The James Freeman Report, TNT Radio:  will the U.K. be erased from the map by a Russian nuclear attack? If so, why?

The question above was the main point I wished to address in this radio chat with the former Member of Parliament, James Freeman, who is a well-known radio host in the TNT family, based in England.

Sadly for James, I never did answer his questions about how the US built stealth missiles JASSM might change the balance in the war in Ukraine. Nor did we discuss Kursk.  But we did talk about the different methodologies being applied by the commentators whom you will find featured on youtube day after day.  For this reason, I urge you to have a listen.   I come on at minute 39.

Gerard Waters & Gilbert Doctorow on The Freeman Report with James Freeman – 27 August 2024

Transcript below provided by a reader, followed by translation into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Transcription below by a reader

James Freeman: 38:57
Right, now we’ve been talking about many things over the past few weeks, in the UK for example, those troubles, and kind of taken my eye off, really off the ball a little bit in terms of what’s going on in Ukraine. So to rectify that issue, I’m actually delighted today to be welcomed once again by Dr Gilbert Doctorow. Welcome back to the Freeman Report, Gilbert.

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
Good to be with you.

Freeman: 39:22
Now Gilbert, we’re going to talk about a recent Substack you wrote about America’s air-to-ground stealth missiles, that it’s going to be, well, I think there’s rumours that it’s going to supply them for use on F-16s in Ukraine, and also Russian plans to use tactical nukes. We are going to talk about that. But first, I think it’s [pertinent] to, if you can give us an update on what’s been going on over the past few weeks in Ukraine.

Doctorow:
Well, I’d like to say at the outset, what I based my update on, because you speak to, in the opposition, I can call it a dissident media, dissident in the sense that they do not agree with the Washington narrative. There is a consensus, a consensus of where we stand on Kursk and how the war is going, which is based on the sources they are using. And many of these sources are back channels. They are acquaintances, friends, contacts of some outstanding analysts in Russia, or close to Russia. Let us be honest, the overwhelming proportion of commentators on Russian events are not Russia specialists. I don’t mean to say that I’m the only Russian specialist, but I’m one of the few Russian specialists who has the freedom to open his mouth. That’s to say, many of my peers, people who are trained to– who either were originally Russians, and so teaching in the West, and so the question of the language skills is, is clear, they’re perfect, they’re perfect speakers, and they understand everything that’s being said. Then you have a lot of Westerners, who, for one reason or other, took an interest in Russia and Eastern Europe, and became fluent or skilled in the languages.

41:20
These people are academics, they’re nearly all academics. They don’t dare open their mouths or they’ll be fired. Let’s be open about it. It’s not that they’re stupid. It’s not that they necessarily disagree with anything that I’m saying. It’s they’re just they’re not in a position to say it themselves. There is a witch hunt on anyone who says anything contrary to “the war is going great, and Russia will be smashed”. So that’s the opening point. So where are these people who really are not gifted in language, but are a very good analytical skills? Where are they getting their information from? Where is it that everyone else who’s appearing on the internet, and whom you see in today’s YouTube? Where are they getting it from? Where’s McGregor getting it from? Where’s Scott Ritter getting it from? Where’s Larry Johnson getting it from? They’re all getting it from friends, contacts in the backstage in Russia, people whom they’ve met when they’ve traveled there. Ritter was several times in Russia, most recently, I think, was in the early start of this year, when he went down to Chechnya and embraced Kadyrov and met with one of his commanders, this Aldonov.

42:33
Now, these people are very proud that they have these contacts and these sources information that you, Mr. Freeman, do not have. However, they are in no position to really judge what they’re getting. And between you and me, why would Mr. Aladounov give to Mr. Scott Ritter some militarily valuable information? He’s a patriot. He’s a professional soldier. You don’t do that. I’ve heard him on television. I’ve heard him on Russian television. And he always was very, very careful in choosing his words, and frankly, never gave the audience anything of real use. So why would he give Scott Ritter something of use? Sorry, it doesn’t stand to reason. So I’m not criticizing Mr. Ritter. I’m just looking at the facts as they are. Why he says one thing, and I’m saying something different, because I’m not using those sources. I haven’t met with Aldo. I haven’t met with…

43:25
But what am I using? I’m using open sources. Let me surprise your audience. Russia is a free society. They have less censorship than we have in France. Ask Mr. Macron. We have less censorship than they have in Germany. Russia is comparatively speaking an open press. And in the open press, a lot of smart people and also some stupid people say what they think. Well, I use that and it’s my job to sort out who are the smart people and who are the stupid people. That’s on my conscience. But I’m using, for example, when you look at my blogs or articles and look at what I’m saying to other major interviewers, I’m relying on what I find in the most authoritative Russian talk shows and panels and on the more serious literature that is periodical. So that’s where I’m coming from. And some things that I’m seeing now leave me strange to say, sad to say, with a much less optimistic and rosy view of how the Russian conflict in Kursk, for example, is going than what you’ll hear if you pick up any of these people I mentioned on today’s YouTube.

