Please note that I will be on vacation for two weeks from 22 September to 5 October. During this time, I will on some days have no access to the internet. Accordingly, I will not be doing any interviews, and will post articles on this site only if major international developments should occur.
Looking ahead, at the end of October I will participate in a Round Table discussion of the BRICS Summit in Kazan which I have already written about. And for three weeks in November, I expect to be in St Petersburg and Moscow, from where I will be posting commentary on what I see in the shopping baskets of Russian consumers and what I hear about the war, about Russia’s mission in the world from old friends and from new acquaintances in different strata of society.
Eine Pause für Urlaub und bevorstehende Herbstveranstaltungen
Liebe Leserinnen und Leser,
bitte beachten Sie, dass ich vom 22. September bis zum 5. Oktober zwei Wochen lang im Urlaub sein werde. Während dieser Zeit werde ich an manchen Tagen keinen Zugang zum Internet haben. Dementsprechend werde ich keine Interviews führen und nur dann Artikel auf dieser Website veröffentlichen, wenn es zu größeren internationalen Entwicklungen kommt.
Ende Oktober werde ich an einer Diskussionsrunde zum BRICS-Gipfel in Kasan teilnehmen, über den ich bereits geschrieben habe. Im November werde ich voraussichtlich drei Wochen in St. Petersburg und Moskau verbringen und von dort aus Kommentare zu den Einkaufskörben russischer Verbraucher und zu dem, was ich von alten Freunden und neuen Bekannten aus verschiedenen Gesellschaftsschichten über den Krieg und die Mission Russlands in der Welt höre, veröffentlichen.
Ich freue mich auf Ihre Gesellschaft auf diesen Seiten.
Hand on heart, I especially recommend today’s discussion with Judge Andrew Napolitano because we looked very closely at current threat levels in the war that have been misrepresented by some of my peers and colleagues in alternative media. I explain here how and why they are not using properly the analytical tools at our disposal, have not looked at the context of recent public statements of people like Boris Johnson, Lloyd Austin and Vladimir Putin. With respect to the first two, most of my peers have decided in advance that they are ‘clowns’ and dismiss everything out of hand, which is an unpardonable mistake, professionally speaking.
As I have said in preceding essays, we are obliged to set out our differences and where possible to be precise about the sources for our judgments and pronouncements if we are to enable our followers to think for themselves.
There are many separate points in this 25-minute interview that I hope listeners will find enlightening or challenging. However, I will highlight two below.
With respect to Boris Johnson’s little speech to the Yalta European conference held in Ukraine last week in which he spoke in the most flattering terms about Ukrainian military capabilities and their future role in the European defense, I think it is a mistake to put everything down to delusional thinking as so many of my peers are doing. I must agree with Boris on the heroism, on the valor of many of the Ukrainian soldiers. That 600,000 of them have been slaughtered senselessly is the national tragedy for which the Zelensky gang with its stranglehold on power is to blame, together with the cynical and cruel NATO backers of his regime. I have said before and repeat today that the Russian advance in the Donbas and now the clean-up operation in Kursk are not a walk in the rose garden. The Russians face tough fighting which is due to the residual patriotism and courage of Ukrainian soldiers.
With respect to Lloyd Autin, I make reference to his answer to a reporter on giving permission to Kiev to use NATO missiles to strike at the heartland of Russia. This exchange took place a couple of days before Vladimir Putin issued his warning about the use of NATO missiles in this way. Said Austin, 1) Kiev has no need for the Storm Shadow, because it has other means available to it to strike military targets deep in Russia, 2) the Russians have already pulled back their bombers and arms caches beyond the range of the Storm Shadow. These arguments were lucid and correct. Accordingly, it appears that the U.S. military has not only brawn but also brains.
I expect that my questioning what Colonel Dougls Macgregor has been saying will not go unanswered when his turn before the microphone of Judging Freedom comes later today. But that is all to the good if the audience is to be kept on its toes.
Translation into German (Andreas Mylaeus)of the foregoing followed by full transcript of the interview in English, then translation of that full transcript into German
„Judging Freedom“: Ausgabe vom 19. September
Hand aufs Herz, ich empfehle die heutige Diskussion mit Judge Andrew Napolitano besonders, weil wir uns die aktuellen Bedrohungsstufen im Krieg sehr genau angesehen haben, die von einigen meiner Kollegen und Kollegen in den alternativen Medien falsch dargestellt wurden. Ich erkläre hier, wie und warum sie die uns zur Verfügung stehenden analytischen Instrumente nicht richtig einsetzen und den Kontext der jüngsten öffentlichen Äußerungen von Personen wie Boris Johnson, Lloyd Austin und Wladimir Putin nicht berücksichtigt haben. Was die ersten beiden betrifft, so haben die meisten meiner Kollegen im Voraus entschieden, dass es sich bei ihnen um „Clowns“ handelt, und lehnen alles von vornherein ab, was aus professioneller Sicht ein unverzeihlicher Fehler ist.
