In the past several days there has been considerable discussion in the media, both mainstream and alternative media, with respect to warnings from the Kremlin that it will consider any missile strike on its heartland from Ukraine using long range missiles supplied by the West to be attacks by the U.S., British, French suppliers and targeting programmers of those missiles, and that it will retaliate accordingly.
Will the Russian response be a direct nuclear attack on one or another Western country, as the latest Russian nuclear use doctrine indicates? Will the confrontation proceed directly to an end of the world scenario? A couple of days ago, I addressed this question in an essay on the escalatory scenario that I see as more likely. In the program of Redacted video recorded today, moderator Natali Morris kindly gave me the opportunity to explain myself to the show’s global audience.
See our 15 minute chat in the opening segment:
Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)
Interview in der neuesten Ausgabe von „Redacted“ über die wahrscheinliche Vergeltung Russlands auf einen Raketenangriff auf sein Kernland
In den letzten Tagen gab es in den Medien, sowohl in den Mainstream- als auch in den alternativen Medien, eine beträchtliche Diskussion über die Warnungen des Kremls, dass er jeden Raketenangriff auf sein Kernland von der Ukraine aus, bei dem vom Westen gelieferte Langstreckenraketen zum Einsatz kommen, als Angriff der US-amerikanischen, britischen und französischen Lieferanten und Zielprogrammierer dieser Raketen betrachten und entsprechend Vergeltung üben werde.
Wird die russische Antwort ein direkter nuklearer Angriff auf das eine oder andere westliche Land sein, wie die jüngste russische Doktrin zum Einsatz von Atomwaffen andeutet? Wird die Konfrontation direkt auf ein Weltuntergangsszenario hinauslaufen? Vor ein paar Tagen habe ich diese Frage in einem Aufsatz über das Eskalationsszenario, das ich für wahrscheinlicher halte, behandelt. In der heute aufgezeichneten Sendung von Redacted Video gab mir die Moderatorin Natali Morris freundlicherweise die Gelegenheit, mich dem weltweiten Publikum der Sendung zu erklären.
Sehen Sie unser 15-minütiges Gespräch im Eröffnungssegment:
Transcription of the entire interivew below by a reader
Natali Morris: 5:35 Well NATO may be a few short steps away from a war with Russia; it certainly seems like that’s what they want. Overnight, Russian President Putin asked Joe Biden to stop sending weapons to Ukraine. Putin also announced that Russia has the right to start supplying weapons to other countries and regions where the attacks will be carried out on sensitive targets in countries like Ukraine, countries where the U.S. may have illegal bases perhaps, Syria comes to mind. Is this a descent into full-on war, or is it a possibility of nuclear war? Well, our next guest says that if Russia is attacked, they will respond with a massively destructive attack on Kiev, and he lines out the sequence of events. Gilbert Doctorow is the author of many books on Russia-U.S. relations, has been warning about this for decades. Thank you for joining us today.
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: Thanks for the invitation.
N. Morris: 6:30 So, you, in your most recent Sub-stack, you lay out what you think will be Russia’s response, and it goes something like this. Kiev, Poland, then military factories and bases in Germany, the UK, and France, and then in the end — spoiler alert — you say, but the U.S. will not come to their aid and honor its Article 5 obligation under the NATO treaty, so the U.S. then is sort of escalating with no intent to actually show up, which is so interesting. Can you talk to this?
Doctorow: 7:03 Yes, the last week or so, there’s been a lot of discussion abroad in the United States and Europe about– and also within Russia– about what the likely response of Russia will be to strikes in its heartland and to military and civilian critical infrastructure by missiles that were manufactured in the United States – the ATACMSs, by France – Scalpers, and by the United Kingdom in its Storm Shadow. And given to Ukraine with the decision a week ago to announce that the Ukrainians have free hands to do what they like with these weapons and to decide what to target and what to strike.
The Russian president, a little over a week ago during a press conference at Tashkent airport, which– he was at the end of his visit, a three-day visit to Uzbekistan, mentioned that from the Russian perspective, any strike on Russia coming from Ukraine and using missiles of this nature, long-range missiles delivered from the West, is effectively an attack on Russia by the manufacturers and those guiding those missiles in the West, and that the Ukrainian finger on the button to launch was nothing more than a finger on a button. The decision-making on what to target and the preparation of those missiles is essential to their success. That is, the targeting information comes from reconnaissance satellites monitoring the Russian ground and is technology that is inaccessible to Ukrainians. So effectively the Western countries would be using Ukraine simply as a cat’s finger, a cat’s paw to do what they want to do themselves and don’t have the courage to say they’re doing.
9:05 The response, what Russia will do in that eventuality, has been the subject of a lot of speculation everywhere, as I say. Within Russia, the talk shows, on which some very responsible and well-known personalities appear, I mean, by personalities I mean experts who are members of the Duma and who do have decision-making responsibility in the country. They have come out and they’ve made their remarks, and I will summarize that in a moment.
But the point is that there’s a lot of pressure on President Putin to be more explicit. What does he mean by response? And who will be targeted? The reason why he’s coming under this pressure is the realization by Russian officials that the warnings from Russia of what it may or may not do in response to this or that when its red lines are crossed have been misconstrued as bluffing in the West, that Russia has let the United States and other NATO allies cross various red lines without paying a price. So why should Russia demand a price now?
10:27 There has been going back six months ago or more, some political scientists who have great renown within Russia and also quite well known abroad, like Karaganov, who is saying that to be credible in its threats to respond, Russia should do something demonstrative that catches everyone’s attention and leaves no possibility for misunderstanding its determination to defend its sovereignty. What Karaganov was recommending– and which created an outrage in Washington, D.C., and also even among some of his fellow politicians and experts in Russia– he was saying, “Let’s use technical nuclear weapons and make a strike and demonstrate that we have the power and are ready to use the power to defend ourselves.” Well, that fell by the wayside. But in the last few days, the other Russians who were quite responsible, Dmitri Trenin, for example, who was always a voice of reason, have come out also pressuring the Kremlin to be more decisive and to be more explicit about its intentions.
11:41 On Russian talk shows, the suggestion was made a week ago that they should, Russia should strike the airport in Poland that is the main receiving point and distribution point for incoming U.S. and other allied weapons going to Ukraine.
N. Morris: Is it a civilian airport, or is it a military airport?
Doctorow: No, it’s a military airport.
N. Morris: Okay.
Doctorow: But nonetheless, it is a NATO country.
N. Morris: Yes.
Doctorow: And there is, of course, the possibility that Article 5 would be triggered. In any case, the Russians were saying, it’s time to do something and not just to talk. Mr. Putin, yesterday, in a widely discussed meeting with journalists from around the world, at the opening of the, or preliminary to the opening of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, said that he would respond, the Russians wuld respond in asymmetric fashion, as you announced. What exactly that means is very hard to fathom. You’ve mentioned Syria, and that’s possible. Of course, there are other countries that have grievances and also delivery possibilities, like the Houthis in Yemen, who could profit from Russian weapons to inflict considerable damage on U.S. bases in the region. That is one way that it can go.
13:10 However, I think there are other possibilities. And that’s the biggest issue that I want to bring to the attention of this audience: that certain well-known experts and commentators in the United States have drawn the conclusion that the NATO strikes on Russian heartland will result almost automatically in a massive exchange of nuclear attacks between the United States and Russia. That’s to say, we will go straight to all-out nuclear war and to the end of civilization. There are people like Ted Postol, who is a major expert from MIT, who’s spoken about these risks. Larry Johnson, who is well known to your audience, appeared on Sonar and said either last night or this morning, that we have faced this risk of nuclear war. And Scott Ritter was yesterday on Judge Napolitano’s program, “Judging Freedom”, and was saying precisely that.
14:30 And it’s these particular remarks that prompted me to re-examine the question: are we on the cusp of the end of civilization, nuclear war, or is there something more gradual that could be stopped along the way, and is a more likely scenario?
And my basis for saying the latter is that Mr. Putin is not a gambling man. I have written last week that Russia has first-strike capability, which is largely ignored in the United States and Western Europe. Ten years ago, when the Russians first spoke of developing a new advanced range of strategic weapons, the people whom I met in the West, all were saying this was a bluff, that the Russians are incapable of doing anything that would supercede, that would be more advanced than what the United States can do with its vast military budget that’s greater than all the military budgets of the rest of the world combined.
This was inconceivable with the Russians having ten times less money and with a country which had lost some of its best brains to Silicon Valley in the 1990s. How could they possibly carry this out? Well, they did, and we know that from the new modernized triad that Mr. Putin spoke about three years ago, and which has been rolled out and put into the field in the last year or so. So, the Russians have proven that they are very capable, but what that means by capable, I was saying: they are first- strike capable. They could wipe out, at a go almost all of the United States’ nuclear force and sweep away a large part of the map in continental United States.
16:34 Now, I say a large part, I didn’t say all. And the same is true for the United States. The United States, on a first strike, could eliminate a very large part of Russia’s land based [missiles], particularly, that’s land based, because this is mutually the same. But what the Russians would not remove from the States would be the nuclear submarines and so on. So, both sides have the possibility of a first strike that would be devastating, but would not eliminate the possibility of some kind of retaliation that could cost tens or twenty million lives in their country. Mr. Putin is not a gambling man. So what would he do?
N.Morris: 17:17 Can I ask you about that then? Because what you’re saying is that he is facing criticisms for bluffing from even his own allies. But if we look at it from the other side, does it then seem like the United States is also bluffing, but sort of asking its friends to escalate, meaning European countries, on its behalf with no intention of standing behind them.
Doctorow: 17:47 Yes, but I wouldn’t use the word “bluffing”, because I don’t think anybody in Washington will admit what we’re talking about, that when push comes to shove, the United States has no problems with Kiev being taken off the face of the earth.
N. Morris: What you say here, actually, I want to highlight this so that our readers see it for themselves and seek it out is that this will not lead to nuclear war because Europe and the U.S. do not give a damn about Ukrainian lives. So the cost of a Russian strike would be nil. So please continue. I’m sorry, I interrupted you with your own words.
Doctorow: Well, that is with respect to Kiev. But where I’m going beyond that– and into rather dangerous territory for the audience’s understanding of who we are, who they are– is to say the United States doesn’t give a damn about Europe. It’s simply– and that, as I am finding, as I look around and attend some high-level luncheons by Belgian elites who are meeting with Belgian military personnel and military personnel who are saying that they no longer believe in what was the third strike or the third element of the nation’s defense that the cavalry would come to its aid, the cavalry being the United States. They no longer believe that.
And so this is the area where we are today: that I’m saying that Europeans don’t give a damn about Kiev, that Europeans don’t give a damn about Poland, because Poland is on the line. I don’t think anybody in Belgium or Germany will lift a finger if the Russians strike against Poland, Article 5 or no Article 5. Article 5 does not require member states to take a specific action. It is a format for them to take that action. But nobody is going to impose a penalty on those who don’t. So these countries will not defend one another, and the United States will not defend Europe. I cannot imagine Mr. Biden or anybody else in power in the White House sacrificing New York, Los Angeles, Miami, to say, as a retaliation against the loss of London.
N. Morris: 20:09 Right, yeah. Well, this is something that you lay out quite expertly, and interestingly enough, you’re predicting that this will not lead to nuclear war, but your newsletter is called Armageddon Newsletter. I highly suggest that our readers subscribe to it, because you’re a voice of reason and foreign policy. And again, you’ve been warning about this conflict for decades. It’s not in vogue for you. It’s something you’ve watched for a long time. So thank you for your time and for coming back on Redacted. It’s always a pleasure to talk to you.
I recommend a well-researched article published in Sputnik Globe discussing the chances of von der Leyen remaining in office as European Commission president following the Europe-wide elections that end this coming Sunday, 9 June.
In a word, her chances are slim. That is the good news.
The bad news is that if voted out, it will be for reasons unrelated to her disastrous policies on Ukraine that are leading Europe to self-destruction.
Consequently, it would be unrealistic to expect these elections alone to change the course of history.
Translation of the foregoing and of the original Sputnik aritlce below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)
Sputnik Globe über die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass Ursula von der Leyen nach den Wahlen vom 9. Juni abgesetzt wird
Ich empfehle einen gut recherchierten Artikel, der in Sputnik Globe veröffentlicht wurde und in dem die Chancen von der Leyens, nach den europaweiten Wahlen, die am kommenden Sonntag, dem 9. Juni, enden, als Präsidentin der Europäischen Kommission im Amt zu bleiben, diskutiert werden.
Mit einem Wort: Ihre Chancen sind gering. Das ist die gute Nachricht.
Die schlechte Nachricht ist, dass eine Abwahl aus Gründen erfolgen wird, die nichts mit ihrer katastrophalen Ukraine-Politik zu tun haben, die Europa in die Selbstzerstörung führt.
Daher wäre es unrealistisch zu erwarten, dass diese Wahlen allein den Lauf der Geschichte ändern werden.
Mit den Wahlen zum Europäischen Parlament (MEP) am 6. und 9. Juni sinken die Chancen, dass die Chefin der Europäischen Kommission, Ursula von der Leyen, ihren Posten behält. Die zunehmende Mobilisierung der nicht-systemischen Rechten könnte euroskeptischen Abgeordneten Auftrieb geben und von der Leyens pro-amerikanische Haltung in Frage stellen. Der Verlust der Unterstützung im Europäischen Rat macht ihr zusätzlich zu schaffen.
Am Vorabend der Europawahlen hat Politico eine Geschichte mit der Überschrift „Charles Michel plant eine Revanche gegen Ursula von der Leyen“ veröffentlicht. Die Geschichte erregte große Aufmerksamkeit, da die Position des Präsidenten der Europäischen Kommission von entscheidender Bedeutung ist. Der Präsident steht an der Spitze der gesamten Exekutive in der EU. Aber das ist noch nicht alles: Nur die Kommission und ihre Chefin können dem Europäischen Parlament Gesetzesentwürfe zur Abstimmung vorlegen, was von der Leyen (VDL) auch einen gewissen legislativen Einfluss verschaffte.
Während ihrer Amtszeit unternahm von der Leyen mehrere umstrittene Schritte, die auch sie zu einer spaltenden Kandidatin machen. Zu diesen Schritten gehörten:
Einladung der umkämpften und verarmten Ukraine in die EU und Versprechen einer raschen Mitgliedschaft inmitten der Proteste in Polen und Rumänien gegen ukrainische Billigexporte;
Unkollegiale Art und Weise, die EU-Politik zu führen, wobei sogar der EU-Außenpolitikchef Josep Borrell gegenüber El País* erklärte, dass „sie nicht alle Erfolge der Europäischen Kommission für sich persönlich reklamieren sollte“;
aktives Lobbying für eine stärkere Beteiligung der EU an antirussischen Sanktionen und der EU-Mitgliedsländer an der Militärhilfe für die Ukraine, was zu Protesten aus Ungarn und dem nicht-systemischen rechten Flügel in Frankreich und Deutschland führte.
Kein Wunder, dass die Nachricht, dass von der Leyen in der Person von Michel, dem Vorsitzenden des Europäischen Rates, einen mächtigen Feind hat, für Aufmerksamkeit sorgte.
Gilbert Doctorow, ein Analyst für internationale Beziehungen und russische Angelegenheiten, warf VDL vor, die Macht zu „usurpieren“.
„Der größte Usurpator ist natürlich die Kommissionspräsidentin Ursula von der Leyen, die alle Entscheidungen an sich gerissen hat, die unter ihren Vorgängern dem [Europäischen] Rat, also den gemeinsam handelnden Staatschefs, oder den einzelnen EU-Mitgliedsstaaten vorbehalten waren“, sagte er gegenüber Sputnik: „Sie muss aus dem Amt gejagt werden. Aber damit dieser heilsame Wandel eintritt, müssen die rechten Parteien am 9. Juni große Erfolge erzielen.”
