterfront of issues surrounding the 28-point peace plan that was jointly elaborated by Team Trump and Team Putin in a secret backchannel that eluded the attention not only of Congress but of the recalcitrant Secretary of State and others in the Administration who have been working against Trump on resolving the Ukraine war. This was the plan that Steve Witkoff was planning to hand deliver to Zelensky in Istanbul yesterday, but which the Ukrainian leader hoped to dodge by cancelling the meeting.
On the American side it evidently was developed by Witkoff and his junior aides. On the Russian side, it appears that Kirill Dmitriev carried the ball during his visit to the United States following the break-off of plans for a summit of the two presidents in Budapest. What then looked like an irrelevant trip to promote US-Russian big business projects when relations were at a nadir turns out to have been a cleverly disguised step forward in coordinating plans for peace.
There are many current developments in Kiev suggesting that a regime change piloted by the United States is underway. As of today, these are all a matter of conjecture, not hard facts. The latest word on Russian state television last night was coverage of attempts in the Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada (parliament) to bring down Yermak, Head of the Office of the President, and key power behind Zelensky’s throne. The corruption scandal is the lever for this attack. Yermak’s downfall would prepare the way for Zelensky’s removal or forced power sharing with other political forces.
The talk with Szamuely and Lavelle focused on the Russian side of the equation and what it will take to end the war.
I was delighted that at the start of our chat Peter brought up our mutual excitement in November 2016 when we met the news of Trump’s electoral victory and celebrated on air in the RT studio, Moscow by opening a bottle of shampanskoye. I was then a regular panelist on his CrossTalk show. My contact with George Szamuely so far had been virtual when we were matched panelists on a couple of Press TV (Iran) talk shows.
In the hour before this show, the news which I had received from the Indian broadcaster WION early in the morning that Steve Witkoff, Donald Trump’s emissary for the Ukraine war talks, was going to meet with Zelensky in Istanbul later today was superseded by news that the meeting was cancelled by Zelensky. Per WION, Witkoff planned to present America’s latest 20-point peace plan which had been substantially agreed to by Russia and so was likely to be very harsh on Ukraine. Nonetheless, the dry residue of this news is that there have been highly secret talks between Team Trump and Team Putin to arrive at this peace plan, which was not considered possible by the great many experts in both mainstream and alternative media who despise and underappreciate the constancy of purpose of Donald Trump. To my mind this secret backchannel finally explains the extraordinary efforts of Putin to ingratiate himself with Trump during his speech and Q&A at the Valdai Discussion Club annual meeting in Sochi two months ago. It also bears on the dispute between Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov and other officials close to Putin when Ryabkov said the time for diplomacy was over and the momentum of the Alaska summit was a spent force.
These and other key questions are, I believe, worth a listen. I think in particular of the way that drone warfare has been the great equalizer in the Russia-Ukraine war over the past six months so that the kill ratio in favor of Russia during the artillery war phase of the conflict is now no longer relevant, and Russia is bleeding more than anyone says; or the way that regime change may come about in the coming week if Zelensky is offered a ‘golden handshake’ to resign
NewsX World: 0:09 Hello and welcome viewers, I’m Pia and you’re watching NewsX Eurozone and here are the top headlines.
Switzerland has won US tariff rate cut to 15% from earlier imposed 39% tariffs. The trade agreement includes both Washington slashing its tariffs on its products and a pledge by companies to invest $200 billion in the US by the end of 2030.
UN Secretary-General António Gutterez has strongly condemned Russia’s latest wave of large-scale missile drone strikes in Ukraine, which have claimed it caused widespread damage across several regions.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that no Russian strike will go unpunished after deadly attacks on Kiev and in areas in southern Ukraine.
1:08 The major oil terminal in the Russian port city of Novorossiysk has temporarily suspended operations, which is approximately 2% of its global oil supply. This comes after a Ukrainian strike targeted its oil facilities.
US Vice President JD Vance says that US President Trump recognizes the need to negotiate with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin on the ongoing war despite their differences as the meeting between Trump and Putin in Budapest was cancelled earlier.
Dutch computer chipmaker Nexperia has stated that they have not halted the shipping of the chips and have alternative supply chains in place. This comes amid the disruption caused by the dispute between Europe-based unit and its factory plant in China.
2:08 US President Donald Trump has stated that he would likely sue the BBC next week for as much as $5 billion. This comes as the British broadcaster admitted it wrongly edited a video of a speech delivered by US President Donald Trump.
Several people were killed and many were reportedly injured when the bus crashed in central Stockholm. The Swedish police have ruled out an attack and are investigating the incident as involuntary manslaughter.
2:42 My viewers, those are the headlines and our top focus: the Russian defense ministry has stated that its forces have taken control of Yablukova in Ukraine’s Zaporozhiya region. The ministry has also stated that it has downed 13 Ukrainian drones over several Russian regions, including Rostov, Crimea, which is disputed, and Belgorod. Meanwhile, Ukrainian officials have reported that Russia launched a heavy drone and missile attack on Ukraine early on the 14th of November. The attack on energy facilities, apartment buildings, and infrastructure has killed six people in Kiev and two more in the southern area of the country. Meanwhile, UN spokesperson Stephanie Jadwaryk had earlier stated that UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterrez strongly condemns large-scale missile and drone attacks by Russian forces on Ukrainian regions.
3:39 With us on the broadcast is Ms. Alison Muttler, former Associated Press Bureau chief joining us from Romania. Thank you so much for taking your time and speaking to us on NewsX World. Yablukova is obviously a village, but it lies very close to certain key logistical footholds and also areas that are a crucial part of the supply chains regarding the Ukrainian defense equipment. In that context, you know, many experts are touting this as a strategic gain. What do you make of this current advance by the Russian forces on the front lines?
Mutttler: 4:23 Well, this current advance, this current offensive is very important to Russia. They want to strangle hold on Ukrainian defense to stop the Ukrainian defending their territory. And so they’ve decided this is the way to move in the Zaporizhzhia region, which is in the southeast of Ukraine on the Dnieper River. It’s very important to them.
And they have been making an advance in that area. But what’s important to remember is that these are Russian claims. These are Russian claims that have appeared on Russian media outlets in Russia. They have not appeared on Western media outlets. They have not been independently verified.
5:03 I looked at the Institute of War and there is nothing at this moment confirming it. So we cannot state with any certainty that it is as Russia says. This is the message again that Moscow, the Kremlin wants to give to the Russian public and also anybody abroad who will be broadcasting it, but we can’t be sure what is happening without independent verification. What is certain from what we’ve seen over the past few years, there is a Russian offensive in that area, a Russian advance and they do have strategic aims to choke off Ukrainian defense. But at the moment we cannot base our reporting on what Russia is saying because they have you know they have propaganda interest in this war
World: 5:52 Indeed and I want to also understand from you if Russia continues to follow its strategy of pincer attacks as it’s doing right now, does it then run the risk of its lines being too stretched, especially with winter around the corner?
Muttler: 6:09 That’s a very good question. A pincer attack is like a crab when you grab an area, you strangle it. And it’s a good strategy for attacking. But as you say, if you put a lot of your forces, a lot of your troops, if you invest a lot of your troops in these attacks, these advances, these offences, then you risk leaving other areas uncovered. And as winter approaches, and we’re coming close to December and it’s pretty cold over there, it gets much, much harder.
So Russia, I think, want to make a final effort, as they seem to be have been doing in the previous weeks to get as much offensive activity as they can before the snow falls, before it gets icy and conditions get a lot more difficult. But they do have a problem with manpower. They are relying, for this huge war effort, they’re relying on troops from North Korea. North Korea are also working in their military factories.