Wie ich bereits in früheren Essays gesagt habe, sind wir verpflichtet, unsere Differenzen darzulegen und, wenn möglich, die Quellen für unsere Urteile und Äußerungen genau zu benennen, wenn wir unsere Anhänger in die Lage versetzen wollen, selbstständig zu denken.
Es gibt viele verschiedene Punkte in diesem 25-minütigen Interview, von denen ich hoffe, dass sie für die Zuhörer aufschlussreich oder herausfordernd sind. Ich möchte jedoch im Folgenden zwei davon hervorheben.
Was Boris Johnsons kleine Rede auf der Jalta-Europakonferenz in der Ukraine letzte Woche betrifft, in der er in den schmeichelhaftesten Worten über die militärischen Fähigkeiten der Ukraine und ihre zukünftige Rolle in der europäischen Verteidigung sprach, so halte ich es für einen Fehler, alles auf Wahnvorstellungen zurückzuführen, wie es so viele meiner Kollegen tun. Ich muss Boris in Bezug auf den Heldenmut und die Tapferkeit vieler ukrainischer Soldaten zustimmen. Dass 600.000 von ihnen sinnlos abgeschlachtet wurden, ist eine nationale Tragödie, für die die Bande um Selensky, die die Macht fest im Griff hat, verantwortlich ist, zusammen mit den zynischen und grausamen NATO-Unterstützern seines Regimes. Ich habe bereits früher gesagt und wiederhole es heute, dass der russische Vormarsch im Donbass und jetzt die Säuberungsaktion in Kursk kein Zuckerschlecken sind. Die Russen stehen harten Kämpfen gegenüber, die dem Restpatriotismus und dem Mut der ukrainischen Soldaten zu verdanken sind.
Was Lloyd Austin betrifft, so verweise ich auf seine Antwort gegenüber einem Reporter auf die Frage, ob er Kiew die Erlaubnis erteilt habe, NATO-Raketen einzusetzen, um das Kernland Russlands anzugreifen. Dieser Austausch fand einige Tage vor dem Zeitpunkt statt, an dem Wladimir Putin seine Warnung vor dem Einsatz von NATO-Raketen auf diese Weise aussprach. Austin sagte, 1) Kiew habe keinen Bedarf an Storm Shadow, da es über andere Mittel verfüge, um militärische Ziele tief in Russland anzugreifen, 2) die Russen hätten ihre Bomber und Waffenlager bereits außerhalb der Reichweite von Storm Shadow abgezogen. Diese Argumente waren klar und korrekt. Dementsprechend scheint das US-Militär nicht nur Muskeln, sondern auch Köpfchen zu haben.
Ich gehe davon aus, dass mein Hinterfragen von Colonel Douglas Macgregor nicht unbeantwortet bleiben werden, wenn er später am Tag am Mikrofon von Judging Freedom an der Reihe ist. Aber das ist gut so, wenn das Publikum auf Trab gehalten werden soll.
Transcription below by a reader
Judge Andrew Napolitano: 0:33 Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for “Judging Freedom”. Today is Thursday, September 19th, 2024. Professor Gilbert Doctorow joins us from Brussels. Professor Doctorow, a pleasure, my dear friend. I have to thank you publicly, as I’ve done privately, for these weekly audiences. My audience and I deeply appreciate them, and given your background and expertise in all things Russian, honestly, it’s a privilege to be able to pick your brain. Professor, last week at about this time, mid to the end of the week, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and his British counterpart David Lammy were in Kiev with former president but still acting President Zelensky.
1:26 And they were hinting without saying specifically, but it was very obvious, that they both expected the United States and Great Britain to authorize the use of long-range missiles to reach deep into Russia. As they began to fly to the United States, President Putin made a very, very serious statement using one of Joe Biden’s favorite words, “don’t”, because if you do, we will consider the United States to be at war with Russia. By the time Blinken, Lamy and Prime Minister Starmer arrived in Washington, Prime Minister Starmer was a bit embarrassed, and President Biden was obviously furious when he was, I guess, compelled to come to the conclusion this wasn’t going to happen. What is your take on all of this?
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 2:24 I think there’s been a lot of confusion in the public space over what this meant. First of all, no one has talked very much about under what situation, what place did Mr. Putin make his statement. Was it before the Duma, and as it would be, as he’s preparing to request a declaration of war on the United States? Was it before, in his formal speech to the Russian public, or what?
Napolitano: I can play for you President Putin. It almost appears, you’ll know the background better than I, that he’s in a hallway speaking to a reporter. But here’s the guts of what he said. And this is September 12, cut number five.
Putin (English voice over): 3:15 It is not about allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons or not. It is about making a decision about whether NATO countries are directly involved in the military conflict or not. If the decision is made, it will mean nothing less than the direct participation of NATO countries, the United States and European countries, in the war in Ukraine. This is their direct participation and this, of course, significantly changes the very essence, the very nature of the conflict. This will mean that NATO countries, the United States, and European countries are fighting Russia. And if this is so, bearing in mind the change in the very essence of this conflict, we will make appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be created for us.
Napolitano: 4:01 Can you tell where he was when he said that?
