Trump-Putin: a deal, Yalta or no deal?

Trump’s desire to reach an agreement with Putin is palpable. He has many irons in the fire – too many? Witkoff is not sure of the facts, and a lack of historical awareness could become a stumbling block. Putin is waiting – because he can.

Peter Hanseler

Introduction

In our series “The war of two worlds has already begun”, we have drawn up a long-term forecast. Trump sees an agreement with Russia as the basis for being prepared for the long-term competition between the worlds. Trump has many irons in the fire at the same time – possibly too many. In stark contrast to his balanced approach towards Russia, he is behaving extremely aggressively towards all other parties (Iran, Yemen, China, Mexico, Venezuela, Canada, Mexico, Greenland, etc.): carrot for Russia – stick for the rest of the world. In addition, the sword of Damocles of a financial collapse hangs over the red-blonde head of the dealmaker from New York City, who has chosen an envoy in Steve Witkoff who admires his master almost idolatrously.

In this article, I try to assess the chances of an arrangement between the two superpowers. As is so often the case, it is worth taking a look at history, the course of which is viewed completely differently in the US and Russia and could therefore become a stumbling block on the way to an agreement. The chess players in Moscow do not want a deal on Ukraine, but a comprehensive reorganization of relations, which also affects countries towards which the US behaves extremely aggressively. Trump wants quick deals, Putin has time.

We include many facts in this article with the clear understanding that it is impossible to cover everything; an attempt to describe all interdependencies would fail – and tomorrow everything could look completely different again. We are immersing ourselves in a world gone mad.

Historical awareness or lack thereof

Comparisons with Yalta without understanding Yalta

Many commentators speak of a new Yalta Conference, using this meeting as a comparison to the negotiations now taking place, usually without any proper understanding of history.

This conference took place in the vacation residence of Russian Tsar Nicholas II in Yalta, Crimea, between February 4 and 11, 1945, when the outcome of the war in Europe was a foregone conclusion. The “Big Three” (Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill) discussed and agreed on many points. Some of these were adhered to by the parties, others are concealed today, bent or not adhered to at all. The original text of the Yalta Conference Agreement of February 11, 1945.

In addition to the reorganization of Europe and the founding of the UN, I believe that two points that are regularly omitted were of great importance. The substantial reparation payments to the Soviet Union, which the parties agreed on in principle in this paper, were not carried out or were not carried out sufficiently. Furthermore, many people are not aware that the Americans urgently needed help from the Russians to defeat the Japanese.

Stalin kept his word

In Yalta, Stalin expressed his willingness to enter the war against the Japanese within three months after the victory against Germany and to confront the Japanese in Manchuria. In return, the Russians received Sakhalin and part of the Kuril Islands. The Russians kept their word, began the offensive with over 1.5 million soldiers to the day and overran the Japanese. The Japanese were ready to surrender weeks before the American atomic bombs were dropped on Japan because of this Russian invasion; the only condition was that the Tenno – the Japanese Emperor Hirohito – would keep his throne. The myth that the Second World War was ended by the Americans dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki persists to this day. I refer to my comments in my article “Bloodbaths change the world – Part 1” on this topic, which also reports on the Potsdam Conference of July/August 1945. After the capitulation, the Russians withdrew from Manchuria as agreed – they could have kept this territory without any problems. But Stalin kept his word.

The Americans fleeced the Russians – again and again

The Russians were ripped off at the latest with the inauguration of Harry Truman. Harry Truman was the first conspicuous puppet of the Deep State. The fact that he was chosen as Vice President at all was a scandal, because the incumbent Vice President Henry Wallace would have been elected by an overwhelming majority for Roosevelt’s fourth term; Roosevelt also wanted him, but the puppet Truman was installed with a smear theater that would suit a banana republic. More on this in my article “Bloodbaths change the world – Part 1”.

President Truman completed a turnaround towards Russia within days. The Cold War began, the Russians were left out in the cold after the war and declared the new enemy. Germany was gobbled up, industrially rebuilt and rearmed, partly through the Marshall Plan. War criminals and former Nazis were integrated into politics and the Bundeswehr and post-war aid to Russia was canceled.