7:09 So they are very stretched. Russians don’t generally want to fight in this war for obvious reasons. So it is difficult. And if they do put too many troops into one region or one attack, that does take away their military from other regions that they might need to, they want to attack or they need to defend.
World: 7:28 Indeed. And we’ve also seen a statement by US Vice President JD Vance. He has emphasized that Donald Trump now recognizes the need to negotiate with Vladimir Putin, despite their differences. We did see that Trump was eyeing talks in Budapest which did not materialize. Of course it happened after Kremlin sent a memo to Washington. But what do you make of Vance’s statement, especially the timing of it?
Muttler 8:00 I think it’s an interesting development. What I know is that it was Donald Trump who cancelled the talks in Budapest. And I know that this caused a lot of problems in the Kremlin in Russia, because any time Donald Trump appears with Vladimir Putin, it’s good optics. It looks good for Vladimir Putin. It looks bad for Donald Trump because the general impression is that Vladimir Putin runs circles around Donald Trump in terms of negotiation and in terms of persuading Donald Trump of his point of view.
But we have seen this offensive in recent weeks, and I know that Trump definitely wants to settle this dispute. He wants to say that he is a peacemaker and he has managed to end this war. So it was clearly a postponement. But what is interesting is obviously J.D. Vance is being used here as a spokesman for Trump. He’s putting forward the administration’s position.
8:57 What is interesting is he is acknowledging publicly there are differences. So we may expect the announcement of a new meeting and we’ll have to watch it play out, where it will be, what will happen, etc. etc. Because the one in Alaska was generally seen as a big victory for Vladimir Putin, a failure for Donald Trump and nothing was achieved.
World: Indeed, I would request you to stay on with us as we are tracking further updates from Europe. We are now learning that Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico has reiterated his opposition to the European Union transferring 140 billion euros in frozen Russian assets to Ukraine. Fico has stated that the transfer of 140 billion euros to Ukraine would mean two more years of killings in the conflict. Fico has recently emphasized that as long as he is Prime Minister, Slovakia will not participate in what he calls financing the continuation of the war. Slovakia has maintained that it insists on an immediate ceasefire and lasting peace in Ukraine.
Still with us on the broadcast is Ms. Alison Mutler. Slovakia is not the only country we’ve seen trying to stall this bit. We’ve seen Hungary in the past as well. We also know that the Czech Republic and its Prime Minister Andrzej Babis are also not really pro-Ukraine. But at the same time, the EU is having to deal with pressure from the Trump administration to really pull up their funding in this war. How do you think Brussels will sort of balance the two?
Muttler: Well, I read Robert Fico’s statement. I also read that he went to a school and they were pro-Ukrainian students there, protesters, and he actually said to them, why don’t you go and fight in Ukraine? I also noticed his statement that he opposed the use of 140 billion euros of frozen assets and then prolong the war.
The first news agency to pick it up, I’m talking outside Slovakia, was TASS. So TASS is the Russian national news agency. So Robert Fico is doing the work, if you like, of the Kremlin. He is a spokesman in a way for Vladimir Putin as is Viktor Orban and also the new Czech Prime Minister. These are Russia-friendly nations, and their aim is to disrupt any effort that Europe is making towards bolstering, helping Ukraine and they are very useful to the Kremlin.
I’m sure the European Union and NATO as well will find a way around their vote against – I mean, it’s a democracy. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a unanimous decision. But we can expect, if we hear Robert Fico, Viktor Orban, the new Czech prime minister, we can expect opposition to any help, any military aid, any unfreezing of assets that Europe, that Brussels intends to give Ukraine. These are nations that feel themselves more closely aligned to Vladimir Putin and Russia than they do to helping Ukraine in its war effort. As I’ve said before, Ukraine’s war effort is, they call it not just a defense of their country but defense of Europe, but these three other nations they feel more closely allied to Moscow than they do Brussels.
World: 12:24 All right now with that I’d like to thank you for taking your time, of course putting all of that into context for our viewers.
On that note, we should focus on some more developments coming in. We are now learning that US President Donald Trump has stated that he would like to hold a meeting between the United States, Russia and China to discuss reductions in nuclear arsenals. Aboard the Air Force One, Trump has stated that he would like to denuclearize, in a meeting primarily of the top three nuclear powers to cut back on nuclear weapons. Trump has added that the United States has more nuclear weapons than any other country, with Russia being the second and China the distant third.
These are his claims of course. He’s also added that both Russia and China will be at par with the US within four to five years. Listen in to what Trump has said.
Trump: 13:14 –renovated them, have built some, and I hated to do it, but I had no choice because they haven’t. We have more, Russia’s second, and China is a distant third; but within four or five years they’re going to be up with us.
What I would like to do is I would like to go denuclearization. In other words, where we have a meeting primarily of the top three to cut back on nuclear weapons. That would be a great topic.
World: 13:44 With us on the broadcast is Mr. Gilbert Doctorow, international affairs expert, joining us from Brussels. Thank you so much for taking your time and speaking to us. Of course, Donald Trump there trying to once again make a bid for denuclearization, an interesting 180 degree U-turn from his earlier assertion that the United States will resume nuclear testing. He’s also in fact stated that the United States is first as far as its nuclear arsenal is concerned, a claim that is disputed. Many consider that Russia is leading at the moment. But despite all of this, what do you make of Trump’s rhetoric now, the abrupt change in his tone? What sort of spurred that?
Doctorow: 14:30 Well, there’s nothing particularly surprising that he changes his position by 180 degrees on any given major international issue from day to day or week to week. So this isn’t an exceptional change. I think perhaps he got a better briefing from his military advisors as to what the real state of the situation is, where Russia has completely renovated its nuclear triad, and it’s perhaps 10 years ahead of the United States in that regard. So they told him, “Boss, we are behind in the arms race. In fact, we lost the arms race. So maybe we should go back to the negotiating table.”
That’s what it’s all about. The idea that he will bring together both the Chinese and the Russians at the same table is a complete nonstarter, and he knows that. The Chinese have refused to be roped into any new limitation on nuclear weapons when they are so far behind the Russians and the United States.
By their own earlier decisions, they did not want to go nuclear. They only wanted to have a kind of riposte, a kind of deterrent to prevent nuclear attack on themselves. Well, the United States surrounding China doing everything possible to prepare for a war with China has changed the Chinese thinking. And now they’re going for broke. They are going to match the same level of nuclear weapons as the United States and Russia.
15:57 And there’s nothing that Mr. Trump can do about that unless he backs off completely from the strategic assault on China that he is overseeing.
World: Indeed, you’ve mentioned that China has basically, it’s looking at increasing its arsenal in light of what the United States is doing in the Indo-Pacific and its arsenal in the first place is in order to deter a nuclear strike on it first. We do know that China does have a formal no-first- use policy. But in spite all of this, is Taiwan one of the primary considerations for the United States to come out with this aggressive rhetoric in the first place? And China, of course, not seeing eye to eye because of the One-China policy.
Doctorow: 16:47 Yes, there’s a sharp contradiction here. And Mr. Trump is never completely consistent. I don’t take his words at any face value.
I look at his actions. His actions so far have been to put up a vast fortune to finance a Golden Dome to protect the United States from Russian and any other missile attacks, an utterly hopeless task which the Russians have brought home and made very explicit by demonstrating their latest strategic weapons, the Burevestnik in particular, which can penetrate any foreseeable future dome. So he has committed to spending vast fortunes of American taxpayers’ money on absolutely hopeless and useless defenses. Now, I think he finally may have gotten the message that that effort is useless and perhaps should be stopped. And now he’d like to go to the negotiating table.