Wahlen als Herausforderung
Mehrere europäische Medien haben daran erinnert, dass von der Leyen 2019 auf undemokratische Weise Präsidentin der Europäischen Kommission wurde, und zwar unter Beteiligung des Europäischen Rates von Michel.
Wie die deutsche Zeitschrift DerSpiegel berichtet, hat von der Leyen keine ehrliche Abstimmung im neu gewählten Europäischen Parlament gewonnen, bei der viele Kandidaten antraten. Stattdessen wurde ihre Kandidatur in einer vertraulichen Sitzung des Europäischen Rates „handverlesen“. Der Europäische Rat, eine nicht gewählte Institution, ist ein Gremium, das die Präsidenten und Premierminister der EU-Mitgliedsländer zusammenbringt.
Dieses Mal wird von der Leyen höchstwahrscheinlich eine echte Wahl durch das Europäische Parlament durchlaufen müssen, ohne dass der Europäische Rat sein Gewicht hinter ihre Kandidatur legt.
Unter Berufung auf seine eigenen Berechnungen kommt Politico in einer weiteren Schlagzeile zu dem Schluss: „Von der Leyen braucht 361 Stimmen, um ihren Posten zu behalten.“
Aber das ist eine schwierige Herausforderung.
Das Europäische Parlament hat 720 Sitze, und VDL wird durch die Tatsache begünstigt, dass die alternativen Kandidaten für ihren Posten relativ „Unbekannte“ sind, die von einzelnen Fraktionen innerhalb des EP und nicht von Koalitionen vorgeschlagen werden. Die Kandidatur von Nicholas Schmit (EU-Kommissar, Luxemburg) wurde von der Fraktion der Sozialisten und Demokraten (S&D, 136 erwartete Mandate) vorgeschlagen. Die Kandidatur von Walter Baier (Europäische Linkspartei, Österreich) wurde von der Fraktion Die Linke vorgeschlagen (38 zu erwartende Mandate).
Die Europäische Volkspartei (EVP), die die Kandidatur von VDL ursprünglich vorgeschlagen hatte, wird laut der Prognose von Europe Elects, einer Gruppe für öffentliche Dienstleistungen, voraussichtlich 170 Mandate erhalten.
Das ist viel im Vergleich zu anderen Kandidaten, aber es reicht nicht aus, um von der Leyen das Amt des Kommissionspräsidenten zu sichern. Politico merkt an, dass dies selbst dann nicht ausreichen könnte, wenn VDL nicht nur die Unterstützung der konservativen EVP, sondern auch der liberalen Renew Europe und der leicht linksgerichteten S&D erhält.
Formal hätte die VDL dann 390 Stimmen, also weit mehr als die Mindestzahl von 360. Aber, so Politico, „es ist wahrscheinlich, dass etwas mehr als 10 Prozent der Abgeordneten in jeder dieser Fraktionen entweder gegen von der Leyen stimmen oder sich am großen Tag enthalten werden.“
Es gibt viele Möglichkeiten, wie von der Leyen die Abgeordneten von Parteien wie der polnischen PiS (Mitglied der Fraktion der Europäischen Volkspartei) oder Viktor Orbans eigenwilliger Fidesz-Partei gegen sich aufgebracht hat. Die PiS war ständigem Druck ausgesetzt und wurde von der EU wegen angeblicher Verstöße gegen die Rechtsstaatlichkeit“ mit Geldstrafen belegt, die gegen ganz Polen verhängt wurden. Ganze polnische Regionen waren von den Sanktionen der EU betroffen. Und die ungarische Fidesz wurde gerade willkürlich aus der VDL-treuen EVP-Fraktion ausgeschlossen, weil Orban eine eigenständige Position zu Migration, Familienpolitik und Beziehungen zu Russland vertritt.
“Es ist sehr wahrscheinlich, dass von der Leyen ihren Posten als Kommissionspräsidentin verlieren wird. Leider nicht wegen ihrer Russland-Politik, sondern wegen ihrer autoritären, nicht-kollegialen Art, die Kommission zu führen”, so Gilbert Doctorow.
Hin- und hergerissen zwischen Meloni, Le Pen und „Mainstream“-Parteien
Die Notwendigkeit, Europaabgeordnete und Mitglieder des Europäischen Rates gleichzeitig zu umwerben, wird VDL vor schwierige Entscheidungen stellen.
So könnte VDL beispielsweise die italienische Ministerpräsidentin Georgia Meloni umwerben wollen, um ihre Unterstützung in ihrer Eigenschaft als italienische Ministerpräsidentin und Mitglied des Europäischen Rates zu erhalten. Melonis Partei Fratelli d’Italia versucht jedoch derzeit, im Europäischen Parlament eine gemeinsame Fraktion mit der französischen Rassemblement National von Marine Le Pen und mit Orbans Fidesz zu bilden.
Gleichzeitig liegt die EVP von VDL nach Berichten des Guardian mit Orban und Fidesz im Streit, nachdem die EVP Fidesz aus ihrer Fraktion ausgeschlossen hat. Und Liberale und Sozialisten wollen die EU-Präsidentin nicht unterstützen, die sich auf die extreme Rechte stützt, nämlich auf die Fratelli d’Italia und Le Pens Rassemblement National, die von der S&D und der liberalen Renewal als „extremistisch“ und „prorussisch“ angesehen werden.
Die damalige deutsche Verteidigungsministerin Ursula von der Leyen, rechts, und die litauische Staatspräsidentin Dalia Grybauskaite sprechen mit einem Soldaten während der Begrüßungszeremonie des NATO-Bataillons für verstärkte Vorwärtspräsenz auf dem Militärstützpunkt Rukla, etwa 130 km westlich der Hauptstadt Vilnius, Litauen, Dienstag, 7. Februar 2017
VDL hat also eine schwierige Aufgabe vor sich. Sie muss Meloni gefallen und gleichzeitig vermeiden, die etablierten Parteien – EVP, Liberale und Sozialisten – zu verärgern. Das wird schwer sein, denn viele Wähler sehen in der alternativen, nicht-systemischen Rechten die einzige Verteidigerin der Souveränität ihres Landes. Doctorow geht davon aus, dass beispielsweise Le Pens Rassemblement National „der große Gewinner“ der kommenden Wahlen sein wird.
Vergebliche Hoffnungen
Aber wird sich die zunehmende Unterstützung durch die Wähler auch in einer Änderung der Politik niederschlagen? Die meisten Entscheidungen auf EU-Ebene werden nicht vom Europäischen Parlament getroffen, sondern von der Kommission von VDL. Ein schneller Wandel sei daher nicht zu erwarten, so der Politologe.
“Ich bezweifle, dass die Wahlen eine wesentliche Änderung der EU-Unterstützung für die Ukraine bringen werden. Dazu wäre ein erdrutschartiger Sieg von Leuten nötig, die ähnlich denken wie Le Pen, und davon gibt es nicht viele innerhalb oder außerhalb der Regierungseliten”, so Doctorow. “Das Gleiche gilt für die selbstmörderische Haltung der EU in Sachen Verteidigung. “
Leider wird der Sieger im Rennen um den Kommissionsvorsitz weniger durch einen Wähler als durch einen politischen Kuhhandel nach der Wahl des neuen Europäischen Parlaments bestimmt werden.
One of the valuable features of my several platforms for publishing essays is the feedback I get from readers.
In this regard I quote here what one reader sent in about my article earlier today on the violation of free speech that the detention of Scott Ritter yesterday at JFK airport and confiscation of his passport signified, followed as it was, according to RT reports, by the same happening to Judge Napolitano, who was also planning to travel to St Petersburg to participate in the International Economic Forum that begins on the 6th.
Quote
Andrew Napolitano was not taken off the plane. Scott Ritter phoned him and told him that it was “not wise to travel” to St. Petersburg.
Unquote
[a full transcript of this interview is available below, following the German translation]
I watched this edition of the “Judging Freedom” show and urge you to do the same. Here the Judge discusses with Scott Ritter what happened yesterday. These facts by themselves do not change my determination that yesterday’s events amounted to intimidation by the U.S. government and were a gross violation of constitutional rights.
However, the largest part of the Scott Ritter interview was devoted to a different matter, which I wish to discuss here, namely what the consequences may be of an attack on the Russian heartland coming from Ukraine using the long range missiles it has been given by the United States, the U.K. and France.
Ritter is repeating what has been intimated by Vladimir Putin, Sergei Lavrov and other Russian officials, namely that Russia is prepared to strike back at the producers of these long range weapons, at those who are providing targeting packages to these weapons from their bases in Europe and the USA. Ritter then assumes this will necessarily proceed directly to reciprocal massive nuclear exchanges between the United States and Russia which will put an end to human civilization. And he backs up this conclusion by reference to the scenario for conducting nuclear war that has existed within the Pentagon since the days of John F. Kennedy.
I would like to propose a very different scenario basing myself on what I hear on Russian talk shows from top experts. And I juxtapose what these Russians are saying with the realities of U.S.-European mutual defense and of intra-European defense thinking that I see around me here in Belgium, including at the club luncheon on which I reported yesterday.
The first point is that the most likely revenge attack by Russia for any missile strikes on its cities or critical civilian and military infrastructure will be….a massively destructive attack on Kiev.
Why Kiev, you may ask, when the same Russians are saying that the Ukrainians are only the fingers on the button and when all the settings, all the inputs for targeting have been made by Americans or Brits or French, depending on the specific missiles that were used. The reason is that hitting Kiev, decapitating the Ukrainian government, will result in the least possible blowback. It will not lead to a nuclear war. Europe and the USA do not give a damn about Ukrainian lives, so the cost to Russia of such a strike will be nil.
Moreover, striking Kiev will be a demonstration to Europe and to the USA that they are not bluffing, that they have the determination to go all the way in their confrontation with the West to safeguard their sovereignty and national existence. It will be implementing what the political scientist Karaganov was proposing many months ago, whether it is carried out with conventional or tactical nuclear weapons.
If nonetheless, strikes on Russian assets in the RF continue, the next point of attack by the Russians will be the marshalling centers in Poland which receive weapons and other military supplies from the United States and European NATO countries for delivery to Ukraine. One key airport is named in this connection. Why Poland? Because the rest of Europe is hardly likely to come to its aid.
Continuing up the escalation ladder, I believe that the Russians will then, and only then, attack military factories and bases in Germany, the United Kingdom, France. Like the leaders of these countries, Russia does not really expect the United States to come to their aid and honor its Article 5 obligations under the NATO treaty.
Only in the last instance will Russia attack the United States using its strategic nuclear arsenal, meaning only if it is under direct nuclear attack from the USA. This, notwithstanding the clearly stated Russian understanding that behind all of the European provocations against it stands Washington, the hegemon and puppet master. The United States will be the very last to come under Russian attack precisely because the nuclear exchange that comes will be suicidal for both sides.
This, I think, is also the understanding that the Biden administration has. But their expectation is that both sides in a Russian European war will be decimated, freeing the United States to defend its global hegemony by taking on and defeating China. In this, I firmly believe Washington is mistaken. Europe will be destroyed, Russia will be victorious, because its arms are superior, and its troops are now war hardened. The United States will have lost its European colonies and will be up against the Russia-China alliance alone.
If you are reading this lying on a chaise longue in your back yard in Arlington, Virginia, you may take comfort. If, like me, you are living close to the Russians’ bulls-eye, 20 km from NATO headquarters, the above analysis can get on your nerves.
Die Abfolge der Zerstörung bei jeder russischen Reaktion auf die von der NATO geführten Angriffe auf sein Kernland
Eine der wertvollen Eigenschaften meiner verschiedenen Plattformen zur Veröffentlichung von Essays ist das Feedback, das ich von meinen Lesern erhalte.
In diesem Zusammenhang zitiere ich hier, was ein Leser zu meinem heutigen Artikel über die Verletzung der Meinungsfreiheit geschickt hat, die die gestrige Festnahme von Scott Ritter am JFK-Flughafen und die Beschlagnahme seines Passes bedeutete, auf die laut RT-Berichten dasselbe mit Judge Napolitano folgte, der ebenfalls nach St. Petersburg reisen wollte, um am Internationalen Wirtschaftsforum teilzunehmen, das am 6. Mai beginnt.
Zitat
Andrew Napolitano wurde nicht aus dem Flugzeug geholt. Scott Ritter rief ihn an und sagte ihm, dass es „nicht klug sei, nach St. Petersburg zu reisen“.
Zitat Ende
Ich habe mir diese Ausgabe der Sendung „Judging Freedom“ angesehen und empfehle Ihnen, dies ebenfalls zu tun. Hier diskutiert der Judge mit Scott Ritter über die gestrigen Ereignisse. Diese Fakten an sich ändern nichts an meiner Feststellung, dass die gestrigen Ereignisse einer Einschüchterung durch die US-Regierung gleichkamen und eine grobe Verletzung der verfassungsmäßigen Rechte darstellten.
Der größte Teil des Interviews mit Scott Ritter war jedoch einem anderen Thema gewidmet, das ich hier erörtern möchte, nämlich den möglichen Folgen eines Angriffs auf das russische Kernland von der Ukraine aus unter Verwendung der Langstreckenraketen, die ihr von den Vereinigten Staaten, Großbritannien und Frankreich zur Verfügung gestellt wurden.
Ritter wiederholt, was von Wladimir Putin, Sergej Lawrow und anderen russischen Beamten angedeutet wurde, nämlich dass Russland bereit ist, die Hersteller dieser Langstreckenwaffen und diejenigen, die von ihren Basen in Europa und den USA aus Zieldatenpakete für diese Waffen bereitstellen, zurückzuschlagen. Ritter geht dann davon aus, dass dies zwangsläufig direkt zu einem gegenseitigen massiven nuklearen Schlagabtausch zwischen den Vereinigten Staaten und Russland führen würde, der das Ende der menschlichen Zivilisation bedeuten würde. Und er untermauert diese Schlussfolgerung mit dem Verweis auf das Szenario zur Führung eines Atomkriegs, das im Pentagon seit den Tagen von John F. Kennedy existiert.
Ich möchte ein ganz anderes Szenario vorschlagen und mich dabei auf das stützen, was ich in russischen Talkshows von Top-Experten höre. Und ich stelle das, was diese Russen sagen, den Realitäten der amerikanisch-europäischen gegenseitigen Verteidigung und des innereuropäischen Verteidigungsdenkens gegenüber, die ich hier in Belgien erlebe, auch bei dem Club-Luncheon, über das ich gestern berichtet habe.
Der erste Punkt ist, dass der wahrscheinlichste Vergeltungsangriff Russlands für jeden Raketenangriff auf seine Städte oder kritische zivile und militärische Infrastruktur ein massiver zerstörerischer Angriff auf Kiew sein wird.
Warum Kiew, werden Sie sich fragen, wenn dieselben Russen sagen, dass die Ukrainer nur die Finger auf dem Knopf sind und wenn alle Einstellungen, alle Eingaben für das Zielen von Amerikanern oder Briten oder Franzosen gemacht wurden, je nachdem, welche Raketen eingesetzt wurden. Der Grund dafür ist, dass ein Schlag gegen Kiew, die Enthauptung der ukrainischen Regierung, die geringstmöglichen Rückwirkungen haben wird. Es wird nicht zu einem Atomkrieg führen. Europa und die USA scheren sich einen Dreck um ukrainische Menschenleben, so dass die Kosten eines solchen Schlags für Russland gleich null sein werden.