The public is aware, for example, that many Nazis were rehabilitated after the war (e.g. Manstein). However, the fact that war criminals of the worst magnitude – such as those sentenced to death in the so-called Einsatzgruppen trial – were for the most part released between 1951 and 1958 is deliberately omitted. This behavior of the Germans – under the knowledgeable guidance of the US – is partly responsible for the fact that Germans today completely lack an understanding of history and that German politicians and the media are once again inciting hatred against Russia and Russians. The parents and grandparents of this generation of haters will probably be turning in their graves every day, because they know where this hate speech can lead. I myself am at a loss for words.

This strategy was continued by the Americans until a few weeks ago and it was the US that provoked a military conflict with Russia since the fall of the Berlin Wall (NATO eastward expansion; Georgia, Maidan, Minsk I/II and, in my opinion, direct military conflict against Russia).

US aggression against Russia has thus been a recurring theme throughout history since the end of the Second World War, a world war which, it should be noted, the Russians won both in Europe and on whose help the US relied against the Japanese.

The Russian leadership is well aware of this and has every reason not to trust the Americans at all. This is evident from the behavior of the Russians.

The self-perception of the Americans

You have to admit without envy that the Americans set the standard when it comes to marketing themselves and are the absolute number one in this discipline. They are so good at presenting an image of themselves that not only large sections of the world’s population believe these myths, but also the American people, the political establishment and even President Trump and his cabinet. This may prove to be the Americans’ undoing, as overestimating themselves or underestimating the other side very often leads to unsatisfactory results – just as in ordinary life.

Strongest army in the world

The Americans have succeeded in creating a myth about their armed forces that has little in common with reality.

Many people in the West still believe today that the Americans won the Second World War because they defeated Hitler and Japan. However, this is by no means true. There are two ways of looking at how much a country contributed to the victory against Hitler. You can look at the active side, i.e. how many German soldiers were killed and by whom: The Soviet forces killed 76% of all German soldiers, all other Allies together (France, Great Britain, the United States, etc.) 24%. If you look at the passive side, i.e. how much blood the individual countries gave for the victory, the weight is even more striking, with the casualty figures for Russia shown on Statista showing 24 million instead of 27 million.

The Americans have always used D-Day, the landing of the Allies in Normandy on June 6, 1944, as a smash hit to celebrate the sacrifice of the Americans. The landing on Omaha Beach on 6 June is particularly instrumentalized as a marketing example. In the process, 2,501 American soldiers lost their lives. Approximately 250,000 Americans died in the entire European war. I don’t want to belittle the achievements of American soldiers here; every soldier who gives his life in war is a hero. Nevertheless, the numbers pale in comparison to the sacrifices made by the Soviet population: Soviet losses amounted to 19,054 deaths per day over a period of 1,417 days (22.6.1941-9.5.1945), a good half of them civilians who were slaughtered by German soldiers.

Further figures from an article by René Zittlau impressively illustrate the strikingly higher war burden of the Russians – see “The US is also rewriting history”

Nevertheless, Hollywood cements the American narrative brilliantly, even if it’s wrong, you have to pay respect to the way it’s done.

No war won for 80 years, but goals achieved?

The Americans have not won a war militarily since the Second World War and have even lost most of them. Since 1945, it has been observed that the US has continued military conflicts for a prolonged period of time despite regular military defeats. They do this by managing to keep their own losses very low, as their weapons systems were vastly superior to their weak opponents until recently, they had air superiority and regularly sent third parties into the fire as proxies. The reasons for this strategy are multi-layered: firstly, war is a huge business for the US – or rather for the military-industrial complex. Secondly, the main aim of these wars is to weaken strategic opponents; this can be achieved even if one is ultimately defeated militarily.

The first major proxy war was fought by the Americans in the Iran-Iraq War, a prime example of this strategy, in which the US even managed not to be officially involved militarily; Iraq was used as a proxy. The war lasted eight years. Although the Iranians ultimately prevailed militarily, they were completely bled dry financially, militarily and in terms of population. Many well-educated men died in this conflict, who were then missing for rebuilding. The Americans succeeded in making the rise of an Iran independent of the US after the fall of the Shah impossible in the long term and to this day – mission accomplished.