The problem with all this is: Mr. Trump has been the leading force in the world in the last dozen years against multi-party agreements. He is against any measure that restricts America’s freedom of action. So his saying that he is for arms limitation is in sharp contradiction with his actions over the last decade.
World: 18:11 Indeed sir, and you know, if China is successful in augmenting its nuclear arsenal, Some even estimate that it is trying to basically double the current number of warheads that it has. How might then a future scenario like that impact the balance of power, especially in the nuclear arena?
Doctorow: It won’t. Let’s face it, the nuclear arms that each of these major powers has is not usable. If it were to be used, you have mutual assured destruction and the end of civilization on Earth as we know it. And all of the leaders of these powers understand that perfectly.
The only strategic strength that any country can have today is conventional weapons. And in that realm, Russia is way out ahead of everybody else, including ahead of the Chinese. So when you take measures of military strength, the measures used in the past, and particularly the ones you’ve mentioned now, are invalid.
World: 19:15 All right. So with that, I’d like to thank you for taking our time and of course sharing your analysis with all of us at NewsX World.
Napolitano: 0:31 Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, November 12th, 2025. Dr. Gilbert Doctorow joins us now. Dr. Doctorow, a pleasure and thank you very much for being here. Are you sensing or were you even experiencing any palpable domestic effects on everyday Russian life arguably triggered by the war?
Doctorow: 1:05 I’d like to point out that the Russian government policies are caught between two factions, they’re called factions, they’re two branches of the government, which are at odds. And the answer to your question lies with one of those. It seems to be predominant at the moment. What I’m describing is a ministry of foreign affairs being on the progressive liberal open society end of things, and the successor organization to the KGB called the FSB being on the repressive side of things. Recent developments that affect a lot of people in Russia that are negative and repressive are coming from the KGB successor, FSB.
2:04 And if you have any doubts, you could find it in major media in Russia in the last 10 days. I’ll just give a few of these and you’ll see what I mean. Everyone knows that about a month ago or six weeks ago, WhatsApp lost its voice functionality in Russia. That’s to say, in Russia, anybody can call you from abroad, from anywhere, and the phone rings. You pick it up, and it disconnects.
It will not connect for a voice connection. On the other hand, the text function of WhatsApp works. You can send people, say, an equivalent to SMS, and it works fine. Now, that doesn’t sound like much if you don’t know what’s been going on in Russia for the last several years. Everybody was using WhatsApp.
And WhatsApp was a free way to speak with the whole world. You know, you pay nothing for international phone calls on WhatsApp. And Russians were using this very well. Now when the voice function is cut, they are left with, most people are left with using the normal telephone system.
Napolitano: 3:15 Can you use a VPN? Can you use one of those systems that bypasses the blockage and would allow you to use the WhatsApp?
Doctorow: You can use a VPN, but first of all, not everybody is very clever about these things. Those who are clever, they use it. And of course they have access to everything. However, it is viewed with a jaundiced eye by the authorities. And there is going to be a crackdown on VPN, because it obviously violates the whole principle of the regulations that have come down now from on high.
Napolitano: 3:58 Does the government acknowledge these regulations? Does it say what it’s doing? Does it give a reason or does it just do it?
Doctorow: Absolutely. It both gives a reason and explains what it’s doing or about to do. And in the last two weeks, while I mentioned the WhatsApp incident, which I see is more powerful in cutting off Russians from the world than their loss of the BBC or CNN or whatever else that they had when international broadcasters left the Russian market or when satellites stopped carrying Russian transmitters. Big things happened in the last few weeks. One of them I mentioned in our previous chats and I’ve written about was this taking away from foreigners of the right to have a Russian SIM card or telephone number in Russia. And of course, having a telephone, local telephone, is very important if you’re a visitor or if you live in Russia, either as a permanent resident or as a temporary long-staying visitor, to do almost anything, including calling a taxi.
5:15 Well, so foreigners were the first to be hit by this rule, and it was explained, as we know, by the incidents around the Spider Web attack on Russian strategic assets, in which local telephones were used as an enabling device for setting off the drones and so forth. OK, that’s the foreigner side. But now, in the last several days, the authorities have issued a new ruling, a new directive, that any Russian who travels abroad and comes back with his telephone will find that his telephone number is blocked. And he has to go to his service provider and, I don’t know, somehow explain himself to them. Well we’re speaking about– about 10 million people a year leave Russia and go abroad on vacation or work or whatever. And they come back to the country and they don’t have a telephone.
6:16 They have to go to their service provider. It’s not yet clear what you have to do to be verified or re-verified to get back the use of your phone. Just to be petty about it, you arrive at an airport and you can’t call a taxi, you can’t call your friends, you are cut off until you get around to visiting your service provider. Not very friendly. The reason, as I said: they’re doing it for national security reasons.
And here I see two different agencies of the Russian government pulling in different directions. The FSB is clearly issuing these directives, claiming national security is uppermost. Their rationale, I’m sorry to say, is hare-brained. To think that by subjecting all Russians to this type of scrutiny, you’re going to prevent terrorism, you’re going to prevent the British and the Ukrainian and other foreign intelligence operatives on Russian territory from getting telephone numbers. For heaven’s sakes, Russian television was carrying yesterday the story of the MI6 attempt to bribe Russian pilots with $3 million in cash and citizenship somewhere in Western Europe if they would fly a MiG-31 into Romania together with the latest generation missile, Kinzhal, to go to Western intelligence.
7:42 Three million dollars in cash was available. I’m sure that a few dollars are available to buy up from some stupid local person or drunk–
Napolitano: Let me stop you. I get the picture, but I had not heard about this bribe. Who was offering these bribes? MI6, CIA, Ukrainian, Mossad? Who was it?
Doctorow: According to the Russian story, this was carried by Mr. Lavrov last night, Brits, it’s all Brits. Brits means–
Napolitano: 8:11 How pervasive, maybe the answer to this question is unknowable, but how pervasive are MI6, CIA, Ukrainian intel throughout — let’s limit it to– Moscow?
Doctorow: No, the whole of Russia. The British in particular have worked closely with Ukrainians. Remember, so many Ukrainians are good Russian speakers; that was the essence of the nationalities problem in Ukraine. Half of the country didn’t speak the language of the land. They spoke Russian. So, of course, there are plenty of Ukrainian agents all over the place in Russia. And to think that you’re going to prevent them from using the telephone network to do terror acts in Russia by holding up every Russian who comes back with his phone is really nonsense.
Napolitano: 9:10 Tell me more about this rivalry or conflict between FSB, the intelligence services, and the foreign ministry headed by Sergey Lavrov. The people that work for him are generally graduates of the School of International Diplomacy, which is a very high-end academic institution at which I’ve been privileged to lecture. And they were very interested in the American constitution when I was there. They knew exactly what they were talking about. These of course are future diplomats. Mr. Lavrov himself is a graduate of that school.
9:51 But tell me about the rivalry. Can President Putin control the FSB, unlike President Trump, who cannot control the American deep state?
Doctorow: I have to wonder about that. You would think that as a former KGB officer, he would know these people perfectly well and have them under control. But I have my doubts now, that that’s happening.
Let’s come back to the central issue. I would like to take this away from the personality of Mr. Putin — as if he is the whole of Russia; he isn’t– and take it to the institutional and ideological differences that are different in his government.
You asked me a week ago about the rumored retirement of Lavrov, and I had nothing to say. But you know, in light of what I’m about to say now, I think it makes a lot of sense that these rumors spread. What is the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Diplomatic Corp and who is who? Let’s look at age. The people who are now ambassadors are mostly in their 50s.