Ein Schlag gegen Kiew würde Europa und den USA zeigen, dass sie nicht bluffen, sondern entschlossen sind, in der Konfrontation mit dem Westen alles zu tun, um ihre Souveränität und ihre nationale Existenz zu schützen. Damit wird das umgesetzt, was der Politologe Karaganow schon vor vielen Monaten vorgeschlagen hat, ob mit konventionellen oder taktischen Atomwaffen.
Sollten die Angriffe auf russische Einrichtungen in der Russischen Föderation dennoch fortgesetzt werden, werden die Russen als Nächstes die Rangierzentren in Polen angreifen, die Waffen und andere militärische Güter aus den Vereinigten Staaten und den europäischen NATO-Ländern zur Lieferung an die Ukraine erhalten. In diesem Zusammenhang wird ein wichtiger Flughafen genannt. Warum Polen? Weil das übrige Europa ihm wohl kaum zu Hilfe kommen wird.
Ich glaube, dass die Russen dann, und nur dann, Militärfabriken und -stützpunkte in Deutschland, dem Vereinigten Königreich und Frankreich angreifen werden, um die Eskalationsleiter weiter nach oben zu klettern. Wie die Führer dieser Länder erwartet auch Russland nicht wirklich, dass die Vereinigten Staaten ihnen zu Hilfe kommen und ihre Verpflichtungen gemäß Artikel 5 des NATO-Vertrags erfüllen.
Nur im äußersten Fall wird Russland die Vereinigten Staaten mit seinem strategischen Atomwaffenarsenal angreifen, d.h. nur dann, wenn es von den USA direkt nuklear angegriffen wird. Und das, obwohl Russland ganz klar weiß, dass hinter allen europäischen Provokationen gegen es der Hegemon und Marionettenspieler Washington steht. Die Vereinigten Staaten werden die letzten sein, die von Russland angegriffen werden, gerade weil der darauf folgende nukleare Schlagabtausch für beide Seiten selbstmörderisch sein wird.
Ich denke, das ist auch die Auffassung der Regierung Biden. Aber ihre Erwartung ist, dass beide Seiten in einem russischen Krieg in Europa dezimiert werden, so dass die Vereinigten Staaten ihre globale Hegemonie verteidigen können, indem sie China angreifen und besiegen. Ich bin der festen Überzeugung, dass Washington sich in diesem Punkt irrt. Europa wird zerstört werden, Russland wird siegreich sein, denn seine Waffen sind überlegen und seine Truppen sind jetzt kriegsgestählt. Die Vereinigten Staaten werden ihre europäischen Kolonien verloren haben und allein gegen die russisch-chinesische Allianz antreten müssen. Wenn Sie dies auf einer Chaiselongue in Ihrem Hinterhof in Arlington, Virginia, lesen, können Sie sich trösten. Wenn Sie, wie ich, in der Nähe des russischen Fadenkreuzes leben, 20 km vom NATO-Hauptquartier entfernt, kann Ihnen die obige Analyse auf die Nerven.
Transcript of the Ritter interview with Judge Napolitano below by a reader
Judge Andrew Napolitano: 0:33 Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for “Judging Freedom”. Today is Tuesday, June 4th, 2024. Our dear, my dear friend, dear friend of the show, Scott Ritter joins us now. Scott, a pleasure, my friend. Thank you for joining us. Of course, we didn’t expect as recently as two days ago that we would be talking like this. We thought we’d be talking in person in Russia. But before we get to why I am not there, what happened to you yesterday at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York?
Scott Ritter: 1:08 Well, I was in the process of doing the final boarding of the aircraft where, you know, right before you cross the threshold into the airplane, the airline attendants ask, you know, just to review your tickets and your passport. And I handed it to them, they motioned to go on the airplane, and suddenly three uniformed, armed Customs and Border Patrol officers came up and asked if I was, you know, William Scott Ritter Jr. I said, yes I am. They ushered me out of the line. Then they demanded that I give them my passport, which I complied with.
And then they asked me that if this was my only travel document, do I have any other travel documents? I said, no, this is my U.S. passport. It’s the passport I use to travel overseas and I have used frequently, including to Russia. And they said, well, we’re seizing it. I said, on what authority? They said, on the orders of the United States State Department. I said, who in the State Department? They said, we don’t know. I said, well, who ordered you to do this? You obviously are– We don’t know. We can’t tell you. We’re not authorized to tell you.
They wouldn’t give me a receipt for the passport. They just said, you’ve got to contact the State Department. I said, who in the State Department? They said, we don’t know. You just– you’re going to have to figure that one out. Then they, they got my bags off the airplane and escorted me out of the security zone into the general, you know, where you walk in and said, you’re free to leave. And that was that.
Napolitano: 2:42 Do you have the names of or a photograph of any of the three of them?
Ritter: No, I mean, I was– I mean, you know, Judge, in retrospect, there’s much that I should have done. I was in my mindset getting ready to get on an airplane and go to the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. I was focused on that. My mind was already what’s going to happen when I land in Russia. And so this took me completely by surprise. And I failed to get the names of the three officers. And I failed to get a photograph. I mean, there are security systems all over the place and, you know, I am going to be making a call to the Customs and Border Patrol unit at JFK to get the names of these officers. Whether or not they’ll give them to me is another question.
Napolitano: Well, eventually you’ll get all of this under the proper legal process, but they obviously interfered with your free speech rights and your– protected by the First Amendment; and your right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, protected by the Fourth Amendment; and what the Supreme Court has recognized, protected by several amendments, is your right to travel. Was I with you?
Ritter: 4:01 No. You weren’t. Actually, you weren’t with me because I made a phone call to you earlier in the morning recommending that you not travel to Russia. And it had nothing to do with what happened to me and everything to do with what happened to our sponsor, Alexander Zyryonov, who, from my standpoint, tragically was placed under arrest in Novosibirsk on his way to St. Petersburg. We can discuss that in a moment if you’d like to.
I like you. I consider you a friend, not just a colleague, and there was no way I– you know, because I’m the guy who came to you and said, hey, Judge, you need to come to Russia. You need to do this. Let’s make this happen. I got people that want to talk to you. They extended invitations to you. In retrospect, you could have gone to Russia, but I couldn’t guarantee a positive outcome. And I am not going to be responsible for putting Judge Napolitano on an airplane into an unknown situation. Today, I now know that Alexander Zyryonov’s team, together with the presidential administration, had cobbled together a group that was going to receive us and lead us through the St. Petersburg Economic Forum with, to ensure no hassles, no anything, that, you know, nothing bad would have happened.
5:25 But when I initially got this information– there’s my good friend Alexander– when I got the information, I didn’t know what was going on. I didn’t know if this was reflective of a change in Russian government attitude or policy. And while I am dumb enough to get on a plane and fly into the unknown, hoping for the best, I wasn’t going to be responsible for that happening to you.
So I made a phone call, and I strongly recommended that you not get on that airplane. In retrospect, it was the right move.
Napolitano: And we had we had that phone call about five in the morning as I was about to leave my house. The only reason I’ve asked you this is because of all these news reports that the same thing happened to me has happened to you. I am deeply and profoundly grateful for your friendship, which will be a lifelong friendship, for the care and courtesy you have for me as a person and for my … public persona, and for these efforts to introduce me to people who are interested in what we have to say. And I know those efforts will be unending.
You have a very, very serious case against the United States State Department. And many, many lawyers will happily bring that case for you in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which sits in Brooklyn, but which covers events at JFK. You could also bring it in the Northern District of New York, up in New York State where you live. You could bring it in either place. I can’t imagine what conceivable defense there could be for this. No matter what you and I have said, anywhere on the planet– about Russia, about Israel, about Gaza, about Ukraine, about Joe Biden, about Vladimir Putin– it is all protected free speech, protected because we have the natural right to speak, and expressly protected by the First Amendment.
7:24 The same goes for your right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures. They didn’t have a warrant. If they had a warrant, they would have shown it to you. And of course they violated their own profound regulations by not giving you a receipt. They’re supposed to give you a receipt so that when you sue them, the court will know who it is that took this away from you. Now you’re going to have to do some investigation on your own. The State Department is huge. Was this Tony Blinken? Was this Jake Sullivan? Or was this some local functionary who didn’t like something they heard you say? It’s an outrageous abuse of power. It is profoundly unconstitutional. And I am aggrieved that you, my friend, were hurt by this.
Ritter: 8:07 But it’s bigger than this, Judge. I mean, the State Department, using government appropriated monies for this purpose, created a Center for Countering Disinformation as an adjunct of the Ukrainian president’s office. They did this in 2022. One of the first things that this Center for Countering Disinformation did under the guidance and direction of the State Department of the United States was to issue a blacklist of people that they called “information terrorists”. And on that blacklist were a large number of Americans, including myself. And this list, this Center since that time–
8:50 And here’s the important thing about being called an information terrorist. That’s a specific term being used by the Ukrainians, backed by the United States government. They said that an information terrorist must be hunted down and brought to justice the same way any terrorist would. And so I’ve been accused of saying things that make the Ukrainian government unhappy. They now say that I must be hunted down and arrested, detained, killed as would any other terrorist in the world and other Americans as well.
9:21 They have made me– this Center again with the U.S. State Department’s support– has put out a list that, you know, a weekly list where they say I’m the number one threat to truth about Ukraine. I’m the number one threat to Ukraine. I must be dealt with. They put out a monthly list where I top this list regularly. Plus, there’s the Myrotvorets hit list run by the Ukrainian intelligence services that I’m on which marks you for death. They actually assassinate people. They have made two attempts against me on previous trips to Russia.
9:54 The State Department has never condemned the Ukrainian intelligence services for marking U.S. citizens for death, simply because they disagree with what they say. Free speech means nothing in the Biden America today. It actually– free speech has not only become something that gets you targeted for your passport removal, that’s an inconvenience that I am confident will be dealt with in due course. They’re marking me for death, Judge, and that’s something you don’t come back from.
Napolitano: 10:26 And you’re telling us that there’s some purported NGO, which is actually funded by the State Department that is behind this?
Ritter: Well, it’s behind the most recent outpouring of things– The Center for Countering Disinformation is not an NGO. That’s a government– that works for the president, the office of the president in Ukraine. But it’s organized, funded, and directed by the State Department. When you look at the meetings where they promulgated the blacklist, in there they say “and at this meeting are the following State Department officials and the following officials from the United States embassy.”
Now one would imagine that at any meeting of this nature where somebody said “Topping our agenda Today is we’re going to blacklist 40 American citizens for exercising their, you know for saying things we disagree with.” At that juncture, duty demands that Americans, a government official stand up and say “We object. You can’t prosecute Americans for free speech. You can’t use American money for this regard.”
11:31 But instead, the US government sat there and supported this, facilitated this. And this is done on the direction of the US Congress. This money was allocated by the US Congress, voted on by the US Congress, which … appears to violate again, not just the intent but the letter of the law: Congress shall not pass any laws or legislation that are designed to infringe on the free speech of Americans. Congress gave the Ukrainian government money, which they’re using to infringe on the free speech of Americans.
Napolitano: 12:06 Another example of the government attempting to do indirectly, through another government, what it can’t do directly. So the American Congress, Joe Biden, [is] allowed to spend this money however he wants. I think it’s 165 billion at last count. He can spend it however he wants, and he’s chosen to spend some of it in this gaggle of people, Ukrainians and Americans, who have a list of people whom they want to silence and whom they want to kill. This is just not the America that the founders gave us, Scott. You are a remarkable example, not only of intellectual honesty, but of personal courage. As you know, because we are friends, I will be happy to work on this litigation with you. I hope it doesn’t come to that. I hope a couple of phone calls will return your passport. But there’s much more of an aggrieved situation here, as you pointed out, than just the passport.
13:10 And those of you watching ought to know, the world needs to know, how corrupt the Joe Biden, Tony Blinken State Department is, that they would do something like this, pay to silence Scott Ritter, interfere with his freedom of travel, suppress his rights to free speech, and, I am sorry and almost terrified to utter this, threaten him with death.
13:42 Well, we’ll see where this goes, my dear friend. Joe Biden has threatened Russians with death by publicly authorizing the Ukrainians to use American military equipment to attack inside Russia. How crazy is this?
Ritter: 14:04 It’s the definition of insanity. First of all, the logic behind this: the Ukrainians have tried to create a narrative that says “We can’t defend ourselves from Russian aggression emanating from Russian soil unless we are allowed to use all the weapons that we possess.”
They forget that this is a Special Military Operation that was initiated by Russia in response to Ukraine’s eight-year war of aggression against the citizens of Donbass, whom they called terrorists, who they bombarded, killing hundreds of children, thousands of civilians. But this isn’t a war. Russia didn’t invade Ukraine. Russia sought to bring an end to the Ukrainian actions. And because the United States and other nations have decided to pour in hundreds of billions of dollars in financial and military assistance, this conflict has been extended and turned into a proxy war between Ukraine and Russia.
15:01 This isn’t about Ukraine wanting to use these weapons. This is about the United States and its NATO allies seeking to use Ukraine as a proxy to inflict the maximum possible damage on Russia. But the fallacy here is they say, “Well, Russia can’t be allowed to have a safe haven on Russian soil from which they get to launch an attack.” Well, what do you think all of NATO in Europe is from the Russian perspective? It’s a safe haven for Ukraine. Yu know, they train Ukrainian pilots. If that training was done in Ukraine, they’d all be dead. We repair the Ukrainian equipment, American equipment, German equipment. We repair it on Polish soil, on German soil, in the Baltic states. Repair facilities are legitimate military targets. When you take a tank off the battlefield, take it back to repair it to bring it back to the battlefield, that needs to be attacked.
15:54 All the warehouses where we flow in these hundreds of millions of dollars of military equipment on Polish soil, Romanian soil, etc., they can’t be attacked by Russia. Ukraine has this massive safe haven which Russia is powerless to attack and this is the danger. Because if we start playing this game and attacking the Russians, the Russians have made it quite clear that they will retaliate, not just on Ukrainian soil, but on the soil of NATO nations, and this heads us down a very dangerous path that could very well lead to nuclear war.
Napolitano: 16:31 Here’s Foreign Minister Lavrov basically saying, “We will not put up with this.” Cut number one.
Sergey Lavrov: We have shown that we will not put up with this, and that we will not allow Ukraine to be used as a direct threat to our security, as an instrument for the destruction of everything Russian on historical Russian lands. They did this for more than two decades, or even 30 years, immediately after the disappearance of the Soviet Union. Their goal was to destroy everything Russian, from the language to the government, in this territory, which they wanted to take for themselves.
17:12 And they were counting on it. But as always happens, if they wake up the Russian bear, then our people have united like never before. These are not empty words. We saw this during the Russian presidential elections. The Nazi regime continues to use Western weapons to attack civilian targets, towns, and cities. I assure you that they will not be able to cross this line unnoticed.
Napolitano: 17:35 Does Joe Biden, does Tony Blinken, does Rishi Sunak, does Emanuel Macron, does Olaf Scholz, does Donald Tusk, President of Poland– do these folks understand the significance of what Foreign Minister Lavrov said, and that the Russians don’t bluff?
Ritter: 17:58 No. If they did, they wouldn’t be going this far down this path. They are being advised by people who are saying that the Russians are bluffing, that the Russians lack the capacity to back these words up with meaningful force. There’s even a, people who say, “Look, Russia’s focused on the BRICS summit in October and, you know, on bringing the non-aligned world together. Why would Russia risk, you know, a war with the West?”
Well, because the West is threatening Russia’s existential survival. And this is the danger. I mean, even President Putin came out today and said, you know, [that] this is a very dangerous game that’s being played that will have fatal consequences for the United States.