Freeman: 44:39
Okay, so tell us then, what is your assessment of the situation right now?

Doctorow:
Well, I would be dishonest if I said it’s my assessment. I’m giving you an assessment of people whom I take very seriously and who are occupying a special space in Russian media. If you turn on Russian news, you won’t learn much. You’ll learn about how they’re helping the [200,000] people who’ve been evacuated. But they won’t tell you what’s going on the battlefield. I heard last night something about what’s going on the battlefield with someone who is very well prepared by his career as a military officer and a high government official. And what he’s saying is that things are bad. Things are… This is not walking through the rose garden and they are prepared for an American preemptive strike.

Let me give you one or two dots. You know, there are two American aircraft carrier task forces in the Mediterranean. Russians are saying, “Hey, they’re not there for Iran. They’re there for us.” Let me give you another dot to link. You know that two or three months ago, there’s a lot of talk about how the Ukrainians had with drones destroyed two important early warning radar systems in the south of Russia. And nobody could make any sense of it. Hey, why are the Ukrainians doing this? It doesn’t have any relevance to Russian strikes on Ukraine. You bet it doesn’t. But it has a lot of relevance to prevent potential US first strike, nuclear strike against Russia.

46:11
Okay. That’s where we are today. and the Russians are preparing for it. You in Britain should pay special attention. Because aside from Washington, they are talking openly on the television about wiping Great Britain off the face of the map. You are among the most active people against them right now. You are spearheading the action in court. It’s your job–

Freeman:
Sorry, Gilbert, sorry.

Doctorow:
Yeah, right. So I stop there, but I made my point, that the situation is much more serious than one would believe if you just tune into YouTube and see what Mr. McGregor is telling you.

Freeman: 46:51
Yeah, now one of my questions actually was going to be on these attacks on supply chain bridges in Russia, because I hear the Russian officials have directly linked the UK with those attacks. Can you just give us an update on what those attacks were and the implications for the conflict?

Doctorow:
Britain is implicated by the Russians and by itself, by your own Prime Minister, when he boasted that Challenger 2 tanks are now rolling in Russian territory. That is the first thing they have against Britain. The Storm Shadow missiles are number two. That is what Zelensky has been asking for them. We can assume that they’ve already been shipped to Moldova, to Romania, ready to be moved in to Ukraine, or just mounted on F-16s that fly from Moldova into Ukrainian airspace and pretend that they are Ukrainian planes. The Storm Shadow is a vicious weapon, a very dangerous weapon. The Russians have mastered it a bit, but you never can bring down 100% of what’s coming at you. And it has a long range, potentially long range, depending on the variants sent to Ukraine.

48:06
However, again, let me put this in context. You see why the situation is quite alarming. The Storm Shadow will not reach the Russian airplanes. This is what Mr. Zelensky says. “Oh, I need them to attack the air bases from which the Russians are flying to me.” Wrong. The Russians are not dumb. They have moved all of their longer-range bombers way back beyond any potential range of F-16 launched Storm Shadows. What would the Storm Shadows do? They could devastate Russian factories. They could create havoc in civil society and cause strife within Russia. They could do that. Mr. Putin will not let that happen. He will sooner attack Britain with tactical nuclear weapons, than he will let that happen. And Mr. Starmer should take notice. Britain doesn’t want to listen to these things, but they better.

Freeman: 49:05
Yeah, no, this is very, very alarming, what you’re saying here, Gilbert. Now, tell us about your– because you did write a Substack, which is kind of related to what you’re saying here. And basically it seems that America, aren’t they, they’re, well, will you tell me in your own words about these, these air-to-ground stealth missiles that America could be supplying Ukraine.

Doctorow:
Well, there are several different long-range, high-precision weapons. Storm Shadow is one of them. Then there’s JASSM. JASSM is the one that’s being talked about most right now. The Russians say it’s probably shipped to Moldova, just awaiting to be mounted on F-16s and used against them. As I’ve said, that has a 900 kilometre maximum range. That’s pretty good. That could reach Moscow, but it cannot take out the Russian planes because they, as I said, not stupid, they move them beyond the range of the JASSM. The Russians have made it clear that if this missile was mounted on F-16s, watch out, we’re next just next to World War III because we will attack you. “You” meaning NATO and meaning the continental United States. And these are not phony red lines.