10:58 That’s to say they started their careers in the Yeltsin years. That tells you a lot. They were what the Russians call Zopadniky. They were westernizers. They were sympathetic to and wanted to have the best of relations with the United States and Western Europe. And they are the ones who are now ambassadors across the world.
Napolitano: Is, in your opinion, Sergey Lavrov of that mentality?
Doctorow: Absolutely.
Napolitano: Yes.
Doctorow: And the only big exception that I’m aware of in his immediate entourage is Mr. Ryabkov, who is a real hardliner, a real tough guy looking after in the most vigorous way Russian interests. Other people came up into the ministry when Mr. Kozarev was the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He was the yes man, as opposed to Gromyko, who had been Mr. Nyet. Mr. Kozarev agreed to everything that the United States wanted, however it undermined Russian national interests. And he was finally sacked in about 1998.
12:06 The point is that these people who are the professional diplomatic corps of Russia, they went to MGIMO. I agree with you. It is one of the best institutions of its kind in the world and has a lot of Americanists in it, like the people who spoke to you about the American Constitution. These are very well-educated people. But the disposition of the institution is open to the world, and that’s the key point.
What is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs doing? Every chance it has, it opens the world for Russians. I think a week ago they announced that they had just agreed with Saudi Arabia to have visa-free travel of Russians in Saudi Arabia. That is a regular preoccupation of that ministry, opening the world to Russians. The FSB is closing the world to Russians.
Napolitano: 12:56 Is the FSB, I’ll use the word repression, I don’t know if that’s the right word. I don’t know if it’s gotten to that point. Let’s be charitable and call it the new regulations. Are these something would have to be approved by President Putin himself?
Doctorow: I don’t know. I don’t know to what level this type of issuance of regulations rises for approval. It’s not a dramatic thing we’re talking about, for a government to do this. It is a very big influence on how people feel about themselves and their access to the world. But I don’t think it is the kind of crucial issue that would come up to the desk of Mr. Putin, or even to the head of the FSB.
Napolitano: 13:43 So are these regulations a nuisance and an inconvenience, or are they a knock on the door in the night?
Doctorow: It’s not a knock on the door in the night. 1937 has not returned. But the country’s steady march towards an open society, towards the end to arbitrariness and graft that Mr. Putin oversaw for 25 years is now beginning to unravel.
Napolitano: And I guess you’re attributing this to the consequences of the war.
Doctorow: Absolutely. And this is why — I don’t mean to sound like a one-note orchestra — but this is why I’m saying that the war has to end as quickly as possible, which is within the power of the Russian army, if it wants to use its power, which up till now it doesn’t. What they’re doing, and I think here’s where the FSB influence comes in, they are destroying the energy infrastructure of Ukraine. They’re causing great misery to average Ukrainians, but that will not end the war [sooner] by one day.
The country will get electricity supplies from Europe, as it now does partially. All they have to do is build more high power lines from Europe. If Europe’s going to put up tens of billions of dollars in arms, they certainly can afford to put up some energy high power lines.
Napolitano: 15:16 How decrepit is the– and I use that word intentionally because of what I’m about to tell you, nothing new to you– the Ukrainian military? We are in the West getting reports of conscription, which is horrific, training of non-existent young men in their late teenage years and early twenties on the front line who barely know how to pull the trigger on the weapon, terrified that just a week ago they were at home with their parents. I mean, this can’t be any way to run a military. We’re also getting reports from General, I only know his first name, forgive me, Oleksandr, I forget his last name, the commander of the [Ukrainian] troops, acknowledging to some of his, some Ukrainian parliamentarians that the military is in a bad way.
Doctorow: Of course it’s in a bad way when you lose the vast numbers of people they have. However, let me just point out that in the interviews with prisoners of war who surrendered, say around Pokrovsk in the last couple of weeks–
Napolitano: These are Ukrainian groups who surrendered to the Russians.
Doctorow: 16:37 Right. But mostly if you look at the faces, these are people in their late 50s or 60s. These are not the 20-year-olds. The 20-year-olds I see around here in Brussels bars, that’s where the young Ukrainians have gone and where they want to stay.
It is unfortunately a lot of overaged people who are now in the military, aren’t good for very much actually, and not a one of them spoke about how they were dragooned into the army. So it’s more complicated than speaking about these excessive measures to forcibly put people in uniform. And as to the experience of people in this part of the world, Eastern Europe and Russia in particular, with preparation for military service, just go back and look at what happened at the start of World War II and the Germans invading Russian territory and the start of the siege.
17:32 Well, we have friends in Petersburg, or had friends, because many of these have died already, who fought in the first days defending Leningrad from the invading German troops. And boy, they had zero training. They also could hardly know how to pull a trigger. So this isn’t an exactly new development in that part of the world.
Napolitano: What pressures are there on President Putin? Or let me restate the question. Is this societal change affecting his popularity and approval?
Doctorow: I don’t think so. But again, let’s not personalize this whole thing. When you look at Russian television and the criticism of the way the war is being conducted, there is never a word about the president. It’s only about the specifics of the way the war is being conducted, not who has approved it; we all know who it was. So Mr. Putin is essentially one step back from the front lines of answerability for the way the war is being conducted.
Napolitano: 18:44 Well does he receive pressure from either the military or the FSB to get the war over with?
Doctorow: I can’t say that. I don’t think, but just looking at the dynamics here, I don’t think the FSB is under particular pressure to get the war over with. The war is giving them more power.
Napolitano: So, just as there’s criticism of Secretary of State Marco Rubio that he does not want the war to end because he belongs to the neocon camp that thinks the war will bleed Russia dry and adversely affect President Putin’s presidency. You’re suggesting that there are elements of the Russian government that do not want the war to end, the military-industrial complex, certain elements in the military, certain elements in the intelligence community, because they’re at the height of their power.
Doctorow: 19:41 This is rather normal. I don’t see any aberration to this, but let’s just call facts as they are. There are reasons why certain groups in government would find the war to be convenient.
Napolitano: 19:57 Is the war popular amongst average Russians? Are they cheering on the Russian military or is it not in the Russian consciousness? Is it not something they talk about every day? It’s just something happening in Ukraine. Or “I don’t like what the war is doing to me now, and I wish Putin would end it.” Can you put your thumb on the pulse of Russian thinking or is there no one standard way of thinking common to the Russian people?
Doctorow: 20:27 Well, there is one standard common to the Russian people, and that is they want the war to end with Russian victory. That is a hundred percent guaranteed. But once you get past that commonality, how is Russian victory going to be assured? That’s where differences come up.
Napolitano: Got it. What do you think will happen? Do you think we’ll wake up one morning and five Oreshniks will have leveled Kiev? Or do you think President Putin will maintain slow, methodical, patient wearing down of the Ukrainian military?
Doctorow: 21:03 I don’t think the latter is going to happen because the Ukrainian military is not what’s behind this war. It is London, Paris, and Berlin that are behind the war today.
And they are not going away. They have not conceded defeat. They are ready to put up particularly the frozen Russian assets, to keep the war going while they rearm and prepare for direct conflict with Russia.
Napolitano: Are they going to send troops to Ukraine?
Doctorow: They may. It is possible. It’s unlikely, but it’s possible.
Napolitano: Well if they don’t send troops and the Ukrainian military is on its last legs, I mean what good is military equipment if there are not human beings to operate it?