18:44Judge, in retrospect, it might be a good thing that you and I didn’t go to Russia, because I’m very fearful that while the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum is underway, that a red line will be crossed, and Russia will respond, and we will be looking at an outbreak of actual war between the United States and Russia. This is why I wanted to travel, because I was hopeful that by speaking to the Russian government, speaking to the Russian people, speaking to the Russian nation about the potential of the American people to do the right thing, you know, come November maybe vote in somebody who isn’t hell-bent on going to war with Russia, that the Russians might not be inclined to act precipitously when we cross these red lines.
19:34 But I was denied that opportunity by the U.S. government, and now, sadly, there’s no voice in Russia right now, American voice, that can caution this. The U.S. Embassy isn’t. We don’t have an American ambassador that’s meeting with the Russians on a regular basis saying, “That’s all a misunderstanding. What do we need to do to avoid war?” We have a US government together with NATO allies that think Russia’s bluffing, and they are seeking to put as much pressure on Russia as possible prior to this peace summit that’s being convened by Ukraine and Switzerland in the middle of this month, a peace summit that’s falling apart before it even begins.
20:11 But the operating notion is that we must convince Russia that we are serious about the consequences Russia will accrue if it continues a military engagement against Ukraine, that Russia’s only choice is to be compelled to the peace table. Russia’s not playing that game. Russia’s playing the game of “We’ve won this war, and if you want to make it a broader war, we’ll win that war too.”
Napolitano: 20:32 Here’s how serious Russia takes it. Here’s another statement. This is a full screen; we don’t have it on tape, from Foreign Minister Lavrov. I’ll read it aloud for the benefit of those who are taking the show audio only. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on May 30th:
Lavrov: We do not rule out additional steps in the sphere of nuclear deterrence, because our command centers and the locations of our nuclear forces will be in range of American forward-based missiles.
Napolitano: 21:09 This is about as serious as you can get.
Ritter: You know, there’s a lot of Americans out there, they’re in the armchair warrior category, who are like, “Unleash the ATACMS.” The ATACMS, of course, is the long range, up to 300 kilometer range missile that we have provided to the Ukrainians. Ray McGovern– and next time you have Ray on, you can talk to him about this– has highlighted some of the negotiations [that were] taking place between the Russians and the United States before the initiation of the Special Military Operation. And the Russians kept saying, “We can’t let NATO into Ukraine, because we can’t allow American missiles into Ukraine, because a lot of these Russian facilities, command centers, et cetera, that Russia uses were conceptualized and constructed during the Soviet Union when Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union.
21:59 So from a Russian perspective, they were deep in the Russian rear, protected. But if Ukraine now is carved out, made part of NATO, and you insert American missiles there, all of these places that were thought to be safe in the rear are now reachable. And if America allows Ukraine to use ATACMS missiles to strike these facilities, Russia will nuke NATO, not Ukraine, NATO. And this is what Lavrov just said. If you do this now– according to the Ukrainians, they’re complaining that the United States will only allow them to use the HIMARS, that they won’t be allowed to use the ATACMS to strike Russia yet. But just so everybody in your audience understands, we are one ATACMS launch away from everybody dying. We are one ATACMS launch away from everybody dying. The Russians aren’t playing games here.
Napolitano: 22:52 The Russians will– and they will be well grounded morally and legally– attack the places from which the missiles came, to which the missiles were delivered, at which their accelerant facilities are stored and repaired. And many Americans who are manning those facilities. Do we have any idea how many Americans are dead already? Didn’t the Russians recently attack some NATO facility, and you hear nothing– with a hundred people died– and you hear nothing about it in the West?
Ritter: 23:26 Well, I’m always a little leery of these reports about the magic Russian missile hitting an underground bunker, because there’s no reason for NATO, the United States, to hazard NATO members or American members. Remember, I talked about that safe haven. Why put 300 people into Ukraine in a bunker when you could have 300 people in Poland in a bunker that’s not going to get hit by a Russian missile and have the same connectivity?
23:51 So I always view these reports as a little suspicious, and it just makes no sense that– from a force-protection standpoint, I can’t see any American or NATO member allowing that many Americans or NATO officials to congregate in one place on Ukrainian soil, knowing that the Russians would find it and destroy it. I do believe the Russians did take out an underground facility. It’s a facility that was used by the Ukrainians. There may have been some NATO advisors or, you know, contract personnel, but the idea of 300 Americans and NATO soldiers or officials dying in one attack, I just think it’s far-fetched and just part of the fiction that often appears on social media.
Napolitano 24:40 Do you think Russia would attack Berlin, Paris, London? Russia has said they will attack Berlin, Paris, London, Brussels. Russia will attack the decision-making centers associated with any attack against Russia that Russia deems to represent an existential threat. Let’s get back to the ATACMS. The ATACMS system uses a guidance system, a GPS guidance system backed by an inertial guidance system, that requires specific information to be loaded into the system. That can only be done by an American. I’ll just repeat that one more time: that can only be done by an American.
Napolitano: It’s got to be top secret, whatever it is.
Ritter: 25:24 Now it’s not just– now we get to the next part. That information will be transmitted from collection platforms overhead satellites, drones, other ground and air-breathing intelligence collection resources. They collect data; that data goes to a center inside Poland or in Germany where that data is collated and then used to create a target, a target, you know model of data against a specific target. What target’s going to be attacked? How they’re going to attack it, with what, from where. That data then is put together into a target package which is transmitted again using top-secret, you know, communications channels that the Ukrainians don’t have access to.
26:13 So we have somebody on the ground in Ukraine receiving this package from somebody who planned it outside of Ukraine. And then they will put it into the missile and then the Ukrainians do the last part, which is to push the button and launch it. But every other aspect was done by American hands and the Russians know this. And so wherever in Europe this planning is taking place, this collation of intelligence data, this communication of targeting data, these are now legitimate targets that Russia will take out, either conventionally or, if required, using nuclear weapons.
26:49 And if the Germans are party to this, Macron needs to understand: if the Ukrainians use the French-provided Scout missiles, the same thing applies. The targeting data that goes inside can only be put in place by a French actor. There’s the missile I used to inspect, and that is a game-changer. If that’s ever used in anger, we will lose one to three American cities.
Napolitano: 27:14 Do the Russians have a missile capability that we cannot intercept or neutralize?
Ritter: Yes, pretty much every modern Russian missile is designed to evade American and NATO missile defense. On the strategic level, they have hypersonic missiles, they have maneuvering hypersonic warheads, they have similar capabilities at the tactical and let’s call it intermediate level. We can’t defend against this. And the bottom line is that the Russians launch the missiles, those missiles will hit the targets they’re aimed at. And if those targets– if those missiles have nuclear weapons, those nuclear weapons will detonate where they’re supposed to. And this will be devastating. It will be the end of Europe at a minimum, and potentially the end of the United States and the end of Russia and the end of the world.
Napolitano: 28:07 Do Biden, Blinken, Sullivan, Austin, et cetera– the president, the secretary of state, the national security advisor, the secretary of defense– understand the gravity of this moment as you’ve explained it, or are they just propagandists?
Ritter: 28:29 You know, I used to have a friend named William Polk, and I say used to, because tragically, he passed away a couple years ago. But William Polk was a man who was in the inner circle for John F. Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis. And he talks about, and he’s talked to me many times about the decision making that was going on and the role that Kennedy played in preventing a nuclear war, the maturity Kennedy had as a leader.
Part of that maturity came from when Kennedy was first briefed on what was then called the Single Integrated Operation Plan, the SIOP, the American war plan. He went to the Pentagon and they briefed him. They said, if we go to nuclear war, this is what we got. And basically, it was premised on the notion that America will be the largest surviving civilization, but in order to guarantee that, we have to kill everybody in the world.
And he came out– “That’s insane. I’m not doing that.” And he turned to his advisor, he said, and we call ourselves the human race. And he said, you have to give me options. Every president since then, or up until George W. Bush, reacted the same way. When they first got that briefing on how America plans to go to war, which is to destroy the entire world so that when the 20 to 30 percent of America that survives will be the largest remaining civilization cluster in the world, guaranteeing American global dominance in a post-nuclear conflict — insanity — they all said the same thing: insane, give me options, I can’t go to that. You can’t make me do this. You have to give me options and the Pentagon always gave them options that inevitably led to that. Since the end of the Soviet Union, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Americans have downplayed their nuclear war plan. We de-targeted our missiles. Nothing was on automatic any more. We were heading in a path of, you know, getting rid of nuclear weapons.
30:20 And then George W Bush came in a post 9-11 environment and said “We will use our nuclear weapons to ensure that a 9-11 never happens again.” And we reinserted nuclear war planning into our military doctrine. And today, we have that same mindset, that same nuclear war strategy, without the maturity of John F. Kennedy. We have people who look at the plan say “Well, that’s just a plan. We’re not really going to do that.” and they say, “The Russians are bluffing. We don’t have to worry about this.”
30:49 The problem is: the second something happens and that plan is pulled out, the dust is brushed off, and we start pushing buttons, we go to the scenario that John F. Kennedy said was insanity. Judge, we’re going to blow up the entire world, because we know that in a post-nuclear environment, we can’t allow for instance India to survive intact. Because we’re going to be reduced to 30% of our capacity. We can’t allow India to have a superior civilization in a post-nuclear conflict. We’re going to destroy the entire world. That’s what the American nuclear war plan is. And the American people need to wake up and understand: it’s on full automatic. Full automatic.
Napolitano: 31:33 I see why the State Department is afraid of you, because you speak the truth. Because you give an understanding that the government doesn’t want people to have. And a 45-year-old JFK had more maturity, understanding, and grasp of morality than an 81-year-old, barely competent, Joe Biden.
Scott, no matter what we talk about, it’s a pleasure to talk to you. You are an American treasure, as I wrote in a blurb for your forthcoming book. I mean it from all my heart. And we’ll do some battle together against the State Department. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your courage. Thank you for being you.
Ritter: 32:18 Thank you, Judge, for having me on, and I look forward to working with you down the road.
Napolitano: Of course. Wow. The rest of the afternoon is prepared for you as well. At two o’clock, Matt Ho — how can we talk about anything other than this? At 2 o’clock, Matt Ho. At 3 o’clock, Colonel Kwiatkowski. At 4 o’clock, the aforementioned Ray McGovern, who’s dying to talk about Scott Ritter. We will. Judge Napolitano for “Judging Freedom”.
In various essays over the past year, I have said time and again that in the United States citizens enjoy vastly more freedom of expression than in Europe, where I am living. The reason is found in the healthy split of voters between Trumpites and dyed in the wool Democrats, close to 50-50 among those who are politically active and will vote. Meanwhile Europe celebrates its “solidarity,” as I noted yesterday, and has zero tolerance for those who do not agree with their governments’ foreign and other policies.
Yesterday’s events at an airport in the USA shattered those illusions about American freedoms.
First there was the news that Scott Ritter, a former U.S. military intelligence officer, was pulled off his plane which, with further flight connections would have taken him to St Petersburg, Russia where he was designated as a high level invited guest and would speak at the International Economic Forum that opens tomorrow. Upon being removed from the plane, his documents were taken from him. He was eventually released but his U.S. passport was kept by officials. Clearly Scott is not headed anywhere for some time.
For those of you who have not been paying close attention to the U.S. “dissident movement,” allow me to explain that Scott Ritter has been a very active and widely listened to critic of American foreign policy, particularly as it relates to Russia and the Ukraine war. The weight of his messaging has been reinforced by his having been an insider and implementer of U.S. policies a couple of decades ago. Scott was one of the few U.S. inspectors of Iraq’s alleged programs of weapons of mass destruction. When snippets from his interviews are aired by Russian state television, they never fail to remind audiences of his past in U.S. intelligence. Following his visit to Russia a year ago to promote a book he had just published, Scott became especially warm to the Putin ‘regime,’ as they would say in Washington.
My first reaction upon hearing about this blatantly political act by the Biden Administration to knee-cap its critics and stifle free speech, was to look for an explanation in Ritter’s past military service. This viciousness of powers-that-be against one of their own sounded like what happened in Canada in the year before the onset of Covid to a very widely read and authoritative blogger, Patrick Armstrong. He was a former diplomat and had served in the Canadian embassy in Russia. Armstrong was visited by Justin Trudeau’s storm troopers who advised him to close his blog lest he lose not only his state pension but all of his savings. Patrick understood where things stood and fell silent.
However, the follow-up news on the Yandex-Dzen website regarding events in Scott Ritter’s plane yesterday is still more damaging to my vision of free speech in the U.S.A. at present. One other passenger was taken off the plane by U.S. government officials to prevent his appearing at the St Petersburg Economic Forum: Judge Andrew Napolitano.
Judge Napolitano is the moderator of the very widely watched interview program “Judging Freedom” which is disseminated on youtube as well as on the main social media. He is a very responsible and informative critic of U.S. foreign policy, as are his regular guests. He is at the higher level of intellectual discourse a peer to the journalist Tucker Carlson who caters to the hoi polloi. He also is known for defending Donald Trump’s positions on a variety of issues.
The deprivation of travel rights served on Judge Napolitano is a gross infringement of freedom of speech that the Biden administration cannot live down. All talk from the Oval Office of defending American democracy is shown through actions like these to be crass lies and utter hypocrisy.
It is a long way to the November elections, but hopefully American voters will ‘throw the bums out’ and save what is left of freedom of speech.
Redefreiheit in den Vereinigten Staaten? Denk nochmal nach!
In verschiedenen Aufsätzen habe ich im vergangenen Jahr immer wieder darauf hingewiesen, dass die Bürgerinnen und Bürger in den Vereinigten Staaten weitaus mehr Meinungsfreiheit genießen als in Europa, wo ich lebe. Der Grund dafür liegt in der gesunden Aufteilung der Wählerschaft zwischen Trump-Anhängern und eingefleischten Demokraten, die bei den politisch Aktiven und Wählern fast 50:50 beträgt. Währenddessen zelebriert Europa seine „Solidarität“, wie ich gestern feststellte, und hat null Toleranz für diejenigen, die mit der Außen- und sonstigen Politik ihrer Regierungen nicht einverstanden sind.
Die gestrigen Ereignisse auf einem Flughafen in den USA haben diese Illusionen über die amerikanischen Freiheiten erschüttert.
Zunächst wurde bekannt, dass Scott Ritter, ein ehemaliger Offizier des US-Militärgeheimdienstes, aus seinem Flugzeug geholt wurde, das ihn mit weiteren Flugverbindungen nach St. Petersburg, Russland, gebracht hätte, wo er als hochrangiger Gast eingeladen war und auf dem morgen beginnenden Internationalen Wirtschaftsforum sprechen sollte. Als er aus dem Flugzeug geholt wurde, wurden ihm seine Dokumente abgenommen. Er wurde schließlich freigelassen, aber sein amerikanischer Pass wurde von den Beamten einbehalten. Es ist klar, dass Scott für einige Zeit nirgendwo hingehen wird.
Für diejenigen unter Ihnen, die die „Dissidentenbewegung“ in den USA nicht so aufmerksam verfolgt haben, möchte ich erklären, dass Scott Ritter ein sehr aktiver und viel beachteter Kritiker der amerikanischen Außenpolitik ist, insbesondere in Bezug auf Russland und den Ukraine-Krieg. Das Gewicht seiner Botschaften wurde dadurch verstärkt, dass er vor einigen Jahrzehnten ein Insider und Umsetzer der damaligen US-Politik war. Scott war einer der wenigen US-Inspektoren für die angeblichen Massenvernichtungswaffenprogramme des Irak. Wenn Ausschnitte aus seinen Interviews vom russischen Staatsfernsehen ausgestrahlt werden, erinnern sie immer wieder an seine Vergangenheit im US-Geheimdienst. Nach seinem Besuch in Russland vor einem Jahr, bei dem er für ein gerade veröffentlichtes Buch warb, hat sich Scott besonders für das Putin-‘Regime’, wie man in Washington sagen würde, erwärmt.