Freeman: 50:23
And do you think, I mean, how concrete is it that America is going to supply these air-to-ground missiles?

Doctorow:
You have to ask Jake Sullivan and Tony Blinken. Behind the puppet Mr. Biden and the empty vessel Kamala Harris, there are a few people who are really pulling the strings, and Mr. Jake Sullivan is one of them. Who he has as his allies in the Pentagon, I don’t know, but he obviously does have them. Otherwise, these weapons wouldn’t be shipped, because they do indicate a vector towards World War III. Timing: it’s going to happen before November 4th. The people who are now in power xxxxx cannot risk losing the election. They cannot even– because then they become lame ducks, and making a war in Russia is not feasible as a lame duck. It is feasible until November 4th. Therefore, the problems that I’ve sketched out are immediately before us.

Freeman: 51:31
And how is that election, that US election, perceived, you think, in Russia? Is there hope, for example, that if Trump gets in, actually this all could be resolved, or is there a more cynical view of America and, you know, it’s all very well, changing administration, but essentially, America is– this is the long-term strategy for America. How is it? How is it perceived in Russia?

Doctorow: 51:56
Well, I may surprise you. One of the most authoritative talk shows, Vyacheslav Nikonov is a member of the Duma, a very serious politician, a Kremlin insider, the grandson of Molotov, one of the Bolshevik founders. He said, “hey, we won’t come out of it, because if she follows the policies which she set out in her acceptance speech, the United States is doomed. The United States will be economically destroyed by its own measures. And so, as strange as it may sound to you, the Kremlin is now repeating what its position was in 2020. Sorry, in 2016. They didn’t want Trump to win, because he was a loose cannon on the deck. He was unpredictable. He was a volatile personality, and they didn’t know what to expect. With Biden, up to now in the election, until he was replaced, they knew very well [what] to expect [of] him. With Kamala, since she’s as manipulated by the handlers as Biden was. they know what to expect, and they can prepare for it as they’re now doing.

Freeman: 53:15
Right. Okay. So you’re saying now they still, again, they don’t want Trump? Because I mean, Trump is talking about peace, isn’t he?

Doctorow:
Well, he’s talking about peace. The situation is changing, and don’t believe anything that the Russians are saying and whom they place their bets on. They could be saying this just to achieve the opposite result, because they were nailed in 2020 with the Russia, Russia, Russia, that all of the accusations against Russia as being behind and manipulated. So, for just for tactical reasons, they could be saying and having a joke among themselves that they back Kamala.

But as regards Mr. Trump, I personally think this is a very different Trump, and not because of the assassination attempt, but because having been around Washington long enough, he’s putting together a formidable team. And that’s what was lacking completely in his first presidency. Yesterday, we heard Tulsi Gabbard give her backing to Trump. And these are leading Democrats after Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He never could assemble such heavyweights, serious politicians who could be good in the cabinet when he first ran for president.

Freeman: 54:37
Yeah, I did see I’ve seen all of those speeches in recent days, some quite astonishing speeches, actually. And so yeah, I think it’s going to be a very, very interesting to see the impact on the US elections of the these moves. Gilbert, sadly, we have run out of time. We mustn’t leave such a big gap for you coming on next time. We need to get you back on because I think, you know, this this whole situation is in flux at the moment. But thank you so much for joining me, Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, and thank you for joining me today.

55:10
Right that’s it for me. I’ll be back tomorrow. See you all again then, right here on TNT.

Der James Freeman Report, TNT Radio: Wird das Vereinigte Königreich durch einen russischen Atomangriff von der Landkarte getilgt? Und wenn ja, warum?

Die obige Frage war der Hauptpunkt, den ich in diesem Radio-Chat mit dem ehemaligen Parlamentsabgeordneten James Freeman, einem bekannten Radiomoderator der TNT-Familie mit Sitz in England, ansprechen wollte.

Zum Leidwesen von James habe ich seine Frage, wie die von den USA gebauten Tarnkappenraketen JASSM das Gleichgewicht im Krieg in der Ukraine verändern könnten, nicht beantwortet. Wir haben auch nicht über Kursk gesprochen. Aber wir haben über die unterschiedlichen Methoden der Kommentatoren gesprochen, die Sie Tag für Tag auf Youtube finden. Deshalb empfehle ich Ihnen dringend, sich das anzuhören. Ich beginne bei Minute 39.