AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

After three years of war, Russian President Vladimir Putin has for the first time agreed to a limited ceasefire that would pause strikes specifically on the Ukrainian energy infrastructure for 30 days, as long as Ukraine does the same. But in a two-and-a-half-hour phone call with President Trump Tuesday, President Putin resisted agreeing to a broader, unconditional ceasefire. Putin also insisted on a complete halt of foreign military and intelligence assistance to Ukraine.

In a post on social media Tuesday, Trump said his call was “good and productive.” A White House statement described it as a first step to a full ceasefire and permanent peace, adding the negotiations would begin immediately in the Middle East.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who was not a part of the call, said negotiating without Ukraine is pointless, but said he was open to stopping strikes on Russian energy infrastructure. He said he’s waiting to hear more details from President Trump.

PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY: [translated] We support all steps aimed at the end of the war. We will support them. But in order to support them, we need to understand what exactly we support. When President Trump has time — he’s a busy man. When he has time, he can call me anytime. He has my phone number. We are ready to talk through further steps, with pleasure.

AMY GOODMAN: President Trump has repeatedly clashed with the Ukrainian president since taking office this year. In February, Trump falsely accused Ukraine of provoking war with Russia, even though it was the Russian army that invaded Ukraine in February of 2022.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And I think I have the power to end this war. And I think it’s going very well. But today I heard, “Oh, well, we weren’t invited.” Well, you’ve been there for three years. You should have ended it — three years. You should have never started it. You could have made a deal.

AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, the U.S. is withdrawing from a multinational group created to investigate leaders responsible for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. On Monday, the Justice Department informed European officials of its intent to withdraw from the International Centre for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression Against Ukraine, which the Biden administration joined in 2023. The group was created to hold Russian leadership, as well as leaders from Belarus, North Korea and Iran, accountable for the crime of aggression in Ukraine. The Trump administration has also reduced the work of the Justice Department’s War Crimes Accountability Team, created in 2022 by former Attorney General Merrick Garland to hold Russia accountable for atrocities in Ukraine.

For more on international law and accountability for war crimes from Ukraine to Palestine, we’re joined here in New York by Wolfgang Kaleck, general secretary, co-founder of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, has fought for justice against impunity in the United States, Argentina and Israel for decades.

Welcome back to Democracy Now! It’s great to have you in our studio here in New York. You’re usually in Berlin, Wolfgang. If you can start off by responding to what’s going on right now, the U.S. saying that they’re trying to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine?

WOLFGANG KALECK: I mean, first of all, thank you very much for inviting me once again. It’s a pleasure.

I mean, we don’t know very much about what these two gentlemen talked about. And, I mean, if even President Zelensky says he wants to know more details, so we are interested in hearing more details. And as Zelensky rightly remarked, a negotiation about war and peace between Russia and Ukraine cannot take place without Ukraine. So, that’s the first thing.

And the second thing is, of course, I’m completely mistrustful when the only sources we can rely on is the Putin administration and the Trump administration. So, of course, this war has to be ended, but we also have to talk about the fact who started it, and also the way and the method, how this war has been led by Russia. I refer to a part of the fact that it was a war of aggression, an illegal war of aggression. It’s a war led with, accompanied with numerous war crimes all over the place.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Wolfgang Kaleck, I wanted to ask you about some of the subjects that apparently were discussed between Trump and Putin. The New York Times is reporting that the — who would be in control of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power complex if peace is arrived at or if a ceasefire is agreed to? Largely because most people are not aware that for the United States to be able to gain access to the lithium and titanium and other rare earth minerals in Ukraine, a lot of energy is needed, and the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power complex, before the war, was supplying about 25% of Ukraine’s energy needs. So, there seems to be some — when Trump is talking about dividing up certain assets, he apparently was also referring to the fate of that nuclear power complex. I’m wondering your thoughts on that.

WOLFGANG KALECK: I mean, I’m not an expert on energy questions. And in particular, I’m not an expert in how to reconstruct a country which has been so destroyed as Ukraine has been in the last couple of years. So, my question would be where to start and where to end. I mean, we know that much of the territory has not only been destroyed, but there are damages we cannot assess so far. I mean, the dam has been — you know, the huge dam has been destroyed. There is a lot of poisonous materials around. And that, altogether, is creating a challenge for each and every one who will have to decide where are the priorities after a peace, after a lasting peace.