Meine erste Reaktion, als ich von diesem offenkundig politischen Akt der Biden-Regierung hörte, mit dem sie ihre Kritiker in die Knie zwingen und die freie Meinungsäußerung unterdrücken will, war, eine Erklärung in Ritters früherem Militärdienst zu suchen. Diese Bösartigkeit der Machthaber gegen einen der ihren klang wie das, was in Kanada im Jahr vor dem Ausbruch des Covid einem sehr viel gelesenen und maßgeblichen Blogger, Patrick Armstrong, widerfuhr. Er war ein ehemaliger Diplomat und hatte in der kanadischen Botschaft in Russland gedient. Armstrong erhielt Besuch von Justin Trudeaus Sturmtruppen, die ihm rieten, seinen Blog zu schließen, da er sonst nicht nur seine staatliche Rente, sondern auch seine gesamten Ersparnisse verlieren würde. Patrick verstand, worum es ging, und verstummte.
Die nachfolgenden Nachrichten auf der Yandex-Dzen-Website über die gestrigen Ereignisse in Scott Ritters Flugzeug sind jedoch noch schädlicher für meine derzeitige Vorstellung von der Redefreiheit in den USA. Ein weiterer Passagier wurde von US-Regierungsbeamten aus dem Flugzeug geholt, um sein Erscheinen auf dem Wirtschaftsforum in St. Petersburg zu verhindern: Richter Andrew Napolitano.
Richter Napolitano ist der Moderator der viel beachteten Interview-Sendung „Judging Freedom“, die sowohl auf YouTube als auch in den wichtigsten sozialen Medien verbreitet wird. Er ist ein sehr verantwortungsvoller und informativer Kritiker der US-Außenpolitik, ebenso wie seine regelmäßigen Gäste. Er ist ein Mitstreiter des Journalisten Tucker Carlson, allerdings auf einem höheren Niveau des intellektuellen Diskurses als Carlson, der sich an das einfache Volk wendet. Er ist auch dafür bekannt, dass er Donald Trumps Positionen zu einer Vielzahl von Themen verteidigt.
Der Entzug von Richter Napolitanos Recht zu reisen ist ein grober Verstoß gegen die Redefreiheit, die die Regierung Biden nicht hinnehmen will. All das Gerede aus dem Oval Office über die Verteidigung der amerikanischen Demokratie erweist sich durch Aktionen wie diese als eklatante Lüge und völlige Heuchelei.
Bis zu den Wahlen im November ist es noch ein weiter Weg, aber hoffentlich werden die amerikanischen Wähler „die Penner rauswerfen“ und das retten, was von der Meinungsfreiheit noch übrig ist.
The Kremlin may rest easy: Europe is a paper tiger
Having committed to an outlay of 60 euros for a social club luncheon which was to be addressed by the Belgian minister of defense, Admiral Michel Hofman, speaking on how the ministry is preparing for what it calls ‘geopolitical evolution,’ meaning World War III, I was more than a little disappointed to learn, as we were standing by our seats awaiting our ‘at ease’ orders, that our speaker would be a no-show. Apparently he was called away to confer with colleagues in the government, and since this government has only one week to enjoy its perquisites before it is swept away by the June 9th parliamentary elections, the minister’s priorities are understandable if unforgivable from our perspective as paying guests.
Happily, however, at the initiative of the club’s president and of some attendees who have military standing, a chap from the ministry who is responsible for human resources was rushed in, had a quick bite to eat now that we all had advanced to the main course while awaiting his arrival, and then provided us all with what I am about to present below.
For obvious reasons, HR is in the spotlight now that the number one question facing this and other member states of NATO and of the EU is whether they can and will rise to the challenge of a Russian ‘imperialist menace’ and do the right thing, namely impose mandatory military service on the young and swell the ranks of their military forces. At my table, there was already a lively discussion of the socializing benefits of national service for the young, as if this issue were entirely separate from its context of a coming war that will utterly destroy the Continent.
If I may telegraph my punches, the key learning from the talk of our stand-in speaker is that there is no money to pay for masses of conscripts. Indeed, the Ministry is already struggling to cope with personnel costs that eat up between 80 and 85% of the defense budget. Belgium may have just 18,000 men in the services, but it would appear that keeping them in clothes, food and pensions is already a great burden. Moreover, given the professionalization of the armed forces in recent decades, it is estimated that it takes 18 months to bring a new recruit up to speed on the equipment he is supposed to be using on the missions of his units. Six months or even a year in uniform will not do much to make the recruits net contributors to the nation’s defense.
Yes, the Belgian military is tiny. Our admiral has under him a total of 5 mine sweepers, 2 frigates and 2 patrol boats (source: Wikipedia). For that reason the principal concern is the first from among what our speaker called the three ‘coups’ of war making – solidarity with fellow NATO members, self-defense, and facilitating the ‘arrival of the cavalry’ which means giving logistical support through the port of Antwerp to arriving forces and equipment from North America.
After all, in Belgium the second ‘coup,’ defending itself, comes down to air defense, for which it is today utterly unprepared, like all other EU member states, as we know not just from the hints of today’s speaker but from full-blown articles these past several days in The Financial Times. And as for the ‘cavalry,’ it seems that this ministry does not count on the reliability of Washington any longer.
There you have it in a nutshell: Belgium cannot and will not increase its armed forces; and Belgium is wholly committed to solidarity with its NATO confrères for the simple reason that it has no independent military capabilities. Indeed, as our speaker noted, one of the most positive consequences of the Ukraine-Russia war has been to drive solidarity among NATO members to new heights. This can only be to Belgium’s benefit.
Or can it?
Usually in luncheons like this, we have a fairly generous time allotted to Q&A, but today we were running late by the time we reached desert and the microphone was given to only person. By the luck of being seated close to the dais and of being quickest to raise my hand, that person was me.
And so I posed my question: is solidarity really so fine when the policy of NATO is to issue ever more provocations to the Russians, to pose what they consider to be existential threats, including the shipment of F16s to Ukraine and the latest decision to ‘free the hands of Kiev’ to use the long range missiles being provided to it by the US, by the UK, by France to strike deep into the Russian heartland. If NATO member states are not prepared today physically and morally to enter into a direct, frontal war with Russia then why are we doing this?
Dear readers, you will not be surprised to hear that I got no answer to my question worth repeating.
Der Kreml kann beruhigt sein: Europa ist ein Papiertiger
Nachdem ich 60 Euro für ein Mittagessen im Social Club ausgegeben hatte, bei dem der belgische Verteidigungsminister, Admiral Michel Hofman, darüber sprechen sollte, wie sich das Ministerium auf das vorbereitet, was es „geopolitische Evolution“ nennt, d.h. den Dritten Weltkrieg, war ich mehr als nur ein wenig enttäuscht, als wir an unseren Plätzen standen und auf unsere „Rühren“-Befehle warteten und erfuhren, dass unser Redner nicht anwesend sein würde. Offenbar wurde er zu einer Besprechung mit Regierungskollegen abberufen, und da diese Regierung nur noch eine Woche Zeit hat, ihre Pfründe zu genießen, bevor sie durch die Parlamentswahlen am 9. Juni hinweggefegt wird, sind die Prioritäten des Ministers verständlich, wenn auch aus unserer Sicht als zahlende Gäste unverzeihlich.
Glücklicherweise wurde jedoch auf Initiative des Präsidenten des Clubs und einiger Teilnehmer mit militärischem Hintergrund ein Mitarbeiter des Ministeriums, der für das Personalwesen zuständig ist, herbeigeeilt, nahm einen kleinen Happen zu sich, nachdem wir alle in Erwartung seiner Ankunft zum Hauptgang übergegangen waren, und versorgte uns dann alle mit dem, was ich im Folgenden darlegen werde.
Aus offensichtlichen Gründen steht HR jetzt im Rampenlicht, da die wichtigste Frage für dieses und andere Mitgliedstaaten der NATO und der EU darin besteht, ob sie sich der Herausforderung einer russischen „imperialistischen Bedrohung“ stellen können und wollen und das Richtige tun, nämlich die Wehrpflicht für die Jugend einzuführen und die Reihen ihrer Streitkräfte aufzustocken. An meinem Tisch wurde bereits eine lebhafte Diskussion über die sozialisierenden Vorteile des Wehrdienstes für die Jugend geführt, als ob diese Frage völlig unabhängig von ihrem Kontext eines kommenden Krieges wäre, der den Kontinent völlig zerstören wird.
Die wichtigste Erkenntnis aus dem Vortrag unseres Ersatzredners ist, wenn ich das mal so sagen darf, dass es kein Geld gibt, um Massen von Wehrpflichtigen zu bezahlen. Das Ministerium kämpft schon jetzt mit den Personalkosten, die zwischen 80 % und 85 % des Verteidigungshaushalts verschlingen. Belgien hat zwar nur 18.000 Mann in den Streitkräften, aber es scheint, dass die Versorgung dieser Männer mit Kleidung, Lebensmitteln und Renten bereits eine große Belastung darstellt. Angesichts der Professionalisierung der Streitkräfte in den letzten Jahrzehnten dauert es schätzungsweise 18 Monate, um einen neuen Rekruten mit der Ausrüstung vertraut zu machen, die er bei den Einsätzen seiner Einheit verwenden soll. Sechs Monate oder sogar ein Jahr in Uniform werden nicht viel dazu beitragen, dass die Rekruten einen Nettobeitrag zur Verteidigung der Nation leisten.
Ja, das belgische Militär ist winzig. Unser Admiral hat insgesamt 5 Minensuchboote, 2 Fregatten und 2 Patrouillenboote unter sich (Quelle: Wikipedia). Aus diesem Grund gilt die Hauptsorge dem ersten der drei „Coups“ der Kriegsführung, wie unser Redner sie nannte: Solidarität mit den anderen NATO-Mitgliedern, Selbstverteidigung und Vorbereitung der „Ankunft der Kavallerie“, d.h. logistische Unterstützung für ankommende Truppen und Ausrüstung aus Nordamerika über den Hafen von Antwerpen.
Schließlich läuft der zweite „Coup“, die Selbstverteidigung, in Belgien auf die Luftverteidigung hinaus, auf die das Land, wie alle anderen EU-Mitgliedstaaten, heute völlig unvorbereitet ist, wie wir nicht nur aus den Andeutungen des heutigen Redners, sondern auch aus den ausführlichen Artikeln der letzten Tage in der Financial Times wissen. Und was die ‘Kavallerie’ angeht, so scheint dieses Ministerium nicht mehr auf die Zuverlässigkeit Washingtons zu zählen.
Das ist die Quintessenz: Belgien kann und will seine Streitkräfte nicht aufstocken, und Belgien ist aus dem einfachen Grund, dass es über keine eigenständigen militärischen Fähigkeiten verfügt, voll und ganz der Solidarität mit seinen NATO-Mitstreitern verpflichtet. Wie unser Redner feststellte, besteht eine der positivsten Folgen des Krieges zwischen der Ukraine und Russland darin, dass die Solidarität unter den NATO-Mitgliedern auf ein neues Niveau gehoben wurde. Dies kann nur zum Vorteil Belgiens sein.
Oder doch nicht?
Normalerweise haben wir bei solchen Mittagessen eine ziemlich großzügige Zeit für Fragen und Antworten, aber heute waren wir schon spät dran, als wir den Nachtisch erreichten, und das Mikrofon wurde nur einer Person gegeben. Ich hatte das Glück, in der Nähe des Podiums zu sitzen und meine Hand am schnellsten zu heben, und das war ich.
Und so stellte ich meine Frage: Ist Solidarität wirklich so gut, wenn die Politik der NATO darin besteht, die Russen immer weiter zu provozieren und ihnen das vorzusetzen, was sie als existenzielle Bedrohung ansehen, einschließlich der Lieferung von F16-Kampfflugzeugen an die Ukraine und der jüngsten Entscheidung, „Kiew die Hände frei zu machen“, damit es die Langstreckenraketen einsetzen kann, die ihm von den USA, dem Vereinigten Königreich und Frankreich zur Verfügung gestellt werden, um tief in das russische Kernland einzudringen. Wenn die NATO-Mitgliedstaaten heute physisch und moralisch nicht bereit sind, in einen direkten, frontalen Krieg mit Russland einzutreten, warum tun wir es dann?
Liebe Leserinnen und Leser, es wird Sie nicht überraschen, dass ich keine Antwort auf meine Frage erhalten habe, die es wert wäre, wiederholt zu werden.
As readers of these pages know full well, the world is going to hell as daily escalations in the Ukraine conflict bring us ever closer to Armageddon, at which point this Newsletter, and not only this Newsletter, will be toast, as they say.
Nonetheless, in spite of it all, in a small country called Belgium tradition elbowed out the concerns of geopolitical news for the month or so that the initial, semi-final and finals of the 2024 Queen Elisabeth International Music Competition have been held, with the six days of the finals televised, radio disseminated and featured on the first pages of Belgian newspapers.
The Belgian queen who is by tradition the patron of the competition sat in the royal box each evening accompanied either by her husband, King Philippe, or her 16 year old daughter Eléanor or by another close relative. The audience in this bitterly divided country – divided between Flemings and Walloons, between monarchists and republicans – rose as one at the entrance and departure of the royals from the hall. The Competition, alongside the national debt, is clearly an important contributing adhesive binding this country together.
In what follows, I will introduce readers to some relevant historical notes about the Competition, say something about the quality of this year’s competitors, which was extraordinarily high, and conclude with remarks on how and where international geopolitics finally and conclusively intruded even here on this inner sanctum of culture when the candidate from Ukraine, Dmytro Udovychenko was awarded first prize last night
*****
But first, before moving on, I will be forthright and say that from the very beginning I was curious to see how the national identities of the candidates in this competition would play out given the highly politicized atmosphere of the day, when Europe contemplates entering into full-blown war with Russia.
Indeed, considering the results of the initial round before the public that narrowed the competition to 12 semifinalists, I was prepared to write an essay on that very subject a week ago when both Russian candidates still in the running, Dmitry Smirnov and Leonid Zhelezny, whose performances I heard, were not selected while candidates flying the flag of Kazakhstan (Ruslan Talas ) and of Ukraine (Dmytro Udovychenko) advanced to the final round. Given the superior musicianship of Smirnov, in particular, which I will explain in a moment, at first impression it seemed that the kind of ‘de-colonization’ of Russia that social scientists at Columbia and other American universities dream about was being realized here in little Belgium.
However, upon doing some investigation in web search about Smirnov, after hearing a fellow candidate whom I by chance encountered at a brasserie accompanied by a member of his Belgian host family call Smirnov’s behavior inside the competition ‘ridiculous’ for reasons I will not go into here, I concluded then that my first thoughts were unjustified, and that Smirnov at age 30 was simply too old and too set in his eccentric ways to go through to the finals: his best days had been in 2007 and 2008, when he won a number of international prizes. Both he and Zhelezny were between 5 and 8 years older than other candidates.
This was a disappointing reality, because in the round where I heard him, Smirnov was the only candidate who had managed to perform from memory the required new piece of music for recital while the others played from scores, and he was the only one to turn the notes into real, high quality music, where others were stymied but nonetheless were passed through.
****
The reason for my giving a bit of history of the Queen Elisabeth Music Competition below is not arbitrary. I do so because this history is closely linked to Russia and Russians. The first laureate of the first violin competition (1937) happened to be David Oistrakh. The first winner of the first piano competition (1938) was Emil Gilels. And so it continued for decades that Soviet (Russian) candidates were a major presence in the competition all the way through to finalists.