The Americans were also never squeamish when it came to choosing the means to achieve their goals. It was the Anglo-Saxons (US and British) who bombarded Germany’s cities for years during the Second World War, wiping out millions of civilians. It was thought that this would destroy the enemy’s ability to defend itself. This did not happen. The US destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs, not to achieve a military goal, as the Japanese were ready to surrender weeks earlier, but to show Stalin where the hammer was. Incidentally, the Americans bombed Tokyo with incendiary bombs on March 9/10, 1945, killing over 100,000 civilians (Operation Meetinghouse), meaning that more people died in this bombing than in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

The US continued this bombing terror even after the Second World War, although its military futility was proven after the Second World War. This happened, for example, in Operation Linebacker II, in which the Americans dropped tens of thousands of explosive devices on the civilian population of North Vietnam with B-52 bombers at Christmas time in 1972, just to show the Vietnamese negotiating delegation at the Paris peace talks what would happen if they did not give in. President Nixon, who had just been re-elected and was already under pressure because of Watergate, was to be given a “peace with honor” in this way. In order to demonstrate their strength as a war power, hundreds of thousands of civilians were slaughtered without hesitation even after the Second World War. This strategy is also currently being used in Gaza and Yemen.

From a purely military point of view, I doubt that the US army can hold a candle to the Russians, as has been demonstrated in Ukraine over the last three years. US logistics, weapons and strategy led to a military catastrophe in Ukraine. To say now that if the soldiers had been Americans and not Ukrainians, the result would have been different is nonsensical.

Nevertheless, the US has long managed to maintain the myth of the “Strongest Military Force” in the world through marketing, terror and proxy wars.

Economic problems and tariffs

I recently provided detailed information on the US’s economic problems in “The War of Two Worlds Has Already Begun – Part 1” and refer readers to this. I would also like to refer you to a great article by Maxime Auguste from last Sunday (The US is approaching a “debt death spiral”), which analyzes the debt catastrophe in the US in a detailed and understandable way.

Last week, President Trump imposed tariffs on friend and foe, arguing that virtually all trading partners were ripping off the US in terms of tariffs and fees. However, the gigantic tariffs that the US is now imposing paint a contradictory picture. Trump calculated that Indonesia, for example, would impose 64% tariffs on the US and that in response it had decided to impose half of this, i.e. 32%, as a tariff.

It is important to understand that the tariffs allegedly charged to the US by other countries have nothing to do with tariffs. This figure was not calculated using Indonesian tariffs and fees, but refers to the trade deficit. The trade deficit between the US and Indonesia is $17.9 billion, and Indonesian exports to the US are $28 billion. The Trump administration divides 17.6 by 28 to arrive at a rate of 64%. This is how Trump deals with almost all countries.

However, a trade deficit is not caused by tariffs, but by the price-performance ratio and the attractiveness of various goods. For example, due to the fact that Swiss watches are the most sought-after in the world and the US does not have a serious watch industry, Switzerland runs a trade surplus in this field and the US runs a trade deficit.

Trump is therefore ultimately using the weakness of American industry and the resulting trade deficit as a yardstick for the tariffs. The US can only improve the situation if it produces better products that are more desirable on the world market. It is not surprising that Elon Musk advocated the introduction of tariff-free trade between Europe and the US at the weekend. Musk’s products – such as the Tesla – show that the US is perfectly capable of manufacturing products that can stand their ground on the global market.

To achieve their goal, the Americans will need a major effort to get the entire industry up to speed. This will take decades, as the US no longer has any skilled workers, having been deindustrialized since NAFTA. In order to have skilled workers, you need a good education system – the Americans’ biggest stumbling block.

With a wink, we first show a short video of factory workers in the US created with biting humor – probably comes from China and is mischievous. This is probably how the Chinese see American industrial production – and rightly so?

And here is a report on a new Apple factory in China as a contrasting program.

It seems that the Chinese have no intention of bowing to Trump’s pressure by immediately aligning their tariffs with those of the US. Now Trump is threatening a further 50%. Given that China only sends 15% of its exports to the US, it is quite possible that the Chinese will remain firm. Then it will be difficult for Mr. Trump.