Doctorow: Well, I know exactly where he was, because I’ve been there many times myself. It’s just outside the General Staff Building of Tsarist Russia, which was converted maybe 20 years ago into a branch of the Hermitage Museum. So they have their collection of French Impressionists on the third floor of that building. It is also where the Cultural Forum, an annual event in Petersburg that has national and international dimensions, was being held, and he was either coming from or going to the general meeting of that cultural forum, where he was going to speak or spoke.
Napolitano: 4:44 We didn’t cover everything he said, but it is clear that that is the core of his message. “Joe, Keir, do this and I’ll regard your two countries as being at war with me, and you’ll accept the consequences.” Scott Ritter says, and Doug McGregor says, that he wouldn’t rule out attacking London or the US mainland if he believed that Great Britain, for what that’s worth, and the US were attacking him.
Doctorow: Formally speaking, I agree. Though interpretation-wise, I don’t agree. What Mr. McGregor was saying, Colonel McGregor was saying, and others are saying, is highly exaggerated, and sensationalist in my view. This was, I say, the context. This was an offhand statement, focused, pared, of course, but it was made to whom? To Pablo Zarubin, who tails Putin around all of his travels and puts on a Sunday program for old ladies drinking their tea called “Moscow, the Kremlin, Putin”. This was not the Russian public, [indirectly] or formally. He was making a statement which will have domestic repercussions and will reassure his citizens that he is not a patsy.
6:07 But … how much of a threat this was to the United States is a matter of interpretation, for several reasons. The first one, as I say, context, where he said it. The second is, how realistic, how really worried is Russia about the permission that may or may not be given to the British to launch the Storm Shadow against themselves? Colonel McGregor doesn’t say a word about this. Well, let’s do that right now. I don’t think that the Storm Shadow in its present situation is much of a threat to Russia. The Storm Shadow can only be launched from a jet. The Ukrainians had difficulty using it initially, because they had to specially retrofit their Soviet vintage jets to accept the Storm Shadow.
Napolitano: 7:06 Just for those of us not familiar with the technical terms, is Storm Shadow American or British?
Doctorow: It’s British and French. There’s a French version called Scalp, there’s a British version called Storm Shadow. There are two different radiuses of this. The longest one is 500 kilometers, which I don’t think was first turned over to the Ukrainians. I think they got a 300-kilometer-radius version. Now let’s say it’s 500 kilometers. 500 kilometers will not reach Moscow. That’s number one. It will not reach St. Petersburg, number two. So the nature of the threat to decapitate Russia by giving them these missiles isn’t there. You can do a lot of damage, but then what happened two days ago? Vast damage, as we understand, occurred when the Ukrainians used drones to attack a weapon storage, I understand it was Iskander missiles, in northern Russia. Now that was not a Storm Shadow, and it did a pretty good job. So let’s go cautiously about this, and let’s not rush over the facts for the sake of getting a wider audience.
Napolitano: 8:10 Okay, I understand what you’re saying, but what is your take on President Biden? I mean, do you disagree that Prime Minister Starmer was on his way to [Washington, DC], expecting to discuss targets in Russia with President Biden? He had a map with him. And then Joe Biden walked into this room, we’ll play it for you, with Prime Minister Stammer and their staffs and a group of reporters. And, well, I’ll let you watch it for yourself. Chris, Joe Biden angry with Prime Minister Starmer.
8:52 All right, till I speak, okay? That’s what I say. Good idea?
[Question to Biden]: What do you say to one of xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx?
Biden; All right, all right. You got to be quiet. I’m going to make a statement, okay? All right, anyway, Mr. Prime Minister, welcome. Welcome back to the White House. Often said there’s no issue of global consequence for the United States and Great Britain can’t work together and haven’t worked together. And we’re going to discuss some of these things right now. First Ukraine.
Napolitano: 9:21 So the American press and even the alternative media, like the show you’re on now, have been interpreting this to mean he had just been persuaded by his Defense Department, not intel– we’ll talk about intel in a minute, Russian and Ukrainian intel– not Secretary Blinken, but Secretary Austin, the Defense Department, to heed President Putin’s warning. “We are not ready to enter into a war with Russia.” And Joe Biden was angry at that, and it happened minutes before he walked into this room, and you saw what he said. Do you accept all that?
Doctorow: 10:01 Yes and no. There’s a lot of play-acting in all of this. The Russians, for their part, do not believe for a minute that the decision has been taken not to allow Ukraine to use these weapons. They believe it’s in abeyance, and that’s all. The Russians are acting on the assumption that this permission will be given. Whether it’s today, tomorrow, next week, is a matter of irrelevance. So that has to be taken as a given. Mr. Dmitry Kiselyov, who is as close to the Kremlin power as you can get in the Russian state television, said on Sunday night that they believe that the permission has been given, in fact, to use these, and it’s just being held back for a while, while it’s being gift-wrapped by the people around Biden.
10:48 So– but let’s step back and see how decisive is that issue. I say it’s not decisive. What would be decisive and a game-changer, is if the United States agreed not to release the ATACMs for use inside Russia, because that is similar to the Storm Shadow in radius. And in both Storm Shadow and the ATACMs have been captured either whole or in parts by the Russians, because they were used already in the war, and the Russians have devised either electronic warfare means or interception means, to stop a lot of these missiles.