My personal experience of this was my acquaintance in Brussels in the 1990s with the 1967 first prize winner, violinist Philippe Hirschhorn, who came from Riga and completed his advanced studies in the Leningrad (now St Petersburg) Conservatory.
If you go to the search box of youtube.com and enter his name, you can hear his performance of the ‘Sauret’ cadenza from the Paganini Concerto No. 1 that clinched his victory in 1967. Hirschhorn turned into spirited and brilliant music what had for generations been considered by most musicians as just a very, very difficult set of exercises.
In 1967, Philippe came in first, and fellow candidate from Riga, Gidon Kremer, whom many of you will know well, came in second. Kremer went on to make a brilliant career. He gives concerts. He has his own Kremerata Baltica ensemble. Philippe, sadly, had a mediocre career as soloist on the international stage. He was most successful in Japan and Australia, less so in Europe, where he became a teacher, and not at all successful in the United States. He had been intimidated in the USSR by the Party interference in music making: if you crossed them, your concert venues would be set in Eastern Siberia. And so he emigrated three years after the Competition, but then found that in the West there are other goal keepers. In his case, his future was condemned when he refused to take instructions from Isaac Stern, who dominated entirely the American musical world for violin for several decades, and left his temporary refuge in Israel, which Stern insisted upon, to settle in Belgium.
I mention Philippe here, because friendship with him was the closest I have ever come to living genius, and it gave me a good insight into what makes first class musicians, both in the positive and in the negative senses.
If I may return to my main ‘historical’ narrative, the oversized role of Russian musicians in the Queen Elisabeth competition came to an end in the 1990s when, amidst the economic and political chaos of the Yeltsin years, many musicians, including many professors from the conservatories emigrated abroad. In this very time we witnessed the Rise of the East, as each year there was an ever greater influx of young Asian musicians to compete for global and Belgian musical awards.
That trend has continued unabated up to the present day. Apart from the two Russians who never made it to the semifinals, let alone the finals, the only trace of past Russian glory in this year’s competition was the presence on the 12-man jury of Vadim Repin, the great Russian violinist and 1989 Queen Elisabeth first prize winner at the then youngest ever age of 17.
But whereas Koreans, Chinese, Japanese were unimpressive in the 1990s, shall we say too ‘correct,’ too ‘impersonal’ to be true soloists and to be interesting for the concert going public, what we saw these past weeks was a wholly different story. Out of the 12 finalists this year, 10 are of Asian derivation even if 4 of them fly the flag of their adopted country (USA), and they all are superb, mature musicians with highly individual personalities and approaches to the compositions.
As a further word of praise for these candidates, I hasten to add that from their interviews given to journalists attached to the Competition and aired on Belgium’s Channel Three, it is very pleasant to see that among them there are true humanists. Their profound appreciation of the human condition, of our emotions as written into the structure of musical compositions is a stern rebuke to those who think music is amoral or neutral.
This year’s violin competition also hammered home the conclusion that the United States has become the leading training center for the world’s best young talent in classical music. Most of the Queen Elisabeth finalists have studied at the Julliard, the Curtis School or the New England School of Music.
*****
When the jury delivered its verdict just after midnight last night, first prize went to a Ukrainian whose training abroad has been in Germany. Perhaps that is just a detail. More to the point, by my estimation he was not the best among the 12 or even second best. His rendition of the imposed piece fell flat and his rendition of the Shostakovich violin concerto was less personal and less intense than that of at least one of the three others who chose Shostakovich for their night on stage.
How can this choice be explained if not for the fact that politics trumps merit and prospects for a concert career among the jury and among the audience in the hall, which is also heavily tilted towards the social elites. Vdovychenko got a standing ovation from the hall. But so did the number two designated by the jury, the American Joshua Brown, and Brown, whose performance of the Brahms concerto was fabulous, is the one who carried off the Public Prize, which is based on call-in voting from the general public outside the hall, which may be assumed to be less upper crust.
I close these observations with the remark that if politics may have been a major consideration of the jury, it was not a consideration of the contestants in general and of Mr. Vdovychenko in particular.
In his televised interview he says openly that as an adolescent he adored Tchaikowsky, and he chose precisely a Tchaikowski piece for the recital part of the selection process. For the final round, he chose the Shostakovich concerto, and it was most interesting to hear his response to a question about his choice of that Russian composer from the journalists who interviewed him just after he performed. Vdovychenko said that the tragic opening movement of the piece and the successive movements which appear to be one’s struggle with life’s adversities leading to a happier times seemed appropriate for this day and age. Without saying it, he surely was referring to his nation’s tragedy. Very clever and persuasive. No ‘cancel culture,’ ‘cancel Russia’ on Mr. Vdovychenko’s mind.
At the same time, backchannels tell me that in the end, Vdovychenko refused to shake the hand of jury member Vadim Repin. As I say, geopolitics intrudes and intrudes everywhere.
By the way, Mr. Vdovychenko’s home town for the past three years is Essen, in Germany, not Kiev or Kharkov, where he first studied violin. We may say that in reality his homeland is the world, whatever flag of convenience he flies here and there.
Wer fiedelt, während Rom brennt? Der Internationale Königin-Elisabeth-Musikwettbewerb in Belgien sagt es uns
Wie die Leserinnen und Leser dieser Seiten sehr wohl wissen, geht die Welt zum Teufel, denn die tägliche Eskalation des Ukraine-Konflikts bringt uns dem Armageddon immer näher, und an diesem Punkt wird dieser Newsletter, und nicht nur dieser, zu Ende sein, wie man so sagt.
Trotz alledem hat in einem kleinen Land namens Belgien die Tradition die geopolitischen Nachrichten für etwa einen Monat verdrängt, in dem die Vorrunde, das Halbfinale und das Finale des Internationalen Musikwettbewerbs Königin Elisabeth 2024 stattfanden, wobei die sechs Tage des Finales im Fernsehen und im Radio übertragen wurden und auf den ersten Seiten der belgischen Zeitungen erschienen.
Die belgische Königin, die traditionell die Schirmherrin des Wettbewerbs ist, saß jeden Abend in der königlichen Loge, entweder in Begleitung ihres Mannes, König Philippe, oder ihrer 16-jährigen Tochter Eléanor oder eines anderen engen Verwandten. Das Publikum in diesem bitter gespaltenen Land – zwischen Flamen und Wallonen, zwischen Monarchisten und Republikanern – erhob sich geschlossen beim Einzug und beim Verlassen des Saals durch die Royals. Der Wettbewerb ist neben der Staatsverschuldung eindeutig ein wichtiges Bindemittel, das dieses Land zusammenhält.
Im Folgenden möchte ich den Leserinnen und Lesern einige relevante historische Anmerkungen zum Wettbewerb machen, etwas über die Qualität der diesjährigen Teilnehmer sagen, die außerordentlich hoch war, und mit Bemerkungen darüber schließen, wie und wo die internationale Geopolitik schließlich und endgültig auch hier in dieses Allerheiligste der Kultur eingedrungen ist, als der Kandidat aus der Ukraine, Dmytro Udovychenko, gestern Abend den ersten Preis erhielt.
*****
Doch bevor ich fortfahre, möchte ich ganz offen sagen, dass ich von Anfang an neugierig darauf war, wie sich die nationalen Identitäten der Kandidaten in diesem Wettbewerb angesichts der hochgradig politisierten Atmosphäre des Tages, an dem Europa den Eintritt in einen ausgewachsenen Krieg mit Russland in Erwägung zieht, entwickeln würden.
In Anbetracht der Ergebnisse der ersten Runde vor Publikum, die den Wettbewerb auf 12 Halbfinalisten reduzierte, war ich sogar bereit, vor einer Woche einen Aufsatz zu diesem Thema zu schreiben, als die beiden russischen Kandidaten, die noch im Rennen waren, Dmitry Smirnov und Leonid Zhelezny, deren Darbietungen ich gehört habe, nicht ausgewählt wurden, während Kandidaten unter der Flagge Kasachstans (Ruslan Talas ) und der Ukraine (Dmytro Udovychenko) in die Endrunde kamen. Angesichts der überragenden musikalischen Fähigkeiten insbesondere von Smirnov, die ich gleich erläutern werde, schien es auf den ersten Blick so, als ob die Art von „Entkolonialisierung“ Russlands, von der Sozialwissenschaftler an der Columbia und anderen amerikanischen Universitäten träumen, hier im kleinen Belgien verwirklicht würde.
Nachdem ich jedoch einige Nachforschungen im Internet über Smirnov angestellt hatte, und nachdem ich gehört hatte, wie ein anderer Kandidat, den ich zufällig in einer Brasserie in Begleitung eines Mitglieds seiner belgischen Gastfamilie getroffen hatte, Smirnovs Verhalten während des Wettbewerbs aus Gründen, die ich hier nicht näher erläutern möchte, als „lächerlich“ bezeichnete, kam ich zu dem Schluss, dass meine ersten Gedanken ungerechtfertigt waren und dass Smirnov im Alter von 30 Jahren einfach zu alt und zu sehr in seinen exzentrischen Gewohnheiten verhaftet war, um es bis zur Endrunde zu schaffen: Seine besten Zeiten waren 2007 und 2008, als er eine Reihe von internationalen Preisen gewann. Sowohl er als auch Zhelezny waren zwischen 5 und 8 Jahre älter als die anderen Kandidaten.
Dies war eine enttäuschende Tatsache, denn in der Runde, in der ich ihn hörte, war Smirnov der einzige Kandidat, der es geschafft hatte, das für den Vortrag geforderte neue Musikstück auswendig zu spielen, während die anderen aus Partituren spielten, und er war der einzige, der die Noten in echte, qualitativ hochwertige Musik umwandelte, während die anderen nicht brillierten, aber trotzdem durchkamen.
****
Der Grund, warum ich im Folgenden ein wenig über die Geschichte des Königin-Elisabeth-Musikwettbewerbs erzähle, ist nicht willkürlich. Ich tue dies, weil diese Geschichte eng mit Russland und den Russen verbunden ist. Der erste Preisträger des ersten Violinwettbewerbs (1937) war zufällig David Oistrakh. Der erste Preisträger des ersten Klavierwettbewerbs (1938) war Emil Gilels. Und so setzte sich über Jahrzehnte hinweg fort, dass sowjetische (russische) Kandidaten bei den Wettbewerben bis hin zu den Finalisten eine wichtige Rolle spielten.
Meine persönliche Erfahrung damit war meine Bekanntschaft in Brüssel in den 1990er Jahren mit dem ersten Preisträger von 1967, dem Geiger Philippe Hirschhorn, der aus Riga stammte und sein Studium am Leningrader (heute St. Petersburger) Konservatorium absolvierte.
Wenn Sie in das Suchfeld von youtube.com seinen Namen eingeben, können Sie seine Darbietung der „Sauret“-Kadenz aus dem Paganini-Konzert Nr. 1 hören, die ihm 1967 den Sieg einbrachte. Hirschhorn verwandelte das, was über Generationen hinweg von den meisten Musikern nur als eine sehr, sehr schwierige Reihe von Übungen angesehen wurde, in temperamentvolle und brillante Musik.
Im Jahr 1967 belegte Philippe den ersten Platz, während sein Kollege aus Riga, Gidon Kremer, den viele von Ihnen gut kennen, den zweiten Platz belegte. Kremer hat eine glänzende Karriere hingelegt. Er gibt Konzerte. Er hat sein eigenes Ensemble Kremerata Baltica. Philippe hatte leider eine mittelmäßige Karriere als Solist auf der internationalen Bühne. Am erfolgreichsten war er in Japan und Australien, weniger erfolgreich in Europa, wo er Lehrer wurde, und überhaupt nicht erfolgreich in den Vereinigten Staaten. In der UdSSR war er durch die Einmischung der Partei in das Musikgeschehen eingeschüchtert worden: Wer die Partei verärgerte, musste seine Konzerte in Ostsibirien veranstalten. Und so wanderte er drei Jahre nach dem Wettbewerb aus, musste dann aber feststellen, dass es im Westen andere Torhüter gibt. In seinem Fall war seine Zukunft verdammt, als er sich weigerte, Anweisungen von Isaac Stern anzunehmen, der mehrere Jahrzehnte lang die amerikanische Musikwelt im Bereich der Violine vollständig beherrschte, und seine vorübergehende Zuflucht in Israel, auf die Stern bestand, verließ, um sich in Belgien niederzulassen.
Ich erwähne Philippe hier, weil die Freundschaft mit ihm dem lebenden Genie am nächsten kam und mir einen guten Einblick in das gab, was erstklassige Musiker ausmacht, sowohl im positiven als auch im negativen Sinne.
Wenn ich zu meiner wichtigsten „historischen“ Erzählung zurückkehren darf: Die übergroße Rolle russischer Musiker beim Königin-Elisabeth-Wettbewerb endete in den 1990er Jahren, als inmitten des wirtschaftlichen und politischen Chaos der Jelzin-Jahre viele Musiker, darunter viele Professoren der Konservatorien, ins Ausland auswanderten. In dieser Zeit erlebten wir den Aufstieg des Ostens, denn jedes Jahr gab es einen immer größeren Zustrom junger asiatischer Musiker, die sich um globale und belgische Musikpreise bewarben.
Dieser Trend hat sich bis heute ungebrochen fortgesetzt. Abgesehen von den beiden Russen, die es nie ins Halbfinale, geschweige denn ins Finale schafften, war die einzige Spur vergangenen russischen Ruhms beim diesjährigen Wettbewerb die Anwesenheit von Vadim Repin in der 12-köpfigen Jury, dem großen russischen Geiger und Gewinner des ersten Preises der Königin Elisabeth von 1989 im damals jüngsten Alter von 17 Jahren.
Aber während die Koreaner, Chinesen und Japaner in den 1990er Jahren wenig beeindruckend waren, zu „korrekt“, zu „unpersönlich“, um echte Solisten zu sein und für das Konzertpublikum interessant zu sein, war das, was wir in den letzten Wochen gesehen haben, etwas ganz anderes. Von den 12 Finalisten in diesem Jahr sind 10 asiatischer Herkunft, auch wenn 4 von ihnen unter der Flagge ihrer Wahlheimat (USA) auftreten, und sie alle sind hervorragende, reife Musiker mit höchst individuellen Persönlichkeiten und Herangehensweisen an die Kompositionen.
Als weiteres Lob für diese Kandidaten möchte ich hinzufügen, dass aus den Interviews, die sie den mit dem Wettbewerb verbundenen Journalisten gegeben haben und die auf dem belgischen Kanal 3 ausgestrahlt wurden, hervorgeht, dass es unter ihnen echte Humanisten gibt. Ihre tiefe Wertschätzung des menschlichen Daseins, unserer Emotionen, die in der Struktur der musikalischen Kompositionen verankert sind, ist eine strenge Rüge für diejenigen, die meinen, Musik sei amoralisch oder neutral.
Der diesjährige Violinwettbewerb hat auch deutlich gemacht, dass die Vereinigten Staaten zum führenden Ausbildungszentrum für die besten jungen Talente der Welt in der klassischen Musik geworden sind. Die meisten der Queen-Elisabeth-Finalisten haben an der Julliard, der Curtis School oder der New England School of Music studiert.