Whether the tariffs will drive inflation is controversial and is currently the subject of heated debate. If products become more expensive for consumers as a result of the tariffs and the manufacturer, importer or retailer does not fully adjust its prices, this will have a price-driving effect. If the American tariffs on Chinese products were to rise to over 100%, this would lead to a doubling of iPhone prices, unless Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO, absorbs all or part of the tariff. Either consumers or Apple shareholders will be in a bad mood; realistically, both will have to bite the bullet and bear some of the costs.

American producers will be happy, as the tariffs will give them a state-sanctioned competitive advantage. However, this is dangerous in the long term, as the competitiveness of domestic industry will suffer and the competitiveness of American products will continue to decline.

Nobody knows whether the slump in share prices that began last week will continue and lead to a global economic crisis. However, I believe that the crash will come sooner or later for various reasons: in addition to the gigantic debt of the West – see here – the valuations of shares have reached heights that have never been reached before, not even in the bubble years of 1987, 2001 or 2008. In addition, many investors work with leverage; either they lend their own shares with collateralized loans or they buy products that are not shares, but securities that reflect a three- or four-fold leverage. Such strategies and products multiply losses, just as they have accelerated past gains, and increase market risks.

As a dealmaker, Trump will expect proposals from the burdened countries. It remains to be seen whether the plan will work out for the US and whether Trump will be able to conclude advantageous agreements with the affected countries. China has already rejected the deal – did Trump expect this?

Trump and Witkoff – Cognitive dissonance

President Trump – I believe him – wants to make peace with the Russians. On the one hand this has to do with his ego to achieve this, but on the other hand he seems to have the realistic idea that the USA has no chance militarily against the Russians and that this war will slowly but surely bleed the USA dry – in terms of weapons and ammunition as well as economically. This has nothing to do with a U-turn by the Americans to solve problems diplomatically in the future – the aggressive behavior of the US towards other countries proves this.

For the purposes of this discussion, however, I will assume that Trump’s desire to make peace with Russia is genuine. Is that enough to achieve peace?

If you want to reach an agreement, it is important to have a realistic assessment not only of the other side, but also of yourself. At the beginning we talked about self-assessment of military strength. The Americans pretend and believe that they are the greatest military power. The Second World War proves that such myths are not isolated cases: in 1940 the French army was considered the strongest military power in the world – six weeks later it was over.

The Americans probably came to this (erroneous) conclusion primarily because of the astronomical sums they spent on their armed forces. This is in contrast to the many military failures since the Second World War and the completely inflated self-image during the Second World War. Add to this the economic weaknesses of the US, which we discussed in detail in Part 1 of our series “The War of Two Worlds Has Already Begun”.

I don’t know if Donald Trump has improved his factual accuracy since his famous tweet on Truth Social Media on January 22. The facts he claimed there were all wrong: (1) he spoke of 60 million Russian casualties in World War II: it was 27 million; (2) he speaks of a Russia whose economy is collapsing: Russia is stable, debt-free and has a growth rate that all European countries can only dream of.

In his interview with Tucker Carlson, special envoy Steve Witkoff came across as likeable; he displays a degree of admiration for Donald Trump that I see as problematic on the one hand, but which can also be understood as a sign of complete loyalty on the other. Witkoff also has problems with factual accuracy. He falsely claims that the incorporation of the four regions of Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia and Kherson are Russia’s most important, primary wishes, although he was unable to name these four regions during the interview. Neutrality, i.e. Ukraine not joining NATO under any circumstances, was seen by Witkoff as a secondary wish of the Russians. This was not the case. The main reason for the special operation was the planned accession to NATO. The Istanbul negotiations (April 2022) torpedoed by Boris Johnson on behalf of the US made it easy to see that this was the case: Russia would have renounced the four regions. The fact that this is no longer the case is solely due to the fact that the military situation has changed and these four regions now belong to Russia, although the referendums were more than clear.

It is extremely difficult to assess the extent to which the Americans are actually aware of their own weaknesses, because their language and volume are still congruent with the America we have known for over 80 years: We are the greatest!