Doctorow: I wouldn’t agree it’s on its last legs. The front line, present front line is on its last legs. It is still east of the Dnieper River. If the Russians in the next several months, and I don’t say next several days, but in the next several months, push further and reach to Dnieper. Well, that’s it. They’ve reached 40 percent of the Ukrainian territory. What about the rest?
The other 60 percent? They don’t want to move there because it is Ukrainian Ukraine. They will be an army of occupation when they set foot there. And that will be dangerous, expensive, and it will not bring them closer to a normalization with the rest of the world. So that is not thinkable.
The idea that this war will end after Pokrovsk falls, I mean, I could be wrong. We’ve had a lot of false predictions for the last three years, including my own. But it seems to me improbable that there’ll be a collapse on the Ukrainian side after Pokrovsk falls, which is a matter of days.
Napolitano: 22:52 Got it. Dr. Doctorow, thank you very much. A fascinating, fascinating series of observations, much of it firsthand. And I thank you for your time. Thanks for accommodating my schedule. We’ll look forward to seeing you again as always next week.
Doctorow: It’s a pleasure.
Napolitano: You’re welcome. Coming up later today at 11 o’clock this morning, Phil Giraldi; at 1:15 this afternoon from the Ron Paul Institute, my dear friend Daniel McAdams; at two o’clock this afternoon. Aaron Mate; at three o’clock this afternoon from St. Petersburg, Russia, Scott Ritter.
I am pleased to inform the community that this interview heads off in new directions which may be productive in understanding the contradictions in Russian domestic and foreign policy under wartime conditions.
I attempt here to depersonalize the formulation and implementation of Russian policy, to remove Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin for a moment and to identify the conflicts between key organizations in his government, namely the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the FSB, the successor organization to the KGB.
My point is that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), the diplomatic corps, stand for Russia’s ever greater integration into the world, for an open society. One of the preoccupations of this ministry over the years has been to reach agreement with ever more countries around the world for visa free travel by Russian citizens. Just last week such an agreement was reached with Saudi Arabia. Today, in the midst of war, the MFA stands for reaching a diplomatic solution to the war, a peace treaty, and normalization of relations with Europe and the USA. Yesterday’s little speech by the new Russian ambassador to the Kingdom of Belgium at the WWI memorial territory within the Ixelles Cemetery (Brussels) on the occasion of Armistice Day conformed perfectly with that generalization about what the MFA stands for.
Meanwhile, the FSB is pulling in the opposite direction. It is issuing directive after directive that aim to isolate Russians from the world. That was the effect of the ban on voice functionality of WhatsApp, which had been the most popular App used by Russians to communicate with the world cost free. That is the effect of the newly introduced blockage on the SIM cards of all Russians returning from abroad until they can restore service by some unspecified verification of their service providers. And, since the war enhances their powers over the population as justified by national security reasons, however tenuous, the FSB obviously is interested in the war’s going on forever.
Diesen: 0:00 Welcome back. We are joined by Gilbert Doctorow, historian, international affairs analyst, and author of “War Diaries – the Russia-Ukraine War”. So thank you for coming back on.
Doctorow: It’s a pleasure.
Diesen: We have, we often see that wars can have a profound impact on society, especially prolonged wars. And it’s said therefore that nations are born in wars such as Germany in 1871. And I would argue that Ukrainian national identity has strengthened as well greatly over the past four years, irrespective or despite the very divisive Bandera faction which has less ability to unite. But in Russia we see that there’s been some of the great revival of national pride. I’m often a bit cautious about having the national pride revived based on war. But this is the reality and wars, they have some negative impacts such as fueling dangerous war industries. Someone will always profit from war, as warned by Eisenhower in his farewell speech.
And we also see that wars create this demand for much greater social cohesion. So societies often become more authoritarian during war. Obviously, Ukraine has had its screws tightened to a great extent, but we also see it to a lesser extent here in Europe with this relentless warmongering and growing authoritarianism, which is hardly any secret. But it’s also true in Russia. That is, the war will take its toll on society.
Some individual freedoms will go away. But I thought I should ask you, because you recently returned from yet another trip to Russia and you work there, you travel there often. What is your impression about the change in society and what kind of change do you, what possible changes do you think we might be seeing?
Doctorow: 2:19 Well, the changes are not dramatic, but they are incremental. And as you say, in wartime, the screws are tightened. In Russia, there is enhanced censorship in the sense that those who speak openly or write openly against the war, not how it’s being managed, but against the war in principle, are facing problems. I visited with the director of the St. Petersburg Union of Journalists and was informed that not so long ago they were instructed by the successor organization to the KGB, which is called the FSB, that they were to expel any journalists who were in that category and they did. They expelled one person who was rather unlucky and they felt very badly about it because they knew that they were headed in the wrong direction. However, for the Russian public, this question of how free is the Russian press is more complicated than it seems.
3:25 It always was. I remember being rebuked by a German parliamentarian who was at the time, this is 10 years ago, the head of the Foreign Affairs Committee within the European Parliament, rebuked for saying that Russia had extensive press freedom and he said how much did Putin pay you to say that. But this was typical ignorance which unfortunately continues to this day. The fact is that in Russia though it is state controlled television, you can’t say that there isn’t state controlled television in Britain; the BBC, whatever.
They are getting the line that comes out of the prime minister’s office. No question about it. Anybody who thinks that Euronews is anything different than what Ursula von der Leyen wanted said today is just not serious. Of course, it is the private broadcasting network of Ursula von der Leyen. So let’s come back to the Russians.
4:26 Of course, the media is subject to control, but every day on major programs, you get extensive digests of the world press, print media and the electronic media. And I mean not sound bites, but extensive excerpts, videos from Deutsche Welle, from BBC, from NBC or CBS, they’re all there. And they’re presented because the government is satisfied that its public is well educated enough to reach some conclusions and doesn’t have to be instructed. So to judge Russian media today from the pressure of the war, I don’t see a great change. There are voices who are saying that the war is being badly conducted without pointing a finger at anybody in particular, least of all against the president.
5:24 But they are saying that it should be ended on terms that give Russia victory and will ensure that Ukraine does not turn against Russia again, simply by decapitating the governing individuals in downtown Kiev today. It’s possible, it’s feasible. In any case, looking at society, there are ills that I saw in the last 17 days, which are not new ills, they are old ills, but they had been contained by very careful work of Mr. Putin and his team over the last 25 years.
And the runaway bureaucracy, by that I mean the excessive issuance of decrees and ministerial directives. That is a sign that Mr. Putin and his close colleagues no longer have their eye on the ball. They were cutting this back. They were improving relations between the citizenry and the administration that governs them. They were digitalizing this relationship, to take the personal element out of it and to cut arbitrariness.
6:42 All of that is coming loose. The amount of regulation for simple things like registering a foreigner. And foreigners doesn’t mean just you and me. It also means in much larger numbers people coming from Kazakhstan, people coming from Tajikistan, anybody who’s coming either as a Gastarbeiter or because they have relatives in the Russian Federation. They’re now subjected to a barrage of paper filling and time consuming and not very agreeable or pleasant and often absolutely useless.
As a foreigner, I’m obliged to, as you are obliged to, register. You don’t do it if you’re in a hotel, because they do it for you without any effort. But if you’re living in private lodgings, as I do, you have to go and register with the person who is your sponsor, in this case my wife. And it has gotten more difficult, more miserable, I can say, each time, and more stupid. The people who are handling this, I won’t run on, I won’t go on too long, but I just want to point about the senseless decrees that make life difficult and that are running unchecked because the government’s attention is elsewhere.