*****
Als die Jury gestern Abend kurz nach Mitternacht ihr Urteil verkündete, ging der erste Preis an einen Ukrainer, der seine Ausbildung in Deutschland absolviert hat. Vielleicht ist das nur ein Detail. Meiner Einschätzung nach war er nicht der Beste unter den 12, nicht einmal der Zweitbeste. Seine Interpretation des aufgezwungenen Stücks fiel flach aus und seine Wiedergabe des Schostakowitsch-Violinkonzerts war weniger persönlich und weniger intensiv als die von mindestens einem der drei anderen, die Schostakowitsch für ihren Abend auf der Bühne gewählt hatten.
Wie ließe sich diese Wahl erklären, wenn nicht durch die Tatsache, dass die Politik bei der Jury und beim Publikum im Saal, das ebenfalls stark auf die gesellschaftlichen Eliten ausgerichtet ist, Verdienste und Aussichten auf eine Konzertkarriere übertrumpft. Vdovychenko wurde vom Saal mit stehenden Ovationen bedacht. Aber auch die von der Jury bestimmte Nummer zwei, der Amerikaner Joshua Brown, und Brown, dessen Darbietung des Brahms-Konzerts fabelhaft war, ist derjenige, der den Publikumspreis gewann, der auf der Abstimmung des Publikums außerhalb des Saals beruht, von dem man annehmen kann, dass es weniger aus der Oberschicht stammt.
Ich schließe diese Beobachtungen mit der Bemerkung, dass die Politik zwar ein wichtiger Gesichtspunkt für die Jury gewesen sein mag, aber nicht für die Kandidaten im Allgemeinen und für Herrn Vdovychenko im Besonderen.
In seinem Fernsehinterview sagt er offen, dass er als Jugendlicher Tschaikowsky verehrte, und er wählte genau ein Stück von Tschaikowsky für den Vortragsteil des Auswahlverfahrens. Für die Endrunde wählte er das Schostakowitsch-Konzert, und es war höchst interessant zu hören, wie er auf die Frage der Journalisten, die ihn unmittelbar nach seinem Auftritt interviewten, nach seiner Wahl dieses russischen Komponisten antwortete. Vdovychenko sagte, dass der tragische Eröffnungssatz des Werks und die darauf folgenden Sätze, die den Kampf des Menschen mit den Widrigkeiten des Lebens zu beschreiben scheinen und zu einer glücklicheren Zeit führen, für die heutige Zeit angemessen erscheinen. Ohne es auszusprechen, bezog er sich dabei sicherlich auf die Tragödie seines Landes. Sehr klug und überzeugend. Herr Vdovychenko hat nicht vor, „die Kultur abzuschaffen“ oder „Russland abzuschaffen“.
Gleichzeitig erfahre ich über Hintertürchen, dass Vdovychenko sich am Ende weigerte, die Hand des Jurymitglieds Vadim Repin zu schütteln. Wie gesagt, die Geopolitik mischt sich ein und mischt sich überall ein.
Übrigens ist die Heimatstadt von Herrn Vdovychenko seit drei Jahren Essen in Deutschland, nicht Kiew oder Charkow, wo er zuerst Geige studiert hat. Man kann sagen, dass seine Heimat in Wirklichkeit die Welt ist, egal unter welcher Flagge der Bequemlichkeit er hier und dort segelt.
Ladies and gentlemen, let me open this discussion with an out-of-the-box explanation as to why Russia appears to be laid back over the destruction of one of its early warning radar installations in the south of the country and undetermined damage to another during the past week. This, while the Western mainstream media speak of severe impairment to Russia’s defenses and some military experts in the USA publish denunciations of the Biden administration for exposing the country to nuclear attack from Russia caused by false positives on their monitors that arise in the final minutes of a supposed attack due to the absence of suitable ground radar to double check what the inadequate Russian satellite warning system tells them.
The fundamental issue, as I see it, was flagged long ago when President Putin said that Russia responds in an asymmetric manner to whatever challenges the US and allied militaries present. Washington pulled out of the treaty on ABMs under George W. Bush thereby undermining the foundations of nuclear deterrence and the Russians then headed off in their own direction to find and implement a devastating counter-measure.
As it turns out, Russia’s IT geniuses who went abroad in the Yeltsin years to set up Google and other wonderful and powerful corporations in Silicon Valley serving primarily the consumer sector did not drain Russia of its brainpower. Indeed, more than enough patriotic IT geniuses remained in country to provide Mr. Putin and the country at large with an adequate talent pool to engineer and produce what, 22 years later, we recognize as world-beating Russian defense systems.
No one in the West talks about the implications of what the Russians have developed and in particular what it means in the present context of concern that the poor, blinded Russians do not get early warning of a nuclear attack. Let me say it out loud: the Russians have first nuclear strike capability thanks to their newly introduced Sarmat missiles carrying smaller, unstoppable hypersonic missiles as payload. A fully loaded Sarmat can level to the ground a country the size of the UK; several of them can fairly well erase the USA from the map. In addition the Russians have short to medium range hypersonic missiles that can be launched from frigates 400 km off America’s shores. And they are working on a nuclear torpedo (Poseidon) that alone can take out entire cities in the tsunamis they create.
What this means is that there is a good probability that when push comes to shove, when their intelligence reports the concentration of nuclear cruise and ballistic armed US submarines in the Arabian Gulf for example, when their satellites tell them about missile concentrations in Western, Central and Eastern Europe that have an ominous message, they will threaten and possibly carry out a devastating first strike against the USA, which as they say openly, is the puppet master not only in Ukraine but in all of Western Europe.
The second argument for not looking down our noses at the Russian military for failing to have an equivalent to the US global missile launch detection capability is the investment the Russians have made in building their own version of Iron Domes to protect major cities, and presumably, major military infrastructure from U.S. nuclear attack.
Two days ago I understood what that means when listening to Great Game host Vyacheslav Nikonov talk about the attacks the day before (29 May) using U.S. ATACMS long range missiles fired from Ukraine against the area of the Kerch bridge and other targets deep in Russia.
[see a transcript of this segment below, following the German translation]
Note that these attacks took place a day before President Biden officially announced U.S. acquiescence in Kiev’s intentions to strike inside Russia. The Biden team gave assurances that the weapons would be used exclusively against militarily valuable targets. The Kerch bridge to Crimea, of course, is now purely civilian infrastructure given that all Russian military deliveries to the front have long been redirected to land-based rail lines running parallel to the Sea of Azov that the Russians have expanded over the past year.
The point made by Nikonov is that all of these missiles were shot down by Russian air defense systems. An invited expert informed the audience that the American missiles have their weak spots which the Russians are exploring and exploiting to destroy them in the air.
This does not mean that Russian air defense is 100% reliable. But it means that as regards missiles of all kinds it does a great job. That contrasts, of course, with defense against the much harder to find smaller and more maneuverable incoming drones, which were the weapon of choice in the Ukrainian attack on Russian radar installations. But drones do not destroy cities and kill hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. Missiles do that.
On the same day, 4 – 6 unmanned British cutters valued at 6 million dollars each which were sent against Russian Black Sea vessels were destroyed by the Russian side.
These latest U.S. and British guided attacks were said to be proof that the U.S. led West now understands perfectly well that Ukraine is facing defeat and are doing what they can to raise the stakes. The F16s soon to be introduced into the conflict will be another major escalation by the West. They will be treated by Russia as a NATO nuclear armed task force to contain Russia. The French led effort to put together a coalition of providers of instructors on the ground in Ukraine is still another dimension of the very dangerous ongoing escalation.
Note: Nikonov and his panelists discussed these existential threats in calm and deliberate manner. None is certain how the Kremlin will respond to a successful attack nominally delivered by Ukraine but de facto Western-guided. Perhaps there will be a massive Russian attack made on the city of Kiev.
*****
I truly wonder what is the benefit of having a 15 minute advance warning of an incoming missile attack if, as is 100% certain, an automatic ‘Dead Hand’ launch has already been scripted. Moreover, what would be the sense of lifting the handset of a Red Phone to Washington to speak to….whom? Biden, Sullivan or any other of the liars and card cheats who populate the top echelons of the federal government? Not a trustworthy person among them with whom you would risk the fate of your nation.
The overriding message I wish to convey is that Americans have forgotten their old folk wisdom that “there are many different ways to skin a cat.” Experts in America’s dissident underground can be just as unwilling to comprehend that Russians are not weak and stupid as American generals and their minions in the press were saying when they denounced Russia’s opening moves in its Special Military Operation for failing to do what America does in such instances: use a Shock and Awe campaign to murder everyone and destroy everything in its path.
Erstschlagfähig: Warum es Russland gleichgültig ist, ob die eine oder andere bodengestützte Radaranlage beschädigt wird
Meine Damen und Herren, lassen Sie mich diese Diskussion mit einer unkonventionellen Erklärung dafür beginnen, warum Russland sich nach der Zerstörung einer seiner Frühwarnradaranlagen im Süden des Landes und der unbestimmten Beschädigung einer weiteren Anlage in der vergangenen Woche offenbar zurückhält. Dies, während die westlichen Mainstream-Medien von einer schwerwiegenden Beeinträchtigung der russischen Verteidigung sprechen und einige Militärexperten in den USA die Regierung Biden dafür anprangern, dass sie das Land einem nuklearen Angriff aus Russland aussetzt, weil ihre Monitore in den letzten Minuten eines vermeintlichen Angriffs falsch positive Signale anzeigen, weil es kein geeignetes Bodenradar gibt, um zu überprüfen, was das unzureichende russische Satellitenwarnsystem sagt.
Das grundsätzliche Problem wurde meines Erachtens schon vor langer Zeit angesprochen, als Präsident Putin sagte, dass Russland auf alle Herausforderungen, die die USA und die verbündeten Streitkräfte darstellen, asymmetrisch reagiert. Als Washington unter George W. Bush aus dem ABM-Vertrag ausstieg und damit die Grundlagen der nuklearen Abschreckung untergrub, machten sich die Russen auf den Weg, um eine verheerende Gegenmaßnahme zu finden und umzusetzen.
Wie sich herausstellt, haben die russischen IT-Genies, die in den Jelzin-Jahren ins Ausland gingen, um Google und andere wunderbare und mächtige Unternehmen im Silicon Valley zu gründen, die vor allem dem Verbrauchersektor dienen, Russland nicht um seine Intelligenz gebracht. Tatsächlich blieben mehr als genug patriotische IT-Genies im Lande, um Herrn Putin und das Land insgesamt mit einem angemessenen Talentpool zu versorgen, um das zu entwickeln und zu produzieren, was wir 22 Jahre später als weltbeste russische Verteidigungssysteme anerkennen.
Niemand im Westen spricht über die Auswirkungen dessen, was die Russen entwickelt haben, und insbesondere darüber, was es im gegenwärtigen Kontext der Sorge bedeutet, dass die armen, verblendeten Russen keine Frühwarnung vor einem Atomangriff erhalten. Lassen Sie es mich laut sagen: Die Russen sind dank ihrer neu eingeführten Sarmat-Raketen, die kleinere, unaufhaltsame Hyperschallraketen als Nutzlast tragen, zum nuklearen Erstschlag fähig. Eine voll beladene Sarmat kann ein Land von der Größe des Vereinigten Königreichs dem Erdboden gleichmachen; mehrere Sarmat-Raketen können die USA ziemlich sicher von der Landkarte tilgen. Darüber hinaus verfügen die Russen über Hyperschallraketen mit kurzer bis mittlerer Reichweite, die von Fregatten 400 km vor Amerikas Küsten gestartet werden können. Und sie arbeiten an einem Atomtorpedo (Poseidon), der allein durch die von ihm ausgelösten Tsunamis ganze Städte auslöschen kann.
Das bedeutet, dass die Wahrscheinlichkeit groß ist, dass die Russen, wenn es hart auf hart kommt, wenn ihre Geheimdienste beispielsweise die Konzentration von atomar bewaffneten Kreuzfahrt- und ballistischen US-U-Booten im Arabischen Golf melden, wenn ihre Satelliten sie über Raketenkonzentrationen in West-, Mittel- und Osteuropa informieren, die eine unheilvolle Botschaft enthalten, mit einem verheerenden Erstschlag gegen die USA drohen und diesen möglicherweise auch durchführen werden, die, wie sie offen sagen, nicht nur in der Ukraine, sondern in ganz Westeuropa der Marionettenspieler sind.
Das zweite Argument dafür, dass wir das russische Militär nicht von oben herab betrachten sollten, weil es nicht über ein dem US-Raketenabwehrsystem entsprechendes System verfügt, sind die Investitionen, die die Russen in den Bau ihrer eigenen Version von Iron Domes getätigt haben, um Großstädte und vermutlich auch wichtige militärische Infrastrukturen vor einem US-Atomangriff zu schützen.
Vor zwei Tagen wurde mir klar, was das bedeutet, als ich dem Moderator von Great Game, Wjatscheslaw Nikonow, zugehört habe, der über die Angriffe sprach, die am Vortag (29. Mai) mit US-amerikanischen ATACMS-Langstreckenraketen von der Ukraine aus auf das Gebiet der Brücke von Kertsch und andere Ziele tief in Russland abgefeuert wurden.
Beachten Sie, dass diese Angriffe einen Tag vor der offiziellen Ankündigung von Präsident Biden stattfanden, dass die USA die Absicht Kiews, innerhalb Russlands zuzuschlagen, billigen. Das Biden-Team versicherte, dass die Waffen ausschließlich gegen militärisch wertvolle Ziele eingesetzt würden. Die Brücke von Kertsch zur Krim ist natürlich jetzt eine rein zivile Infrastruktur, da alle russischen Militärlieferungen an die Front seit langem auf landgestützte Eisenbahnlinien umgelenkt wurden, die parallel zum Asowschen Meer verlaufen und die die Russen im vergangenen Jahr ausgebaut haben.
Nikonov wies darauf hin, dass alle diese Raketen von russischen Luftabwehrsystemen abgeschossen wurden. Ein eingeladener Experte teilte dem Publikum mit, dass die amerikanischen Raketen ihre Schwachstellen haben, die die Russen erforschen und ausnutzen, um sie in der Luft zu zerstören.
Dies bedeutet nicht, dass die russische Luftabwehr zu 100 % zuverlässig ist. Aber es bedeutet, dass sie in Bezug auf Raketen aller Art hervorragende Arbeit leistet. Dies steht natürlich im Gegensatz zur Verteidigung gegen die viel schwieriger zu findenden kleineren und wendigeren Drohnen, die beim ukrainischen Angriff auf die russischen Radaranlagen die Waffe der Wahl waren. Aber Drohnen zerstören keine Städte und töten Hunderttausende, wenn nicht Millionen von Menschen. Das tun Raketen.
Am selben Tag wurden vier bis sechs unbemannte britische Kutter im Wert von je sechs Millionen Dollar, die gegen russische Schiffe im Schwarzen Meer eingesetzt wurden, von der russischen Seite zerstört.
Diese jüngsten US-amerikanischen und britischen Angriffe gelten als Beweis dafür, dass der von den USA geführte Westen inzwischen genau weiß, dass der Ukraine eine Niederlage droht, und dass er alles tut, um den Einsatz zu erhöhen. Die F16, die bald in den Konflikt eingeführt werden sollen, werden eine weitere große Eskalation des Westens darstellen. Sie werden von Russland als eine atomar bewaffnete NATO-Eingreiftruppe zur Eindämmung Russlands betrachtet werden. Die von Frankreich angeführten Bemühungen, eine Koalition von Ausbildern vor Ort in der Ukraine zusammenzustellen, sind eine weitere Dimension der sehr gefährlichen Eskalation.
Anmerkung: Nikonov und seine Diskussionsteilnehmer erörterten diese existenziellen Bedrohungen in ruhiger und überlegter Weise. Niemand weiß, wie der Kreml auf einen erfolgreichen Angriff reagieren wird, der nominell von der Ukraine ausgeht, de facto aber vom Westen gesteuert wird. Vielleicht wird es einen massiven russischen Angriff auf die Stadt Kiew geben.