No sustainable basis of trust

History has painfully taught the Russians in their relationship since WWII that the US is not a trustworthy treaty partner. It began with Yalta and continued with the distortion of history regarding roles in the Second World War. Then the Americans crossed Gorbachev and Yeltsin (NATO), only to set fire to Georgia and Ukraine and in fact wage war directly against the Russians in Ukraine. Time and again, the Americans acted as friends – for example Hillary Clinton after the war in Georgia – and handed the Russians the peace pipe during times of American weakness, only to betray them again once they had consolidated their power.

If you listen carefully to President Putin and Sergei Lavrov, the Russians are communicating this fact. The Russians are looking for reasons to find a basis of trust with the Americans that is sufficient to enter into an agreement with them. On the other hand, it can be seen that the Russian armed forces are advancing ever more strongly in Ukraine. They are therefore not slowing down their advance in the hope of peace. They are creating realities on the map. A clear indication that the Russians are still a long way from believing in peace. However, it would be unrealistic to blame the Russians for this. The Russians’ behavior is merely a mere consequence of American unreliability.

Putin may trust Trump personally to a certain extent, but this does not help the Russians, who think long-term, for the following reasons. First, Trump’s power during his four-year administration is far from secure. Trump attacked the Deep State head-on by doing an about-face on a favorite enemy of the Deep State (Russia) and trying to drain the swamp with Elon Musk.

Deep State is a major threat – not only in the US

Scott Ritter recently said that the Deep State is finished. I hold Scott Ritter in high esteem and his statements regarding military predictions have all turned out to be correct. I don’t know how Scott Ritter defines the Deep State. In my opinion, the Deep State consists not only of the “executors” who have nested themselves in the American political establishment, but also of those who have been pulling the strings in the background for almost 100 years. It would be naïve to believe that these rulers would give in so quickly after members of their executive branch have been neutralized.

I am also firmly convinced that the Deep State is not limited to the US, but also controls the political establishment in Europe, especially in the UK. It is by no means absurd to suggest that the Deep State exerts its influence through organizations such as the WEF, Soros, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg, etc. Until a year ago, anyone who even uttered the term “Deep State” was dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. Today, this term is used by all politicians and the media.

The Deep State is therefore an international group of powerful and rich people who have their tentacles all over the world. When President Putin politically disempowered the oligarchs at the beginning of the 2000s, he cut back the power of the Deep State in Russia. The last Deep State candidate in Russia was arguably Navalny, who was labeled as important, especially in the West. However, Navalny was anything but important in Russia, a complete racist who stole money and never got above a 2% approval rating among the general population in Russia. One of the main reasons why President Putin is so hated in the West is that he put this evil hydra on Russia’s doorstep. However, it would be fatal to think that the Deep State does not want to return by any means necessary – including to Russia.

Russia and the US with opposing interests outside Ukraine

Russia’s efforts to reach an agreement with the US on a broad basis

The Russians seem to be in such a strong position that they are demanding a comprehensive new start with the Americans. The Americans seem to be ready for this. Larry Johnson wrote on February 19 that six working groups are to be set up as a result of the meeting in Riyadh. (1) Strategic Security and Arms Control Group; (2) Global Security Architecture Review Group; (3) Bilateral Diplomatic Relations Group; (4) Energy and Sanctions Group; (5) Ukraine Conflict Settlement Group; (6) International Affairs Group (Middle East, Arctic).

Media in the West do not give any weight to this point, which Larry Johnson and I consider essential. The reason why the Russians want to put agreements with the US on a much broader basis is also to be found in the lack of trust described above. They do not trust in a truly long-term “friendship” with the US, because the war of two worlds has already begun. The Russians therefore want to take home as much as possible from this negotiation package.

Iran – the elephant in the room

The biggest stumbling block is probably the completely diametrically opposed interests and relationships that Russia and the US have with Iran. Iran has been a full member of BRICS since January 1, 2024 and a full member of the SCO since summer 2023. This is a great advantage for Iran, as it is included in the economic alliance that outshines everything else for the first time since 1979. The SCO is a security alliance that could have military consequences in the event of war, to put it very cautiously. Iran’s membership of these two organizations will bring it great advantages in the long term.