11:33 So that is already old story. What is new story is the possible use of JASSM, this stealth technology, 1500-kilometer-range US missile. Now, [if] it comes to that, which the Russians have no experience stopping and which has a range that can reach Moscow, then, you have to say, that’s where Mr. Putin’s remarks become relevant and actionable. Right now, it’s a lot of addressing his own public to make, to remind them, to assure them that Mr. Putin and his colleagues are not pushovers, that they will defend the country as required. But it is not a direct threat tomorrow to have a preemptive strike on the United States. It is nothing of the sort, and I do not believe with my colleagues that we were lucky to survive the past weekend.
Napolitano: 12:32 Is Russia, by which I mean the Kremlin, the intelligence community, the military, and the Russian public, preparing or prepared for war against the United States, Pofessor?
Doctorow: Without a question, yes. And if you had any doubts, the announcement of two days ago that they are raising the number of men at arms to, I think it’s 1.5 million, about a 200,000 increase, that was a further illustration of the determination of Moscow to be ready for a war with the United States and its allies.
13:16 Of course, again, this is symbolic. Whether it’s another 100,000 or 200,000 is pretty meaningless when you have a country just on the border, Finland, saying that they at a moment’s notice can raise, I think, 180,000 men at arms and women at arms in Finland. The point is, if it comes to that, they’ll be using nuclear weapons, both sides, and there is not going to be a Battle of the Bulge going on in 2024 or 2025.
Napolitano: 13:45 If there is a war between Russia and the United States, will Russia bring it to the U S mainland?
Doctorow: Absolutely. That is beyond dispute. This was the essence of Mr. Putin’s remarks and of the followup remarks made by the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Vapkoff. This was the warning. Don’t think, Washington, that you’re going to be left untouched, while we in Europe destroy one another. We will go to your neck first. That was the message.
Napolitano: 14:21 Is Putin under pressure, President Putin under pressure, either from the media, political forces, colleagues in the Kremlin, colleagues in the military, to be more aggressive in Ukraine and end the war quickly?
Doctorow: Pressure, sure it is there, but this is not the sort of thing that would be in public view, nor is it something that I have greater access to than anyone else. It is simply logic that tells you he’s under pressure, but to demonstrate it, who exactly said what that would be putting him under pressure is not possible. This is done behind closed doors. What you can say, without question, is that the incursion in Kursk was a great embarrassment and humiliation for Putin and his top commands in the military. It’s a big disappointment for Mr. Putin. That would necessarily put him back-footed and in the need to appear to be defending his country and to make amends for these lapses that made it possible for the frontier to be breached in such a dramatic way as it was.
Napolitano: 15:45 What is the status of the incursion into Kursk now?
Napolitano: Well, the latest information is that there are continuing skirmishes, that the smaller units, and they only are small units of Ukrainians, because they cannot gather in large numbers, lest they be destroyed in a single blow, hammer blow of the Russian glide bombs. They are being isolated but they don’t have sufficient reinforcements. The main attention of Russia remains on the border, where they’re seeking to destroy any men and equipment that is prepared to reinforce the remaining troops within. But this is an area that is largely forested, where there are hideouts. Now Russian television shows how they have detected through drones, groups of Ukrainian soldiers, stragglers, and they have by means of attack drones, kamikaze drones, they have killed 10 soldiers here, 20 soldiers there. That’s the kind of fighting that’s going on.
17:01 The Russians and Mr– there’s a major general of the Chechens, Alaudinov, who was interviewed on Russian television, traveling around in a vehicle inspecting his Chechen fighters, speaking with them, and who was saying that, “We’re in no rush. We have no rush, because you rush and you lose a lot of men. And so to safeguard the lives of Russian troops, we don’t have a deadline to liquidate the Ukrainian forces in Kursk, but they all will be flushed out and killed or surrender.”
Napolitano: 17:39 Before I ask you about the role of intel in all of this, what is your opinion, Professor Doctorow, about how much longer Ukraine can hold out? I mean, for example, here’s what Americans want to know. Can they make it to election day? Are they limping to election day? Or is this going to be even longer?
Doctorow: My guess is it will be longer. not because the Russians cannot finish it quickly, they can in a variety of ways, not to mention a vast bombing of Kiev and so forth. They have it within their power to end the war tomorrow if they wanted to, at an enormous cost of life on the Ukrainian side, or the day after tomorrow with enormous cost of life on their side, because they’re waging an assault that is always deadly for those who are carrying it out. There are no rushes. The question of the US elections is of much higher interest in Washington and the United States than it is in Moscow. From the perspective of the Russians, it’s a Twiddle Dee and a Twiddle Dum, and they don’t expect any big change.
Napolitano: 18:57 You anticipated my next question. Now, just for some laughs, here is Boris Johnson over the weekend at some gathering. He’s seated next to the former US Secretary of State and CIA director, Mike Pompeo. He refers to him as Mike. That’s the Mike to whom he’s referring, but I’m sure you’ll be at odds with the statement he makes, the manner in which he speaks is his own unique choice. Chris, cut number seven.