And from what I heard is that the question of access to lithium and to other raw materials won’t be the first priority. I mean, yes, I have a certain understanding why Mr. Trump is talking about that, but it seems that it’s not very real that they will be capable to exploit lithium very quick, also because of the — because of the energy needed. But the energy is needed for many other things. I mean, the whole country needs energy. And if you start to reconstruct, if you start to repair all the damages, you need more than energy. You need so many billions of dollars, that so far it’s unimaginable how this is going to take place.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And I also wanted to ask you about this whole issue of Putin supposedly demanding guarantees that Ukraine will never join NATO as a sort of a condition of a settlement or end of the war. I mean, there is no doubt that, clearly, that Russia invaded Ukraine. But there is also — many people believe there are legitimate concerns that Russia had about NATO continuing to expand westward. What is your concern about the validity of this, of this Russian or this Putin perspective?

WOLFGANG KALECK: There might have been concerns, and legitimate concerns, during the '90s, but that doesn't give any justification for this war of aggression, which basically started in 2014, 2015 with the occupation of Crimea, and now, obviously, since three years. And, I mean, excuse me? Is there any justification for the brutality of this war, for the completely blurring the distinction between civilian and military targets? No, there isn’t.

Obviously, a part of the peace negotiation has to be guarantees of security for both sides. That’s very clear. But it’s also very clear that the first country which needs protection, which needs guarantees of security, is the country that has been invaded by the other country. So Ukraine needs security guarantees. How that is going to be negotiated, that’s going to be one of the crucial questions. And, I mean, again, you cannot negotiate that without Ukraine. And at some point, also the other European countries, the neighbors of Ukraine, will have to come to the table, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: Wolfgang, I wanted to ask you about the U.S. withdrawing from the multinational group created to investigate leaders responsible for the invasion of Ukraine, Justice Department telling European officials of its intent to withdraw from the International Centre for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression Against Ukraine, which Biden joined in 2023, the group created to hold Russian leadership accountable, also Belarus, North Korea, Iran, and also the Trump administration reducing the work of the Justice Department’s War Crimes Accountability Team, created by former Attorney General Merrick Garland. And then I want to talk about what’s going on with the Trump administration and the ICC, going after the ICC for bringing charges against the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and the former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

WOLFGANG KALECK: Yeah, a lot of important questions. First of all, yes, the Russian leaders responsible for the war of aggression and — and I repeat — for the war crimes committed during that war have to be held accountable. But it was always our claim that we’re talking about universal criminal justice, and that the approach of the U.S. was always — towards international law was always instrumental. It was always dominated by double standards. So, yes, we have to talk about the 2022 war of aggression in Ukraine, but we should not forget the 2003 war of aggression of the U.S. to invade Iraq and the war crimes committed there.

Anyway, there were several people who applauded the Biden administration to join these accountability mechanisms, because they thought, you know, once the U.S. endorses these attempts to hold Putin and others accountable, it might be a step forward into a real, universal, international criminal justice system. I was always skeptical, because I didn’t see any attempt of the U.S. to talk about their own crimes of the last 20 years — and there were a lot. But still, it was important, because to say that somebody who’s responsible for a war of aggression has to be accountable is an important standard. To say, to state that somebody, some state leader, some military leader, who’s responsible for war crime and torture has to be held accountable is a step forward into the establishment of an important standard. And that was always our reference. We always referred to the prohibition of wars of aggression, to a prohibition of torture and war crimes. And we wanted to hold — we are we, my little organization in Berlin, the European Center for Constitutional Rights, but all its network, are active on very different fronts, and that includes Ukraine, that includes Syria, and that includes Gaza. And so, obviously, it’s helpful for us that the U.S. administration under President Biden participated into these mechanisms, and it’s not helpful that they are leaving these mechanisms right now, because, yeah, it’s a step backwards.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I also wanted to ask you about the growing move in Europe for more military spending as a result of the rift with the United States, and the possibility that some countries in Europe may be the guarantors of any peace between Russia and Ukraine. Do you have concerns that increasing military spending in Germany and France and Britain will eventually collide with human rights needs, and not only that, the social welfare needs of the people of Europe?

WOLFGANG KALECK: Of course, I have these concerns. I mean, it’s a crazy world, where, you know, we need to face the climate catastrophe. We need to strengthen the welfare state. We need to combat inequality in all our countries, but also in the world, the inequality between Global Northern and Global Southern countries. And instead of doing that, we have to spend money for military. That has to be — it is frightening for us.