*****
Ich frage mich wirklich, welchen Nutzen eine 15-minütige Vorwarnung vor einem eintreffenden Raketenangriff hat, wenn, wie es mit 100-prozentiger Sicherheit der Fall ist, ein automatischer „Dead Hand“-Abschuss bereits geplant ist. Welchen Sinn hätte es außerdem, den Hörer eines roten Telefons in Washington abzuheben, um mit….wem zu sprechen? Biden, Sullivan oder einem anderen der Lügner und Betrüger, die die obersten Ränge der US-Bundesregierung bevölkern? Unter ihnen gibt es nicht eine vertrauenswürdige Person, mit der Sie das Schicksal Ihrer Nation riskieren würden.
Die wichtigste Botschaft, die ich vermitteln möchte, ist, dass die Amerikaner ihre alte Volksweisheit vergessen haben, dass es „viele verschiedene Wege gibt, eine Katze zu häuten“. Experten in Amerikas dissidentem Untergrund können genauso wenig bereit sein zu begreifen, dass die Russen nicht schwach und dumm sind, wie amerikanische Generäle und ihre Lakaien in der Presse sagten, als sie Russlands erste Schritte in seiner speziellen Militäroperation anprangerten, weil sie nicht das taten, was Amerika in solchen Fällen tut: eine „Shock and Awe“-Kampagne durchführen, um jeden zu ermorden und alles in seinem Weg zu zerstören.
Translation to English of transcript of the Great Game program (in Russian) ————————————————–
Vyacheslav Nikonov: 0:05 Good afternoon Live “Big Game” and me, Vyacheslav Nikonov. At these moments, Russian President Vladimir Putin is holding a video conference meeting with large families from different regions of our country. Today, on the eve of Children’s Day, words are naturally heard about how important the family is, as the main unit of society and as the guarantee of the future of our country, so yes, the question is very important. Today the President will present state awards, including to a number of very famous people, but for now I will not anticipate events.
0:42 The situation on the battlefield, and in the whole world, is, of course, characterized by escalation and increased stakes. Tonight, Ukrainian, and in fact not Ukrainian, Western armed forces launched a strike with high-precision ATACMS systems against targets in the Kerch region, in the Krasnodar Territory. At the same time, in fact, the British unmanned aerial vehicle carried out target setting while loitering over the Black Sea.
1:22 Our side, naturally, also did not sit idly by; a powerful blow was dealt to the Ukrainian armed forces, to military installations on the territory of Ukraine in various places. Once again they hit the Starokonstantinov airfield in the Khmelnytsky region, where American-made F-16 aircraft are planned to be stationed. Well, besides this, there were attacks on the Dnepropetrovsk, Cherkassy, Kirovograd, Zaporozhye, Odessa, Kherson, Vinnitsa, and Kyiv regions.
1:55 That is, escalation is underway. And on the battlefield the situation is also maintained. We maintain strategic initiative. But the West clearly feels that Kyiv is ready to lose and is ready to increase the stakes. Yuri Ivanovich Podolyako monitors the progress of the Special Military Operation. Yuri Ivanovich, do you agree that the West is now clearly beginning to cross certain red lines?
Yuri Podolyaako: 2:26 At least it’s probing them. It seems to me that it hasn’t crossed yet, because I closely followed the night attack on Kerch, and they didn’t hit the bridge. They tried to hit other targets, but we were able to protect them. Moreover, their so-called attack without crew boats was a complete failure, and, by the way, not the first. Over the last two months, they have somehow, I don’t want to get into, of course, these unsuccessful attacks, because the price, for example, of one boat, which is used for such attacks, is approximately a quarter of a million dollars,
3:00 that is, about 25 million rubles, a little more than a quarter of a million dollars. Yesterday they managed to hit two small boats worth 6 million each. At least four boats took part, that is, there were no net casualties among our guys. That is, there were boats standing near the pier, which were amazed by boats costing many times more. That is, the meaning of such exchanges, frankly speaking, is strange. One in ten at least in economics, not to mention training, and so on and so forth.
3:26 Even the same British drone that was spinning is still money, all these are expenses, well, that is, in fact, for now there is, well, at least I really hope, I don’t want to climb, we have weapons against these backs, again But we destroy many of them on the approach of our aviation, the Black Sea Fleet, that is, in general, there is a strategy to combat them. ATACMSs, too, like with any weapon, they also have their disadvantages, weak points, gradually we see, we are starting to make things simpler and simpler to destroy them.
3:54 That is, Wunderwaffe again fails, despite the fact that it was presented as Wunderwaffe. Well, yes, in such situations the West always tries to raise the stakes, tries to test for the possibility of crossing some red lines, in order to thus try to increase the degree of conflict without being directly drawn into the conflict.
4:12 For them, this is fundamentally important. Well, now, as I understand it, one of the lines outlined by our Foreign Ministry is that for NASA the delivery of the F-16 will be very significant in terms of parity and the possibility of using non-strategic nuclear forces, i.e. This is also a very important point, which I hope we can resolve to our advantage, although in any case, for the enemy, the attack from Stara Konstantin was very serious, there were a lot of things burning, exploding, detonating. If there really is such information that a base for the D-16 was being prepared there, if we destroyed it, then we destroyed the enemy’s months-long preparation for the deployment of these aircraft. We must understand that NATO aircraft cannot be stationed anywhere in Ukraine.
4:59 There is no base that was created under the Union to accommodate other aircraft. Accordingly, the destruction of any such base postpones the possibility of using these aircraft for a certain amount of time.
Nikonov: 5:11 So, what news from the fronts of the Special Military Operation?
Podolyako: Well, you know, now in some directions where we attacked, regrouping is now underway. This is in the Kharkov direction. Both we and the enemy are obviously preparing a new battle. Moreover, it is very likely that the enemy will try to show some kind of victory for the summit in Switzerland. The only place where he can try to do something, due to the fact that he transferred a huge number of reserves to their direction, is the Kharkov direction.
5:39 Therefore, in the next two weeks there will be very fierce, powerful battles, and we must be prepared for this. But in the Chastoyarsk direction, after we stormed the positions for two weeks, there is now a certain calm, a regrouping is underway. As I understand it, in a week or two more active military operations will be resumed here. Well, our troops are developing serious activity in the Pokrovsky direction, in the Toretsky direction.
6:04 This is the Donetsk section. There are very active battles here. We are fighting for very important enemy fortified areas. I really hope that we will be able to break through the positions here and, accordingly, create problems for the enemy. Well, just like in Krasnogorovka, Nitailovo, where we took a completely populated area and are now trying to force the enemy to leave the position it is holding a little to the north with roundabout maneuvers. That is the general situation along the line of military contact.
Nikonov: 6:33 Yes, thank you very much, Yuri Ivanovich Podolyako, with, as always, an accurate analysis of the situation on the fronts of the Northern Military District. Let’s see which countries have given Ukraine consent to use their weapons against targets on the territory of our country. These are the countries. This is Canada, the United States has so far given half, but there are Finland, Sweden, Great Britain, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia.
7:02 Well, it must be said that most of these countries do not produce weapons, and they do not have their own weapons, they only have weapons that are supplied by other countries. And, in general, a lot depends on the fact that, on the contrary, they are not used their weapons, such as Italy. As for the use of these weapons, well, apparently, it has already begun, I have that feeling, at least the strikes from the ATACMSs. So they began to publish in the Western media the affected area of possible high-precision systems that the Ukrainian armed forces have, in fact the NATO armed forces, this is all the way to Kazan.
7:44 Moscow finds itself in a close defeat zone, in fact. These are serious means. There are countries that are still hesitating, but which are more likely inclined to apply it too. For example, Germany, until recently, was against the use, well, let’s consider what politics writes.
?????: 8:09 Germany is cautiously withdrawing from its words regarding allowing Ukraine to strike military targets on Russian territory. Chancellor Olaf Scholz said that Ukraine can use weapons supplied by Germany within the framework of international law. This did not sound so clear. Scholz’s press secretary, Steffen Hebbestreit, told reporters that Ukraine’s defensive actions are not limited to its own territory, but can extend to the territory of the aggressor, but stressed that he could not disclose the exact wording of the agreements with Kiev on the use of German weapons. Hebbestrait also said that Scholz’s statement a year ago about the consensus that Ukraine would not use German weapons on Russian territory was a statement of facts that were true at the time, but not necessarily true in the future.
8:57 Until the last moment, the United States of America also said that they were against the use of their weapons on our territory, but here is the latest information from The Washington Post. They still decided to use air defense systems against objects on our territory. Let’s listen.
9:15 About three weeks ago, shortly after Russia launched its offensive on Kharkov, Ukraine asked the United States to ease restrictions on the use of U.S.-provided weapons to attack targets inside Russia. Some senior officials support such a move. Secretary of State Antony Blinken called on President Biden to agree to lift the restrictions. The White House is considering such a proposal, but no decisions have been made yet.
But according to one US official, there are no restrictions on Ukraine using US-supplied air defenses to fight Russian missiles or fighter jets over Russian territory if they pose a threat to Ukraine.
Nikonov: 9:53 At the same time, our president the day before yesterday clearly said that we will consider these strikes not as strikes by Ukraine, but as strikes by those countries that, in fact, supply these weapons and carry out goal setting. The conflict becomes more dangerous.
Alexey Leonkov: 10:07 Indeed, the escalation of the conflict is growing and all these initiatives that some European countries have shown, which relate, for example, to the same self-reconnaissance weapons or cruise missiles like Storm Shadow, they actually, from a military point of view, will not affect anything in strategic terms. But they will provoke Russia to make retaliatory moves.
Because the situation has gone so far that critical civilian military infrastructure facilities, as well as nuclear power plants, for example, the Kursk nuclear power plant and so on, can be attacked, which can lead to immediate consequences if this attack is suddenly successful.
10:49 In addition, the enemy always uses sophisticated tactics, and when combined strikes are carried out by drones that hover at the Black Sea, they not only engage in the purpose of indicating, but through them the flight missions of these air attack weapons are adjusted, in particular the ATACMS and Storm Shadow, that is, they change flight missions in flight and can cause more damage.
That is, this is a big load on our air defense system.
What is the enemy trying to achieve? He is going to provoke Russia into the retaliatory actions of which we are warning in order to make another PR campaign out of this, that aggressive Russia is threatening the whole world, so something needs to be done with it. In the NATO bloc there is no clear unity that would unite them. First of all, we need the image of a terrible, insidious, terrible enemy.
And they are ready to go to great lengths, because, in fact, they do not have a plan B for what to do with Ukraine. All their strategy, all their military assistance did not lead to the desired result.
Russia did not break, on the contrary, it became stronger. Therefore, now they are going to great lengths, they are ready to use even chemical weapons.
12:04 Several messages from the command of our RKBZ troops said that in certain sections of the line of combat contact, the enemy used chemical munitions. And this suggests that the West will probably go to the end, but first of all the countries of Europe.
And here are the European politicians who so zealously defend the supposedly international right of the Ukrainian junta to self-defense. And it should shoot down and shoot anywhere, in fact, dragging Europe into the conflict that most Europeans would rather avoid. That is, the conflict can lead from the regional to continental.
12:43 And Russia, of course, is trying to do everything to prevent this from happening. We sometimes do not fall for these provocations, due, as they say, to certain damages that are inflicted on us. But, apparently, everything will come to the point where we will consciously go to prevent this global threat by launching high-precision preventive strikes, which were very sensitive for some countries, which, as our president indicated, are small, but with a very dense population.
13:15 Therefore, we are forced to take these steps, they are forced, unfortunately, and as you can see, in the West there is not a single voice of reason that would warn that this escalation will lead to some consequences, except those more often for those countries that are developing this aggression and further.
Nikonov: 13:32 Among the relatively small countries with a very dense population is France, where Emanuel Macron shouts the loudest. Now his latest initiative, it was revealed by “Le Monde”, is the creation of a coalition of instructors for the Ukrainian armed forces.
13:53 Nothing has been decided yet, but sending French and European instructors to Ukraine could be a matter of weeks or even days. French authorities are trying to assemble a coalition of countries willing to train Ukrainian troops. According to sources, consultations on this issue should intensify in the coming days, with a view to making a possible announcement during Vladimir Zelensky’s visit to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the Normandy landings on June 6-7. On these days, Emanuel Macron may reveal the outlines of such an initiative.
Nikonov: 14:23 Well, he has many different initiatives, they are already greatly frightening the French. Here Marine LePen, who is now the most popular politician in France on the eve of the European parliamentary elections, is simply sounding the alarm.
Marine Le Pen: 14:39 Emanuel Macron wants France to fully enter the war with Russia. I’m against it. I believe that this will absolutely create a colossal threat, both for the safety of our compatriots and for the integrity of our territory. Like the United States or Germany, I am opposed to allowing Ukraine to use weapons we have supplied to attack Russian territory. This is how entering a world war happens, and I’m sorry to tell you this, but I am against anything that could lead to a world conflict in which France will be on the front line.
Nikonov: 15:18 Well, and, of course, there is a serious question. They will create a collection of instructors. And what will these instructors teach the Ukrainian armed forces that they don’t know? Well, actually, the answer was, well, interesting, from CIA analyst Larry Johnson.
Larry Johnson: 15:40 Any person who has even a drop of brains understands that Kyiv has no options left. The other day I watched a video where the Russians captured a Ukrainian soldier. This guy literally said the following: “I was picked up last week at the exit of a bakery in Kyiv, then they sent me to training for three days, gave me a uniform and brought me here.”
And now he is already on the front line. I’m not even sure if this guy knows how to load a machine gun, or if he even has a working one. That’s what’s happening. Russia is stretching Ukrainian forces to the breaking point. The Ukrainians are sending more and more people to stop the Russians, who continue to push the front. Everything is over. There are already photographs of soldiers from the French Legion, whose emblem is located not on the helmet, but on the sleeve. That is, they try to hide who they are, but not completely.
16:26 And now he is dead. He was sent there to train the Ukrainians. But this raises another, much more important question. Why will the French train the Ukrainians? To give up, or what?
Sergey Sudakov: 16:38 To give up, or what? Vyacheslav Freidovich, what good words. Probably, correct. Surrender is what we really need to know now, both good and correct. How to capitulate correctly so that everything goes well. But in fact, those voices and calls that are heard now in France, well, it seems to me that they are on the other side of good and evil.
16:54 When I heard the comments, you won’t believe it, they are not really military instructors, this is a kind of military professorship. When I heard this, it turns out that these are not regular troops, these are not military, but these are teachers coming. Therefore, it is impossible to kill teachers, because these are people who transmit knowledge, but how to kill knowledge? Yes, this is knowledge, but the question is different. A coalition is what Macron needs all the time. Macron understands perfectly well that he is not alone, he initially came to power with the help of those bankers who put him in place, and these were US bankers, definitely US bankers, and not just European houses who put him in place.
17:34 And now Macron is on a mission. He needs to create the concept of umbrella legitimacy, at least in some way, at least take the Baltic countries, at least someone, to create the appearance of this legitimacy. But in any case, any presence of instructors in the numbers they want leads to only one thing – they will also be destroyed on the territory of Ukraine. And the escalation of the conflict now is understandable. They need to show their clear contours for the so-called security conference and, of course, for the elections that will determine the European Parliament.
18:07 I believe this is a bad strategy, but there is still room for escalation in the West. The escalation continues, and we haven’t said everything yet. But the real question is this. Well, you have ambitions, but do you have the ammunition? More about this after the advertisement. 18:26
Gilbert Doctorow 