One of Russia’s main interests in Iran – a topic that is not even mentioned in the West – is the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC). This is a 7,200 km (4,500 mile) long multimodal network of shipping, rail and road routes for the transportation of goods between India, Iran, Azerbaijan, Russia, Central Asia and Europe.

As was the case with Russia until a few weeks ago, the assessments that the Americans are making about Iran are miles away from reality. I practically rule out a land war against Iran. Iran is huge, four times the size of Germany, forty times the size of Switzerland, and four times the size of Iraq. In 1991, when the US still commanded a land force, the allies had a land force of just under 700,000 men. It was not enough to occupy the whole of Iraq. The exercise was called off about halfway through. Against this background, a land invasion against Iran is a pipe dream – nothing more.

Even in the event of an air war against Iran, the US seems to be overestimating itself and underestimating the Iranians. The Persians have a sophisticated air defense system, which is supplemented by S-300 and S-400 systems supplied by Russia, which set global standards in this discipline. An air war against Iran could also end disastrously for the Americans. It is undisputed that Israel’s Natanyahu has been dreaming of attacking Iran for over 20 years and is exerting great political pressure on the US.

It is difficult to say whether the Russians or the Chinese, who have major interests in a functioning Iran, would intervene directly militarily in the event of a US-Iran conflict. However, I assume that in such a case the Russians and the Chinese would support Iran with weapons, logistics and money. For the Russians, an attack by the US on Iran would probably be a deal breaker and the possible consequences incalculable. One can argue that the US will not attack Iran if Trump effectively wants normalized relations with Putin. Whether the US will commit the folly of actually attacking Iran is impossible for me to judge.

The behavior of the US and Israel in Gaza, Syria and Yemen

The attitude of the Russians towards the genocide being committed in Gaza, in the West Bank, with strong support from the US, is clear: they find it indefensible, as any person with any remaining decency should. However, due to the ongoing negotiations with the US, the Russians are expressing this criticism very diplomatically. However, the diplomatic tone adopted by the Russians should not obscure the way they feel about this barbarism.

The fact that Assad has been overthrown and that a terrorist who until recently was wanted by the US with a bounty of 10 million US dollars is now at the head of Syria certainly doesn’t sit well with the Russians. This coup was only possible because of Erdogan’s betrayal – we reported on this in “The empire strikes back”. So far, the Russians have control of the Khmeimim airbase and the naval base in Tartus and will probably have to negotiate with the devil to keep them.

The bombing of Yemen – recently also against civilian targets – is equally out of the question for the Russians. Incidentally, the Americans have been doing this for a long time and without being able to weaken the Houthis. This American campaign clearly shows that the American tactic of bombing is no longer effective, except for death and destruction of the civilians concerned. The fact that these attacks are having no effect on the intensity and combativeness of the Yemenis should give the US pause for thought. If they are unable to defeat the Houties, what will their chances be against Iran?

Greenland

The battle, war or competition over the still ice-covered north of the earth has already begun. President Putin commented a few days ago on the US’s efforts to get hold of Greenland, noting that the US has wanted Greenland since 1860. The interests of the Russians and the Chinese in the Arctic are immense and will become even more important in the coming decades due to trade routes and raw materials. However, I don’t think the US’s behavior towards Greenland is a deal braker.

The bellicose behavior of Europeans

No longer comprehensible

The aggressive behavior of the EU, Germany, Great Britain and France is no longer comprehensible in any way. The EU, which is dominated by the unelected Ms. von der Leyen, is toothless and behaving stupidly. Military aid for Ukraine has been off the table since Mr. Orban’s veto. On March 4, von der Leyen published a press release on the defense package, which she calls “ReArm Europe”. The aim is to “invest” 800 billion euros to make Europe more secure. Private capital is also to be “mobilized” in the process. I assume that not a single European would voluntarily invest in this project. Obviously, volunteering is not even a prerequisite, because Ms von der Leyen does not define what the word “mobilize” means, but it smells of coercion and expropriation. Rich Germans are already reacting. I hear from banks and precious metal dealers in Switzerland that wealthy Germans are beating down their doors to transfer assets to Switzerland. How safe the assets in Switzerland will be is questionable, as the formerly neutral Swiss have been following the EU like puppies since 2022. It is to be hoped that the Helvetic backbone will be given a chance to grow again – hope dies last.