Johnson: As for the role the Ukrainians could themselves play in stability and security in the Euro-Atlantic area, it’s obvious. Thanks to the heroism of the Ukrainian armed forces, they’ve been fighting for more than two years, almost three years; they are the most accomplished armed forces in the whole continent. And it’s easy to see how they could play a very, very important role in peace and stability on the European continent. One of the arguments I think we should make to our American friends is: if they want to take back some US troops from the European theater and save a few billion, a lot of billion, Mike, then I’m sure the Ukrainians having defeated the Russians– and there’s nobody more effective at defeating the Russians than the Ukrainians– I’m sure the Ukrainians would be only too happy to backfill in Europe. Anyway, those are some of the things, some of the ways in which I think Ukraine can be a force for stability.
Napolitano: 20:44 It’s not very realistic, is in effect, it’s almost absurd.
Doctorow: Well, he was flattering his hosts. How much of that he really believes is another question. I’d like to say though, there are some elements of what he said that deserve closer attention and a more positive evaluation than I have seen anywhere in alternative. When he says that the Ukrainians have been heroic, he’s right. Let’s not kid ourselves, I don’t agree with those of us who are saying that the Russians are steamrolling everything. They’re not steamrolling it, this is a tough battle. It can only be a tough battle if there were Ukrainians who were fighting and fighting for, out of patriotism and out of sincere belief in their country. That should not be laughed at. Now that they are dying like flies, that Mr. Zelensky is destroying his nation, that’s a separate question.
21:45 But the Ukrainians had, at the start of this war and well into the war, probably the most effective military other than Russia. Who else had an army that size and that determination on the European continent? Nobody.
Napolitano: They’ve lost 600,000 troops in two and a half years. It’s almost a generation of young men, 600,000 dead.
Doctorow: That is– a lot of them were killed for lack of proper preparation and because there was no air cover and a lot of the disastrous advice that was given by NATO. But that is not a commentary on the valor or the sincerity of those who went to war. We see enough on Russian television about the people, civilians, dragooned from the streets and sent off to the front. That is another side to the story. But let’s not assume that that is the whole story. It’s only part of the story.
Napolitano: 22:47 What is the role of intel in this, both Russian and Ukrainian?
Doctorow: I’m perplexed by remarks of some colleagues, peers who are saying that this is an intel-run war or an intel war, not even -run, that isn’t qualified in any way against Russia. No, I will concede that the brains of the operation may be the CIA, but I don’t hear my colleagues conceding that the brawn of the operation is the Pentagon. It’s the Pentagon that runs Ramstone, not Mr. Burns. I don’t see his presence at these things. So where the role of the CIA begins and ends is something that should be discussed among us, and not taken for granted, as it seems to be.
Napolitano: 23:41 Do you think that your statement now feeds into the narrative that the Pentagon, not the CIA and certainly not the State Department, talked Joe Biden into holding off on the decision– back to where we started our conversation, Professor– to authorize the use of long-term missiles.
Doctorow; I can only think that the Pentagon has more intelligence than people give it credit for. I’m not a great admirer of Mr. Austin, but I took note a week ago of his statement when asked about getting or not getting permission for these long-range missiles. His statement was very well advised. Whether he came to that conclusion himself or with the help of his advisors, the result is the same. The position that he was declaring– that these wonder weapons would not change the balance of the war, and that the Ukrainians had the means to strike within the heartland of Russia without using such missiles, and that the Russians had moved their aircraft and weapons, caches, beyond the possible range of the Storm Shadow– that was perfectly lucid, intelligent, an admirable statement that you would never expect to come from the Pentagon by all those who are saying that the CIA wants to show.
Napolitano: 25:20 How deep into Russia can Ukraine strike today?
Doctorow: Pretty far. They already are striking at Tver, which is maybe 60 miles away from Moscow. And they’re doing it with drones. Now why is that? Drones are very difficult to detect and bring down. Of course a drone generally speaking cannot do anything remotely like the damage of a cruise missile with a large warhead. Nonetheless, if it can ignite a store of Iskander missiles, that’s pretty good, and you don’t need a Storm Shadow to do it.
Napolitano: 26:04 When I asked you a few minutes ago if the Kremlin, Russian intel, Russian military, and the Russian people were prepared for war with the United States, you said “yes” immediately. Is the Pentagon, as far as you can tell from your perch in Brussels, prepared for war with Russia?
Doctorow; I think Mr. Austin’s answer is the answer to your question. No. That’s why they took such a serious look at the balance of strike power in the United States and Russia today, not in 2026, not in 2030, not when they’re given all the time in the world to prepare themselves, but today. They’re not ready.
Napolitano: Professor Doctorow, thank you very much, my dear friend. Fascinating conversation, much appreciated by the audience. I can tell from from the comments that folks are writing in and from my own intellectual curiosity, which you never fail to sate, but also provoke, which is great. Thank you, Professor. All the best. I hope you’ll come back again next week.
Doctorow: Thanks to you. Thanks to you.