7:58 The people who process you, mostly women behind the guichet, windows of the administration, they’re very nice. This is not the Soviet officialdom who were underpaid, under-equipped, miserable, and they took it out on anybody who sat in front of them. No, no, no. The people who are processing you today are well-meaning, well-disposed to the public, presumably well-paid, and their equipment is up to date. It’s the latest equipment of every kind to process you.
But they’re processing requirements that make no sense and that take them, say, 20-40 minutes per person. And you have to have an engineer’s degree or a lawyer’s degree, as these ladies do, to do this simple, utterly useless work. And they know that it’s useless, and you know that it’s useless. And that is, I say, it’s come unstuck. It proliferates.
8:59 Now, that side of life, the petty theft of lower government officials has returned. One of the first things that Vladimir Putin did was to curb corruption of the small kind that was all over the country because you had to deal with the government officials to make your tax declaration. Boy, was that an opportunity for them to rip you off with bribes and so forth. That was done away with by the 15% flat tax and no questions asked. Now this kind of invitation to corruption has come back.
In the 1990s if you had a car, you were always being stopped by traffic police for real or more likely imaginary traffic offenses. They shake you down how much cash they could get off of you to buy your way out of it. Now that money didn’t go anywhere except into their pockets. It’s back. It’s back.
10:01 And it tells me that the government has lost control of this side of life, which makes life less pleasant for citizenry. Nothing tragic, but less pleasant. So as to economic well-being, of course, people who have some savings of substance in the banks are getting now – well, it’s dropped from 18 percent, now it’s 14 percent interest capitalized, and we know that inflation is 10 percent. So they’re covered against inflation more than covered. They’re being rewarded for not spending their cash and not increasing inflation thereby.
If you are an ordinary Russian who doesn’t have big savings, you profit from the extensive increase in social benefits for families, large families, starting families, special reduced subsidized mortgage rates. So you’re not paying 16% on your mortgage, you’re paying out 3%, 4% if you fall into certain categories. So the sting of the war is not felt by a great many people. Moreover, an important fact, since I have in past discussions mentioned that the Russian casualty losses, death and injuries are twice the level of America suffering from the Vietnam War against the population. The United States, 300 million, Russia was 150 million, The United States suffered 65,000 deaths plus injuries, and the Russians have suffered now, let’s say 150,000 deaths, again with the population half the size, and maybe four or five times that in people who are maimed for life, who’ve lost limbs and so forth.
11:52 Now why aren’t there demonstrations against all this? Well, because the Russians learned perfectly from Mr. Nixon and from the results of the Vietnam War. The war is being fought by professionals and by volunteers. It’s not being fought by conscripts.
Russia has the callup every year to fill the ranks of its basic military. These callups have gone up in number as the military is expanding itself to meet the possible conflicts with NATO. But none of the conscripts is sent outside the Russian Federation. The only conscripts who ever faced Ukrainian soldiers were when there was the incursion in Kursk and the Russian conscripts who were situated in Kursk, there was a war and they were in it, but that was really unintentional and quite a surprise to Moscow that its own conscripts would be actually fighting. So the reasons for there to be active resistance to the war do not exist.
Diesen: 13:01 Well, I also come across a lot of people in Russia, both Russians as well as foreign officials who are there, were perplexed about the decision to go with this slow grinding war of attrition because if you look at their American counterparts, they’re always going for this quick regime change as an approach. Indeed, that’s how they got Ukraine on their side as well. And that’s what they seem to be planning for possibly at least for Venezuela. So there are many who are curious why there’s no efforts at all to pursue some form of a regime change. Because you do have people, I don’t like to use Aristovich too much as an example, but again, like the former advisor of Zelensky, Aristovich, he was interviewed and asked, if you become president, what would you do?
And he said, well, the first thing I would do is go to Moscow and just promise them that Ukraine will never let itself again be used as a threat against Russia. And based on this, we have to learn how to live next to each other again. And so, you know, you do have people who, again, he’s made some very hawkish statements on Russia. We are all familiar with the statements from 2019 where he was all very much looking forward to a war with Russia because this is what would bring NATO directly involved and they would be able to defeat the Russians. But again, it’s not as if he’s part of the pro-Russian club, but you do have pragmatists.
14:39 And that’s what I mean. The people who realize that our best future is not to continue this war, losing more territory, men and infrastructure. So I am perplexed why there’s not, why there hasn’t even been an effort to change the government because you see this now as well. I mean, it sounds very brutal to suggest a decapitation strike, but instead, what’s happening now is also very brutal. This massive destruction of Ukraine’s infrastructure in which people more or less will be compelled to leave.
This will destroy the Ukrainian nation. And of course, all the Russian losses which comes along with this as well. It just looks like it would be much more conducive to have Zelensky replaced. Again, they might fail. America has failed in many of its regime change, but it also succeeded in many. It’s just strange to me that they haven’t gone down this path at all.
I wanted to ask though, in terms of the military industrial complex, because on one hand the Russian army has developed at a very amazing pace that is, you know, this is a common trait in Russian history. They start slow in wars and then they adjust to new realities and then they win. But with all this military development, there’s a lot of people who stand to make a profit. Do you see this being a concern in Russia?
Doctorow: 16:12 Well, I heard this stated. In fact, it was in the Union of Journalists that I heard the American maxim “Follow the Money” used to explain why there is, within Russia, support for continuing the war. I’ve heard from a longtime designer of ballistic missiles, an engineer who’s retired now for several years, at a very advanced age, I might say. He was saying that he sees what’s going on as being target practice that the general staff of Russia is very happy with because they’re testing all kinds of new weapons. So there are within top government and military industrial complex, there are clearly people who are averse to seeing an early end to this war and who are enjoying it and profiting from it.
But I think that is not really decisive in what’s going on. I think the decisive issue is the personality of the Supreme Commander and his risk aversion approach. Many people, certainly many viewers of this program, similar programs, authoritative interviewing programs are pleased to believe that Mr. Putin is the only adult in the room and that he is a peace advocate and proponent and not a war advocate. They find this comforting, that at least somebody in the world has not gone mad.
17:49 However, there is a problem with all this, and that is at what point does the gradualism and caution, and that is what certainly is involved in Mr. Putin’s behavior, to avoid at all costs slipping into nuclear war. That is a good approach in abstract, but in practice, it starts to look a lot like appeasement. And that appeasement is the most dangerous thing if your intention is to avoid progression to a war. So there are problems.
I don’t see any malevolence. I don’t see any intent to destroy the youth of Ukraine, which also by the way is a nonsensical view of what’s going on. You only have to look at Russian television and what they had two days ago. They were interviewing newly taken prisoners of war from the encirclement around Pokrovsk. And look at the faces.
18:53 There are a few in the 20s and there are more than a few who are clearly in the late 50s and 60s. The Ukrainian army has a lot of old timers in it. I don’t say they’ve been dragged off the street, though some of them have, but many of them are there for the very reasons that you mentioned. They are patriotic, they’re defending their land, and they feel obligated to go out and fight to protect what’s theirs. So you have a lot of old folks.
It’s not just a generation of young Ukrainians who are being slaughtered. It is a Ukrainian male nation that’s being slaughtered. And unfortunately, a lot of Russians are suffering too. And my acquaintances who spoke to me over dinner or behind closed doors on their wish for this war to be over as soon as possible, I think the single biggest motivation was their awareness that Russia is not just suffering deaths, compared to the Ukrainian deaths, of course, it’s small, but if you know those people who are dying or you empathize with the bereaved, then 150,000 deaths is a big number. And say four or five times that number are people who are maimed for life.