Europe in a lawless space

In the individual countries, things proceed like in banana republics. In Germany, Friedrich Merz doesn’t give a damn about the will of the people. As a not-yet-chancellor, he had the debt brake overturned by a parliament that had been voted out of office, thereby lying to his people through his teeth by admitting that he already knew before the elections – when he called for austerity – that he would betray his voters. The sums he wants to spend to trim Germany for a war against Russia are suicidal – we have reported on this.

Mr. Merz is already facing the consequences. For the first time, the AFD is on a par with the CDU/CSU in voter favorability. The Germans seem to have finally had enough. If there were to be new elections, the AFD would probably win. I wouldn’t dare dismiss this as an inconsequential mind game. The world is going so crazy that new elections in Germany would fit the overall picture: Anything is possible.

Furthermore, the lying baron Merz and his coalition are introducing an anti-lying law. In a free society, lying is of course covered by freedom of expression, otherwise Friedrich Merz, for example, would already be in great distress. Combating disinformation, hate speech and fake news is to be criminalized. We can answer the danger of this law with one question: “Who decides what constitutes a lie?”. If anyone is not yet afraid, they have not read George Orwell’s novel 1984: The Ministry of Truth is actually becoming a reality – in Germany.

Germany is destroying itself from within. The French are not being squeamish either: Marie Le Pen, the leader of the Rassemblement National, the strongest party in France, is not allowed to stand in the next election. This is what political jurisdiction looks like in France. In Romania, a court annulled the election result because the person did not fit the bill: he did not hate Putin, probably a prerequisite for being allowed to hold the reins of power in Europe. If the people do not decide “correctly”, this honorable task is taken over by the courts. As a lawyer and a human being, my stomach turns, because such crimes against democracy will have consequences for decades.

Another country that doesn’t hate Russia, Serbia, has also been plagued by unrest for weeks. Mr. Fico and Mr. Orban are also living dangerously. The EU has lost its cohesion. During my younger years, it was always propagated that the EU had prevented war and was therefore so important. But now the EU and some of its members have become the biggest warmongers since the Second World War.

Delusions of grandeur

You obviously have to be German to have the ability, the stomach or the stupidity to turn against everyone. Adolf Hitler was the last to do so. After making an enemy of everyone in Europe and then attacking the Soviet Union in June 1941, he also declared war on the US after Pearl Harbour in December 1941, as if it had been a minor matter. The result is well known. Merz may think that his “partners and friends” Starmer and Macron could form a serious front with other EU members. These three countries have one thing in common: they have problems with immigrants, a disgruntled population, their economies are toppling and the debt situation is no longer oppressive but catastrophic. But they do have one thing: The belief that they are among the greats. On behalf of the European “superpowers”, President Macron invites us to have a laugh.

Trump currently has no time for the new “Big Three”

It is interesting to note that Donald Trump is currently not paying much attention to the puffed-up three gentlemen. They will not take part in the negotiations with Russia and if Putin and Trump come to an agreement, the dwarves will have to call off the rebellion, possibly after a “reception” in the Oval Office, which could end very badly for the visitors depending on Donald Trump’s mood. We’ve known that since (President) Selenski’s last visit to the White House.

Mark Rutte’s NATO rant about Russia last week was obviously formulated without the placet from Washington. However, the US will not leave NATO without necessity, as this coffee club may well be activated as a political manipulation mass by the US at any time. However, I assume that Donald Trump will soon read Mr. Rutte the riot act.

The EU is becoming the lawless dictator of Europe

The EU is losing more and more support and, as an administrative war machine against Russia, it is no longer capable of acting since Orban’s long overdue withdrawal. Those countries that do not hate Russia (Romania, Hungary, Slovakia – and there could soon be more) are on Brussels’ blacklist. It would be completely naïve to think that legal arguments would be put forward in the current scenario when it comes to issues such as decisions against Russia – or against their own populations: The EU will break every law and every legal principle in order to be able to implement Brussels’ goals – Germany, France and Romania serve as role models.