I can only see — in Germany, it’s very interesting, because the package, the big package which just passed the German parliament, you know, which was designed by the upcoming Chancellor Friedrich Merz and the Social Democrats and agreed to by the Green Party, includes also half of a billion investments into infrastructure and even into climate. And that is something, you know, progressive economists demanded from Germany for the last couple of years, and it was the neoliberal party in the parliament who stood in the way of these necessary investments.

So, you know, it’s painful to see that money is spent for military, and we have to discuss the details. We also have to discuss the question: Who’s profiting? Because, I mean, it’s the society, it’s all of us who have to pay for that. And it’s not justified that those who are producing the arms, the corporations, gain immense profits from that. That has to be discussed. But I think, for many reasons you just mentioned, it’s necessary that Europe establish military and political power to confront Russia, because Russia is — Russia, under Putin, is an imminent danger for Ukraine, for Eastern European members of the European Union and, at the end of the day, also for the Western European countries.

AMY GOODMAN: Wolfgang Kaleck, you are giving a speech at The New School titled “Double Standards in International Law.” I’m wondering if you can — you know, you have a previous book called Law Versus Power: Our Global Fight for Human Rights. If you can talk, put these two together, and also talk about what’s happening in Germany right now? I mean, in the United States, there were protests across the country for the arrest, putting in ICE detention of Mahmoud Khalil, who was involved with the Gaza protests on Columbia University campus. He’s had his green card revoked. I mean, you have a similar situation in Germany. And I’m wondering if you can talk about the repression of free speech when it comes to criticism of Israel, and the conflation of criticism of the Israeli military bombardment and war on Gaza with antisemitism.

WOLFGANG KALECK: So, first of all, I would like to start with a positive development. And the positive development in the last one and a half year was that the most important legal institutions, the International Court of Justice in The Hague and the International Criminal Court in The Hague, took up this issue. The ICC issued arrest warrants, amongst others, against Netanyahu. And the International Court of Justice, in the very important South Africa case, also put some requests to Israel. And it’s not yet decided. So, these are mind-blowing and paradigm-shifting decisions of the two bodies, because in a very difficult situation, they proved that they have the ambition to really exercise universal jurisdiction.

So, Germany’s stand to that, the German government’s stand, was very ambivalent, because, on the one hand, they are arguing that they are endorsing the international rule-based order, and, on the other hand, they were on the side of Israel, as well, in the ICJ case, as in the ICC case. And that is, for me, the most important critique.

The second thing which is on stake is arms export, and that is something we are litigating against. And that’s also very interesting, because people think — and there was even another case in The Hague against Germany’s arms export. But, in fact, Germany’s arms export to Israel was on — is on decline. There were no heavy arms war weapons exported in the last couple of months. And that was partly, they say, governments also say, due to our legal efforts and due to legal concerns. And that is something I want to put in the forefront, that law can play an important role.

And then, your question on protest. Obviously, we have to state that there are shrinking spaces for civil society, for protest all over the place, and that includes Germany. It was not only the Gaza protest, but it was before. We had also police repression against the climate protest. And that’s really, really concerning. And we had cancellations of events of public intellectuals from all over the world, who were awarded, who were invited to Germany, and they canceled their events. On the other side, we have to say, I mean, it’s not true that there is no place, there is no space for Israel critique in Germany. We’re having events where the papers are full of accounts of critique. But, you know, the consequences are not to be seen. I mean, if politicians would accurately read what’s happening in Gaza, and now more and more also on the West Bank, they should draw the consequences. And that is to stop their support for the government of Netanyahu. And that is something which seems to be very — it seems to be very difficult in Germany, but I think the situation is not so much because of Germany’s history, because of the Holocaust, but it’s not so much different from the U.K. and from the U.S.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I wanted to ask you about President Trump’s repeated statements that he’s in favor of removing Palestinians from Gaza, something that, clearly, Prime Minister Netanyahu vociferously has supported, as well. Is it your sense that the United States is approaching a rogue status in world affairs with these kinds of policy prescriptions?

WOLFGANG KALECK: I mean, we’re talking about ethnic cleansing. And obviously, that’s an international crime. And there is not much more to be said about that. I mean, it’s shameful that this proposal is, obviously, seriously on the table. And, I mean, we can only say that all those who are supporting this proposal will have to face accusations of aiding and abetting international crimes, may it be war crimes, may it be crimes against humanity, or may you call it a genocide. And that’s then on stake. And so, it’s not only about this administration. It’s also about all the governments and all those corporations who are supporting this proposal.

AMY GOODMAN: Wolfgang Kaleck, I want to thank you so much for being with us, general secretary of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights. He’s usually in Berlin, in Germany, but here in New York to give a speech at The New School. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.