20:12 Russian television is already showing products by companies that are making prostheses for missing arms and missing legs. It’s gotten to that point. It’s on television. They’re trying to sell it to the relatives of those who have suffered. People are aware that a lot of Russians are maimed for life. And so the idea that “why is this going on when Putin could end it by decapitation in Kiev?” strikes a lot of people.
Diesen: 20:43 I guess, well, It does seem that over the past few weeks now that the rhetoric coming out of the Kremlin, including Putin then, has hardened a bit. And also there’s been more posturing now, especially with the announcement of these new missiles. And again, it does seem relevant because once this kind of speech is made, it’s very difficult thereafter for Putin to start to back down, if there would be, for example, like another attack such as what we saw back in June on this nuclear deterrent. So it does appear though that the hawks are gaining ground or at least Putin is moving in that direction.
That, by the way, would be another consequence of societies which go through a prolonged war that is you will have the rise of the hawks because, yeah, once you’re in conflict, they are seen to be proven right. And again, in Russia, there’s always been this, I know you went to St. Petersburg, which has always been the more European side of Russia, but there’s always been this idea that by large part of societies, we can have this incremental integration with Europe. We, you know, more or less from Peter the Great to Gorbachev, like all these common ideas, which always come back. But for the hawks, who have warned that the Europeans hate us, they want our destruction, they will use, you know, any every Ukrainian they can find in order to keep this going.
22:24 They are now seem to be proven to have been correct and there’s no, there’s no political force behind any pro-European liberals any more. So do you see this as being something that’s impacting society as well? That the, I mean, the liberals were never strong in Russia, but there’s a long history going back to 1825 to explain why the liberals aren’t doing well in Russia. But how do you see the, I guess, the rise of the hawks affecting Russian society? Because even people I know who were more mild-spoken before have now become very, very hawkish.
Doctorow: 23:07 All right. The hawks are divided. There are hawks who are loyalists and there are hawks who are militarists. That’s the definition I can take from an article that was published a few days ago by Piotr Sauer, obviously the son of Dirk Sauer, who was the founder and owner of the Moscow Times and who died about six months ago in an accident. And what Sauer was saying in this article is that the militarists, those who have been raising funds very conspicuously to support Russian soldiers on the logic that the formal military was not sending our boys out properly equipped for this war and they had to receive additional clothing with better protection than the standard kit coming from the Russian army.
This view was for a long time quite widely supported. Officially, I think of The Great Game where Nikonov, the host, had time and time and again, some lady who was in charge of one of these volunteer organizations and showed pictures of the soldiers somewhere in the front receiving these presents from patriots inside Russia and saying thank you so much and we will of course win. All of this was every day on television. No more. Finally somebody upstairs understood that that’s what brought down the Romanov dynasty. It was these public activists who behind the show of assistance to the army were blaming the government for the way the war is going badly and brought it down with a little bit of diplomatic help from the British.
24:59 So people do have some sense of history and they are closing down and attacking these, the one part of what you just described, the right. And the loyalist right, which also is not completely supporting what Putin is doing, though they never would say a word about who is issuing the orders. They are calling for, like I think about Vladimir Solovyov, And he’s repeatedly calling for decapitation and repeatedly saying, this is not a special military operation. It is an all-out war. They are trying to kill us and we should finish them off without any mercy.
So to speak about the hard right in Russia, it is divided into several different voices, one of which is now being suppressed, those who are using the volunteer support to the army as a basis for attacking the official army, the same way the Prigozhin did, by the way, and then the others who are supporting Mr. Putin and those around him, though are being very critical of the exact things they’re doing, which are not giving the results everyone wants.
26:18 But coming back to your point about the Liberals, the Liberals in society were a small stratum. The Liberals in the government were a holdover from the Yeltsin years, very important. And even those just next to the government, like Germann Gref, who was moved out of government because he was maybe too Liberal and was made head of the Sberbank.
And Mr. Gref, I say, is in the shadows now, out of favor. His Sberbank has been completely outrun by what? By VTB Bank, which is headed by Andre Kostin, who is a great supporter of Mr. Putin, and is actually running things and making them work, like the whole shipbuilding industry now, which he controls when he has spare time left from his banking job, or maybe the other way around.
27:12 He’s doing the banking job, the time left over from running the shipbuilding industry. These Liberals, who else? Nabiullina, the head of the Central Bank. She’s an outstanding Liberal who is being berated every day on state television by people like Solovyov, and not just by a talking head, but by Deputy Premier of the Duma, Babakov, who uses every appearance on the Solovyov program to explain how she is killing the Russian economy and ruining the war effort. And there she is, supported by whom?
By the boss. Then there is the minister of finance, Siluanov. He’s also a Liberal. And I’m talking about open Liberals, not closet Liberals. So Liberals have suffered big defeats. A lot of them have gone abroad just ahead of being arrested, like Mr. Chubais. But in terms of influencing government policy and pulling in the other direction from the hawks, they’re still there.
Diesen: 28:20 Well, a big change though on both sides in this NATO-Russia proxy war is how each side speak of each other. That is a few years ago, I would say it would have been unthinkable to hear state leaders from Germany, France, Britain, talk about long range strikes into Russia, the need to strategically defeat Russia, this kind of war rhetoric. But one gets the impression from, not impression, one does see in Moscow as well that the resentment is now building up to a massive degree, the frustration and anger at the Europeans.
Indeed, I think one of Trump’s achievements is that a lot of the anger which was more directed towards the Americans in the past are now focused on Europeans. And some Europeans, such as the Germans, seem to be more in focus than others. Do you– again now you hear more talk about the need to attack or retaliate against Europeans as well. So do you see this as a rhetoric which is winning ground, the idea that, for example, German logistics centers or military facilities have to be destroyed?
Doctorow: 29:48 Well, the Russians are doing their best to keep Trump and the Europeans separate. And that is partly why Mr. Putin, surely the main reason why Mr. Putin has put up with Trump’s nonsense and has sung his praises when given any opportunity, which looks by itself to be peculiar. But the ultimate logic is to keep Trump on side, to make sure that he isn’t going to support the Europeans in some risky provocation that leads us to World War III. So is this view supported in the public? I think the public, if you ask Russians, they hate England, for example.
I think England has outrun, outpaced Germany as the first country they would like to flatten if they ever use the Poseidon against an enemy. It was said, a few days ago, that five Poseidons, and England will be erased from the globe. This is not going to happen, But it’s an idea which pleases Russians to think over. The idea that rolling out these new weapons systems as has happened in the last two weeks, reminding the West of Russia’s superiority in strategic weapons, I don’t think that that restores Russian deterrence, not at all. First of all, it takes us into the realm of the value of nuclear weapons in general.
31:28 It’s always been conceded that nuclear weapons are of last resort and that they are not used for deterrence purposes, except against miserable countries that have nothing. But among peers, that cannot affect deterrence because nobody would use them. The Russians may have come close to a first strike capability recently. The Americans may have come close to a first strike capability before the Russians had readied for use their new weapons systems. But neither side really is going to risk a nuclear war on the hope that this first strike will be effective and totally effective.
Partially effective is not good enough. Therefore, what you have is conventional weapons. This is the thing that I find puzzling and incomprehensible. Why the new generation conventional weapons of Russia, these hypersonic missiles and the Oreshnik in particular are not being used right now to decapitate the Kiev regime.
At the very least to ensure that there’s no more diplomatic tourism of every Danish prime minister or German minister of defense every couple of weeks to go and buck up, to support Zelensky and keep his spirits up. This is an utterly inexplicable situation.