Napoitano: Of course. And we do have a busy day ahead for you. At two o’clock this afternoon, Max Blumenthal; at three o’clock, Professor John Mearsheimer. At four o’clock, our Intelligence Community Roundtable with Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern. And at five o’clock from “Moscow at Midnight”, Pepe Escobar.
27:42 Judge Napolitano for “Judging Freedom”.
Transkript eines Lesers
Judge Andrew Napolitano: 0:33 Hallo allerseits, hier ist Judge Andrew Napolitano mit „Judging Freedom“. Heute ist Donnerstag, der 19. September 2024. Professor Gilbert Doctorow ist aus Brüssel zugeschaltet. Professor Doctorow, es ist mir ein Vergnügen, mein lieber Freund. Ich möchte mich bei Ihnen öffentlich, wie auch schon privat, für diese wöchentlichen Audienzen bedanken. Meine Zuhörer und ich schätzen sie sehr, und angesichts Ihres Hintergrunds und Ihrer Expertise in allen russischen Angelegenheiten ist es wirklich ein Privileg, Sie um Rat fragen zu können. Professor, letzte Woche, etwa um diese Zeit, Mitte bis Ende der Woche, waren Außenminister Antony Blinken und sein britischer Amtskollege David Lammy in Kiew mit dem ehemaligen Präsidenten, aber immer noch amtierenden Präsidenten Selensky.
1:26 Und sie deuteten an, ohne es ausdrücklich zu sagen, aber es war sehr offensichtlich, dass sie beide erwarteten, dass die Vereinigten Staaten und Großbritannien den Einsatz von Langstreckenraketen genehmigen würden, um tief in Russland einzudringen. Als sie in die Vereinigten Staaten zu fliegen begannen, gab Präsident Putin eine sehr, sehr ernste Erklärung ab, in der er eines von Joe Bidens Lieblingsworten verwendete: „Don’t“, denn wenn Sie es tun, werden wir die Vereinigten Staaten als im Krieg mit Russland befindlich betrachten. Als Blinken, Lamy und Premierminister Starmer in Washington eintrafen, war Premierminister Starmer etwas verlegen, und Präsident Biden war offensichtlich wütend, als er sich wohl oder übel zu dem Schluss gezwungen sah, dass dies nicht geschehen würde. Was halten Sie von all dem?
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 2:24 Ich glaube, in der Öffentlichkeit herrscht große Verwirrung darüber, was das bedeutet. Zunächst einmal hat niemand darüber gesprochen, in welcher Situation und an welchem Ort Herr Putin seine Erklärung abgegeben hat. War es vor der Duma, wie es der Fall wäre, wenn er sich darauf vorbereiten würde, eine Kriegserklärung an die Vereinigten Staaten zu fordern? War es vor seiner formellen Rede vor der russischen Öffentlichkeit, oder was?
Napolitano: Ich kann das für Sie einspielen, die Stellungnahme von Präsident Putin. Es scheint fast so, als würden Sie den Hintergrund besser kennen als ich, dass er in einem Durchgang mit einem Reporter spricht. Aber hier ist der Kern dessen, was er gesagt hat. Und das ist der 12. September, Schnitt Nummer fünf.
Putin (englische Synchrosination): 3:15 Es geht nicht darum, ob das ukrainische Regime Russland mit diesen Waffen angreifen darf oder nicht. Es geht darum, eine Entscheidung darüber zu treffen, ob NATO-Länder direkt in den militärischen Konflikt verwickelt sind oder nicht. Wenn diese Entscheidung getroffen wird, bedeutet dies nichts anderes als die direkte Beteiligung von NATO-Ländern, den Vereinigten Staaten und europäischen Ländern am Krieg in der Ukraine. Dies ist ihre direkte Beteiligung, und dies verändert natürlich das Wesen, die Natur des Konflikts erheblich. Das bedeutet, dass die NATO-Staaten, die Vereinigten Staaten und die europäischen Länder gegen Russland kämpfen. Und wenn dem so ist, werden wir angesichts der Veränderung des Wesens dieses Konflikts angemessene Entscheidungen auf der Grundlage der Bedrohungen treffen, die für uns entstehen werden.
Napolitano: 4:01 Können Sie sagen, wo er war, als er das gesagt hat?
Doctorow: Nun, ich weiß genau, wo er war, denn ich war selbst schon oft dort. Es liegt direkt vor dem Generalstabsgebäude des zaristischen Russlands, das vor etwa 20 Jahren in eine Zweigstelle der Eremitage umgewandelt wurde. Im dritten Stock dieses Gebäudes befindet sich die Sammlung französischer Impressionisten. Dort fand auch das Kulturforum statt, eine jährliche Veranstaltung in Petersburg mit nationaler und internationaler Dimension, und er kam entweder von der oder ging zur Generalversammlung dieses Kulturforums, wo er sprechen sollte oder gesprochen hat.
