The commonalities between Europe’s road forward to reindustrialization and Trump’s domestic policies

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.

Follow this link to his speech in English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHlObAAYeuE

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.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2026

Was Ukraine acting alone in the attempted assassination of General Alekseev?

This question comes up as from minute 22.56 in the podcast below recorded with News X World this morning.

Last night’s News of the Week review hosted by Dmitry Kiselyov had a 20-minute segment at the outset dealing with the capture and forcible return of the prime suspect in the assassination, gunman Miroslav  There was not a word to suggest that anyone other than the Ukrainian military intelligence was responsible for this attack.

However, I believe the Kremlin does not want to direct accusations at England or any country other than Ukraine for this act of terror so as to justify its new highly destructive revenge attacks on Ukraine and to avoid escalation and spread of the war.

Not everyone in Russian media buys that story.  Today’s Channel 5 TV news online has as subtitle to its report on the assassination:  ‘foreign special forces could be behind the attempted murder of the Russian military commander’  Regrettably they do not expand on that assertion in the report proper.

The missing link in the assassination attempt against Lt General Alekseev is probably sitting in London, in the MI6 offices

I am delighted that the Indians, given their complex relationship with their former colonial overlords in London, permitted me to set out the argument for laying the assassination attempt against Lt General Alekseev before the door of the British MI6.  I took the liberty of speaking freely, thinking back at the remark I heard one Indian commentator make on air some years ago that the British concept of ‘fair play’ is a knee to the groin.

For this discussion go to minute 22 on the podcast above. I am saying that perhaps Kiev was right in denying that it was behind the plot to kill Alekseev. That the prime suspect was captured in Dubai suggests to me that the plotters had means and the logistical expertise of a higher level than you would find in Kiev’s military intelligence unit acting alone.

Earlier on the podcast, beginning at minute 16 you will find my discussion with the presenter of the reasons why both Kiev and Moscow are saying that Donald Trump is trying to accelerate the peace talks with a view to winding up the war before June.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2026

Podcast for ‘IranTalks’ interview from 5 February on then pending Iran-US negotiations

I consider it an honor to have been invited to discuss such a sensitive and very timely issue with this Iranian broadcaster over the course of 41 minutes.

Though the viewer numbers are still modest, there was apparently some impact in the region because a day ago I suddenly had 126 Israelis inspecting my Word Press web site, a first time ever event. Who says that Israelis are indifferent to Iranian media?

Our conversation centered on Mr. Trump’s threats of military attack on Iran, his sending an aircraft carrier task force and numerous other military assets to the region for execution of such an attack and his demands that Iran essentially disarm and accept the position of US-Israeli vassal. I directed particular attention to how Trump has exercised great care to control all communications surrounding his foreign policy initiatives, including what he is doing over Iran. I describe in some detail the distinction between what we will hear in public space about any settlement of the Iranian crisis and the real moving parts which are kept secret because they would compromise Trump in the public arena. We will not hear, for example, about the eventual decision on disposition (shipment abroad) of the 400 kg of weapons grade enriched uranium that Iran evidently moved ahead of Trump’s bombing of nuclear installations and their supposed ‘obliteration.’

The presenter, Wesam Bahrani, asks about the possibility that Trump’s aggressiveness towards Iran is being driven by the control that Mossad may have over him going back to his relationship with Mossad-controlled Epstein. He asks why Witkoff goes to visit Israel each time before heading for negotiations with Iran.  He asks if Trump really is in control of U.S. policy or is it being decided by far smarter people like J.D. Vance. 

I leave it to viewers to follow my answers to these questions in the podcast. Here, however, I want to bring out a bigger point:   I maintain that though Trump may have a vocabulary limited to 1,000 words (in contrast to the average educated German who is said to have a vocabulary of 50,000 words), Trump is no fool and has an idea or two in his head. To be precise, I emphasize that the relationship of Trump to, say, the very clever Vice President J.D. Vance is similar to the relationship that Richard Nixon had with Henry Kissinger, who was believed by the general public at the time to be the real brains of the administration.  From the perspective of 50 years later, and notwithstanding Kissinger’s efforts to maintain that fiction in his memoirs, it is fairly obvious that Nixon was the author of the foreign policy moves and Kissinger was just the implementer.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2026

Important interview yesterday on NewsX World

This particular interview had considerable material on the key issues of the day in US -Russian relations.

As from minute 4.30 through minute 12.30, we discuss:

– the ongoing talks in Abu Dhabi to end the Ukraine war about which, I maintain, the real subject is the terms of Ukrainian capitulation to the Russian territorial and other demands

-the negligible likelihood that US access to Ukrainian mineral rights will be a point of leverage for the Ukrainians in these talks

-the possibility that the West can persuade China to apply pressure on Russia to end the war, which I consider to be illusory

Further on this podcast, there is a very good analysis by a Chinese commentator of what terms would have to be set in any future arms limitations agreements to which China becomes a party. Then from minute 18.45 to 22.00, I discuss with the presenter Russia’s ‘crocodile tears’ over the expiration of the New START arms limitation treaty.

Two interview segments in this afternoon’s NewsX World news bulletin

Russia Says Iran Alone Can Decide on Uranium Removal Ahead Of US-Iran Nuclear Talks

Putin on non-renewal of New START Treaty

My discussion of this issue appears as from minute 20. As I say here, Putin is a politician, and politicians are known to lie. Russia’s Public Relations exercise on the non-renewal of the treaty should not be taken at face value. Both the US and Russia had good reasons not to renew it.  For the USA, they cannot be bound by the limits on numbers of warheads when they now want to add to their arsenal to counter China’s build-up lest they find themselves short of weapons in a two-front war with Russia and China. For Russia, the New START treaty imposed on them the obligation to keep their heavy bombers on the airfields in plain view with the result that many bombers were damaged or destroyed in a Ukrainian drone attack on airfields from Murmansk to Irkutsk that was very likely directed by the MI6 (UK) and the CIA (USA).

‘Judging Freedom’ edition of 4 February: What Putin is telling Trump

‘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.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2026