Diesen: 33:11 Yeah, well, my last question is, well, whenever we talk about the divisions and domestic problems of other countries one should always be aware that this is always used as well for propaganda purposes. And I’m not sure if you’ve seen this latest thing now in the media. I think it’s a bit suspicious right around the time Pokrovsk is falling, the idea that Lavrov and Putin are now deeply divided. Again, it’s possible.
I tend to be very critical because these stories often rest on hearsay and they always pop up around very strange time and they don’t always make that much sense either. I was just wondering, again it could be true so I’m not going to dismiss it altogether, but what do you make of these reports which are now being pushed around the Western media that there’s this split between Putin and Lavrov?
Doctorow: 34:19 I don’t believe it. Look, the reason why they raised this question is that many people in the West believe that Mr. Lavrov is an important personality, that he influences policy, in fact, he makes policy. Well, to a certain extent, under the weakling president, Medvedev, Lavrov stepped in and in a way made policy when he revised and made literate the very juvenile revision of European security architecture that Medvedev put out as his main initiative. In that particular moment, with a very weak president, Lavrov had something resembling a policy role. But generally speaking, under a strong president like Putin, Lavrov has only been an implementer. He has never been an independent force.
35:14 The notion that he would be at odds with the president, well, he should just resign, because he is nobody without being the implementer of his boss. The further fact, which I think many people don’t think about is whom is he overseeing? The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is populated with, sorry to say it, Liberals, pro-European people. People were very disappointed that there’s a war and that they have to fight like hell to get postings in Western Europe and to be accepted by the host countries. So the idea that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its boss would be at odds with the president, And that that would have a policy value, I’d just dismiss from the get-go.
Diesen: 36:06 There’s an interesting contradiction also in Russia, though. That is, on one hand, you see this real rise of this new confidence, which wasn’t there before. Again, part of it was economic, that they’re able to stand and grow despite doing better than the other European economies despite all the sanctions and also the ability to win on the battlefield despite NATO throwing everything it has into this and again being welcomed around the world as a great power despite the western efforts to isolate Russia. So there is this, You can’t deny that this is massive new confidence which has come forth. On the other hand, one sees that there’s a very cautious, as you would suggest, overly cautious almost in terms of how they engage with the NATO countries.
Of course, there could be a lot of strategic thinking below the surface there, which could explain for this, which I wouldn’t be aware of. Do you have any final thoughts before we wrap up?
Doctorow: 37:17 My point from this trip was simply to pick up what I see around me. And what I saw around me was enough to justify my claim that what is in a general presentation to the broad public on these interview programs is often misleading and claims an accuracy that is unjustified. Not because I have greater accuracy, but I can say that what I saw contradicts completely, well, contradicts in many ways the general view of Russia’s position in the reorganization of the governing board of the world.
It is much more complex. It is much less solidified. And that my peers are often taken in by their hosts on very high level, very attractive visits to Moscow, sponsored by Russia Today, sponsored by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or by very high level oligarchs in the media realm, like Mr. Malafeyev, and they’re not aware that they are willy-nilly being disseminators of the official Russia line.
And they take that to be the whole of Russia. Russia is 150 million people, very complex society. And I make no claims to have my arms around it. That would be totally foolish. But I do see that others who are behaving as if they have their arms around it are doing so in an unjustified way. There’s a lot of work that you and your guests are doing and must be doing to make the public aware of the complexity of the challenges we face.
Diesen: 39:20 Yeah, I think it would be naive not to recognize that this, yeah, this war will also take a toll on Russian society as well. We tend to always measure things either military or economic, but the societal is quite an important aspect to keep an eye on. So thank you so much for taking the time, and hope to have you back on soon.
Conversation with Professor Glenn Diesen, 8 November: The Impact of the Ukraine War on Russian Society
I call this a ‘conversation’ rather than an interview, because Glenn Diesen shares his own views on the issues for discussion quite generously and these should be of special interest to viewers, many of whom are well familiar with mine.
That said, there are in this video issues which I have not addressed elsewhere in writing or in podcasts but which definitely merit examination. I think in particular of the question of hardliners coming to the fore in Russia under war conditions and Liberals retreating. What you will find here with respect to the hardliners is a breakdown of that force into at least two very different and mutually hostile groups, which the journalist Piotr Sauer in an article recently called ‘loyalists’ and ‘militarists.’
Piotr is the son of the Dutch founder and long-time owner of The Moscow Times, who tragically died in an accident about six months ago. Then, with respect to the Liberals, it is a mistake to think that they have been vanquished. Not in the least. Their highest representative in the land is the head of the Central Bank Nabiullina, who enjoys the full support of Putin even as many influential statesmen, including the Duma deputy Babakov who is deputy chair of the Duma, denounce her regularly on state television for destroying the economy and working against the war effort.
Another point of discussion in this video that is worth the attention of viewers concerns the question whether the recent statements by Putin about successful tests of the newest and most lethal Russian strategic arms systems Burevestnik and Poseidon do anything to restore Russia’s perceived deterrent power in the West.
You have to have a thick skin to talk geopolitics in the public agora
My chat with Andrew Napolitano on Judging Freedom 7 November has created a lot of commotion in the Russian-speaking world. Hours after the English podcast went live, one Russian platform on rutube already had a dubbed Russian version posted. That did not stay active for long but was replaced by another, and then by still another. Now finally a Russian version has been posted on youtube and my oh my what it shows!
At this moment the number of thumbs up are 10 or more times greater than the number of Comments which are, as usual, very ad hominem and very vicious. These trolls are saying I am MI6 because I live in Petersburg close to a military helicopter base and have dinner with a defense industry ex-employee. That is already a kind of reasoning, distorted but imaginable. Others talk about my dyed ‘brown hair’, the color of you know what. That is more the gutter variety comment. And then there is this utterly unconventional comment which tells me that I have hit pay dirt;
Россия устала от войны! Это Правда, от такой тягуче-клейко тянущейся Странной Военной Операции, когда стратегическая военная Авиация спит на Аэродромах или бомбит полигоны. Да, конечно, Россия устала от странной неодекватности (или предательства!??) Путина в этой.. Странной Военной Операции. Даже действия в Сирии, были более решительней и результативней.. Россия, устаёт от мелкотравчатых белоусовых, набибулиных, герасимовых, шойгунутых, лавровых и ещё ряда безвольных подпевал.. своего главнокомандующего, от которого они же и отрекутся и продадут по первой возможности (дело в цене) Россия, устала не от Войны, Войны за себя – но от странно-вялотекущей и какой-то выжидательной “войны”.
Here below is a machine translation rendering of this comment in English:
Quote
Russia is tired of the war, that is the Truth! Tired of such a lingering and sticky Strange Military Operation, when strategic military aviation sleeps on airfields or bombs firing ranges. Yes, of course, Russia is tired of Putin’s strange inadequacy (or treachery!??) in this…. Strange Military Operation. Even the actions in Syria were more decisive and effective…. Russia is tired of the small-minded Belousovs, Nabibulins, Gerasimovs, Shoigunutsy, Lavrovs and a number of other weak-willed supporters of its commander-in-chief, whom they will renounce and sell at the first opportunity (the price is the issue) Russia is tired not of the War, the War for itself – but of the strange and slow-moving and some kind of waiting “war.”
Unquote
I trust that the author does not live in Russia, otherwise he could expect a knock at his door soon. But keep in mind that this whole Russian version came to my attention from the Search function of Yandex (Russia’s Google) so it is freely accessible in Russia to anyone with VPN on their computer, and a lot of smart people have that so they can watch whatever they want.
Being in the public agora is not for the faint of heart
Connexion
Lateo.net - Flux RSS en pagaille (pour en ajouter : @ moi) 