Napolitano: 4:44 Wir haben nicht alles dargestellt, was er gesagt hat, aber es ist klar, dass dies der Kern seiner Botschaft ist. „Joe, Keir, tut dies und ich werde eure beiden Länder als mit mir im Krieg befindlich betrachten, und ihr werdet die Konsequenzen tragen“, sagt Scott Ritter, und Doug McGregor sagt, dass er einen Angriff auf London oder das US-amerikanische Festland nicht ausschließen würde, wenn er glauben würde, dass Großbritannien oder respektive die USA ihn angreifen würden.
Doctorow: Formal gesehen stimme ich zu. Was die Interpretation angeht, stimme ich nicht zu. Was Herr McGregor, Colonel McGregor und andere gesagt haben, ist meiner Meinung nach stark übertrieben und reißerisch. Das war, so sage ich, der Kontext. Das war eine beiläufige Aussage, fokussiert, gekürzt, natürlich, aber an wen wurde sie gerichtet? An Pablo Zarubin, der Putin auf all seinen Reisen begleitet und für alte Damen, die ihren Tee trinken, ein Sonntagsprogramm mit dem Titel „Moskau, der Kreml, Putin“ auf die Beine stellt. Dies war nicht die russische Öffentlichkeit, weder [indirekt] noch offiziell. Er gab eine Erklärung ab, die innenpolitische Auswirkungen haben und seine Bürger davon überzeugen soll, dass er nicht herumgeschubst werden kann.
6:07 Aber … wie groß die Bedrohung für die Vereinigten Staaten war, ist aus mehreren Gründen Auslegungssache. Der erste Grund ist, wie gesagt, der Kontext, in dem er es gesagt hat. Der zweite ist, wie realistisch, wie wirklich besorgt Russland darüber ist, ob die Briten die Erlaubnis erhalten, die Storm Shadow einzusetzen oder nicht. Colonel McGregor sagt dazu kein Wort. Nun, lassen Sie uns das jetzt tun. Ich glaube nicht, dass die Storm Shadow in ihrer jetzigen Form eine große Bedrohung für Russland darstellt. Die Storm Shadow kann nur von einem Jet aus gestartet werden. Die Ukrainer hatten anfangs Schwierigkeiten, ihn einzusetzen, weil sie ihre sowjetischen Oldtimer-Jets speziell umrüsten mussten, um den Storm Shadow aufnehmen zu können.
Napolitano: 7:06 Nur für diejenigen von uns, die mit den Fachbegriffen nicht vertraut sind: Ist Storm Shadow amerikanisch oder britisch?
Doctorow: Sie ist britisch und französisch. Es gibt eine französische Version namens Scalp, es gibt eine britische Version namens Storm Shadow. Es gibt zwei verschiedene Reichweiten. Die längste beträgt 500 Kilometer, und ich glaube nicht, dass sie zuerst an die Ukrainer übergeben wurde. Ich glaube, sie haben eine Version mit einem Radius von 300 Kilometern bekommen. Nehmen wir nun an, sie beträgt 500 Kilometer. Mit 500 Kilometern Reichweite kann man Moskau nicht erreichen. Das ist Punkt eins. Man kann auch St. Petersburg nicht erreichen, Punkt zwei. Die Bedrohung, Russland durch die Lieferung dieser Raketen zu enthaupten, ist also nicht gegeben. Man kann viel Schaden anrichten, aber was ist dann vor zwei Tagen passiert? Es ist zu einem großen Schaden gekommen, als die Ukrainer Drohnen einsetzten, um ein Waffenlager, soweit wir wissen, mit Iskander-Raketen im Norden Russlands anzugreifen. Das war keine Storm Shadow, und es hat ziemlich gute Arbeit geleistet. Gehen wir also vorsichtig vor und lassen wir uns nicht zu sehr von den Fakten hinreißen, nur um ein breiteres Publikum zu erreichen.
Napolitano: 8:10 Okay, ich verstehe, was Sie sagen, aber was halten Sie von Präsident Biden? Ich meine, sind Sie nicht auch der Meinung, dass Premierminister Starmer auf dem Weg nach [Washington, D.C.] war, um mit Präsident Biden über Ziele in Russland zu sprechen? Er hatte eine Karte [mit Zielen für die Raketen] dabei. Und dann betrat Joe Biden diesen Raum, wir werden es für Sie abspielen, mit Premierminister Starmer und den Mitarbeitern und einer Gruppe von Reportern. Und, nun, ich lasse Sie das selbst sehen. Chris, der Schnitt „Joe Biden ist wütend“.
8:52 Biden:
Alles klar, bis ich spreche, okay? Das werde ich sagen. Gute Idee?
[Frage an Biden]: Was sagen Sie zu xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx?
Biden; Schon gut, schon gut. Sie müssen ruhig sein. Ich werde eine Erklärung abgeben, okay? Also gut, Herr Premierminister, willkommen. Willkommen zurück im Weißen Haus. Es wird oft gesagt, dass es kein Thema von globaler Bedeutung für die Vereinigten Staaten gibt und dass Großbritannien nicht zusammenarbeiten kann und nicht zusammengearbeitet hat. Und wir werden einige dieser Dinge jetzt besprechen. Zunächst die Ukraine.