Preparations are underway. On April 8, Zerohdege reports: “The European Parliament will send a fact-finding mission to Hungary in mid-April to assess the latest developments regarding the rule of law, and 19 EU member states are already ready to revoke Hungary’s voting rights.” That sounds exactly as I feared it would.

Agreement possible?

Positive factors

We recognize factors, energies and interests that speak in favour of an agreement. There are so many hard and soft factors that influence this process that you ultimately have to rely on your gut feeling. It tells me that Trump is seeking peace with Putin. I see the reasons for this on various levels.

Trump admires Putin. He sees him as what he embodies in Russia: During his reign, Russia has risen like the Phoenix from the ashes, with the interests of individuals often at the forefront of this complicated equation. Not in the first place. Security comes first in Russia, only then comes freedom, but then it comes. President Putin has probably earned this admiration from Donald Trump and it corresponds to the respect that the Russian people have for President Putin.

Donald Trump also finds wealth impressive. Russia beats every other country in the world in terms of wealth in raw materials and the Americans love money. Americans also like big things – big countries, big buildings, big cars. Some readers may now think that these arguments are too simple – I don’t think so.

I also take it from Trump that he loves peace and hates war. In this respect, he is very different from his “friends” in the Deep State. They didn’t enjoy his election and have tried everything to destroy him since his first presidential campaign. He survived everything and showed courage during the attack in the summer. A character trait that Putin appreciates and respects in Trump. Great politicians – and that is Trump – whether you like him or not, also want to go down in history and it is obvious that Trump aspires to be mentioned in the same breath as George Washington or Abe Lincoln. If he succeeds in creating a lasting peace, this would be a first in American history, where the rule is to break treaties, not keep them.

Negative factors

We have mentioned many arguments against an agreement, such as the US’s attitude towards Iran, China or its genocidal policy in the Middle East. If the US does attack Iran, I think peace with Russia will be jeopardized. Nevertheless, I think it is possible that Trump will adjust his strategy in the Middle East, as he did with Russia. Until a few weeks ago, Trump’s people were feeding him propaganda instead of facts about Russia. That has changed and so has his attitude towards Russia. It is therefore possible that he can be convinced in talks that systematic destruction will not solve these problems. One problem here is Trump’s attitude towards Israel. In October 2023, on the occasion of the outbreak of the bloodbath, we wrote a multi-part series on Israel entitled “Israel – from victim to perpetrator to victim – a back and forth for 80 years”. The research for this article has permanently changed my perception of Israel, which was shaped in the 1970s. The injustice that Israel has inflicted on others since 1948 is difficult to overlook, suppress or justify. Will truth and humanity or the influence of the Zionists prevail around the world?

(President) Zelensky’s behavior will have no effect on any agreement between Russia and the US. Trump no longer takes him seriously and Putin – rightly – refuses to negotiate with a regime that has no legal basis.

In my opinion, the aggressive behavior of the EU and some European countries will not prevent an agreement between the US and Russia either. Europe’s aggression has no basis: the people don’t want it, the money isn’t there and in military terms Europe is by no means a force to be reckoned with.

Conclusion

Donald Trump has many irons in the fire at the same time – possibly too many. On top of all the uncertainties, Trump started a tariff dispute last week against friend and foe. It is extremely difficult to judge how united the people are behind their president, as the media – with the exception of Fox – are against Trump, making it difficult to assess the coverage.

President Putin has the better cards. Russia is winning militarily, has virtually no debt, a growing economy, a nation that has never seemed so united – and time. The Russians, whose economy is flourishing despite sanctions, can take their time to find an agreement, because things can only get better and the current situation is more than comfortable. In my opinion, they will come out of these negotiations stronger – whether an agreement is reached or not.

I have pointed out several times in this article that the self-perception of the American leadership is still suffering. They see themselves as stronger than they are and therefore think they always have to win everything. What’s more, both Trump and Witkoff are lacking in factual rigor. But you can also sense that Trump admires Putin, which is a big plus that cannot be measured intellectually and could strengthen Trump’s will to reach an agreement.

I have certainly not been able to outline all the factors that influence an agreement. Nevertheless, my remarks should show that the geopolitical and economic unrest that is spanning the world like a net is difficult to comprehend. The chances of an agreement are intact – nothing more, but also nothing less.