Napolitano: 9:21 Die amerikanische Presse und sogar die alternativen Medien, wie die Sendung, in der Sie gerade zu Gast sind, haben dies so interpretiert, dass er gerade von seinem Verteidigungsministerium überredet worden war, nicht von den Geheimdiensten – über die Geheimdienste, russische und ukrainische Geheimdienste, sprechen wir gleich –, nicht von Außenminister Blinken, sondern von Austin, dem Verteidigungsministerium, Präsident Putins Warnung zu beherzigen. „Wir sind nicht bereit, einen Krieg mit Russland zu beginnen.“ Und Joe Biden war darüber verärgert, und das geschah nur Minuten, bevor er diesen Raum betrat, und Sie haben gesehen, was er gesagt hat. Akzeptieren Sie das alles?
Doctorow: 10:01 Ja und nein. In all dem steckt viel Schauspielerei. Die Russen ihrerseits glauben nicht eine Minute lang, dass die Entscheidung getroffen wurde, der Ukraine die Nutzung dieser Waffen nicht zu gestatten. Sie glauben, dass sie in der Schwebe ist, und das ist alles. Die Russen gehen davon aus, dass diese Erlaubnis erteilt wird. Ob heute, morgen oder nächste Woche, ist irrelevant. Das muss man als gegeben hinnehmen. Herr Dmitry Kiselyov, der im russischen Staatsfernsehen so nah wie möglich an der Kreml-Macht dran ist, sagte am Sonntagabend, dass sie glauben, dass die Erlaubnis erteilt wurde, diese tatsächlich zu nutzen, und dass sie nur für eine Weile zurückgehalten wird, während sie von Bidens Leuten in Geschenkpapier verpackt wird.
10:48 Also – aber lassen Sie uns einen Schritt zurücktreten und sehen, wie entscheidend dieses Thema ist. Ich sage, es ist nicht entscheidend. Wäre es entscheidend und spielentscheidend, wenn die Vereinigten Staaten zustimmen würden, die ATACMs für den Einsatz in Russland freizugeben, da sie einen ähnlichen Radius wie die Storm Shadow haben? Sowohl die Storm Shadow als auch die ATACMs wurden entweder ganz oder teilweise von den Russen erbeutet, weil sie bereits im Krieg eingesetzt wurden, und die Russen haben entweder elektronische Kriegsführung oder Abfangmittel entwickelt, um viele dieser Raketen zu stoppen.
11:33 Das ist also schon eine alte Geschichte. Die neue Geschichte wäre der mögliche Einsatz von JASSM, diese US-amerikanische Tarnkappen-Rakete mit einer Reichweite von 1.500 Kilometern. Nun, [wenn] es dazu kommt und die Russen keine Erfahrung damit haben, sie aufzuhalten, und dass sie eine Reichweite hat, die Moskau erreichen kann, dann muss man sagen, dass hier die Äußerungen von Herrn Putin relevant und umsetzbar werden. Im Moment muss er sich vor allem an seine eigene Öffentlichkeit wenden, um sie daran zu erinnern und ihr zu versichern, dass Herr Putin und seine Kollegen keine Schwächlinge sind, sondern das Land bei Bedarf verteidigen werden. Aber es ist keine direkte Bedrohung, morgen einen Präventivschlag gegen die Vereinigten Staaten zu führen. Es ist nichts dergleichen, und ich glaube nicht, dass wir und meine Kollegen Glück hatten, das vergangene Wochenende zu überleben.
Napolitano: 12:32 Bereitet sich Russland, und damit meine ich den Kreml, den Geheimdienst, das Militär und die russische Öffentlichkeit, auf einen Krieg gegen die Vereinigten Staaten vor oder hat es sich bereits darauf vorbereitet, Professor?
Doctorow: Ohne Frage, ja. Und falls Sie irgendwelche Zweifel hatten: Die Ankündigung von vor zwei Tagen, dass die Zahl der bewaffneten Soldaten auf, ich glaube, 1,5 Millionen erhöht wird, was einer Steigerung von etwa 200.000 entspricht, war ein weiteres Beispiel für die Entschlossenheit Moskaus, für einen Krieg mit den Vereinigten Staaten und ihren Verbündeten bereit zu sein.
13:16 Natürlich ist auch dies symbolisch. Ob es nun weitere 100.000 oder 200.000 sind, ist ziemlich bedeutungslos, wenn man ein Land direkt an der Grenze hat, Finnland, das meiner Meinung nach in kürzester Zeit 180.000 bewaffnete Männer und Frauen in Finnland aufstellen kann. Der Punkt ist, dass sie, wenn es dazu kommt, Atomwaffen einsetzen werden, und zwar beide Seiten, und es wird 2024 oder 2025 keine Ardennenoffensive geben.
Napolitano: 13:45 Wenn es zu einem Krieg zwischen Russland und den Vereinigten Staaten kommt, wird Russland ihn dann auf das Festland der USA ausweiten?
Doctorow: Absolut. Das steht außer Frage. Das war der Kern von Putins Bemerkungen und der anschließenden Ausführungen des stellvertretenden Außenministers Vapkoff. Das war die Warnung. Washington sollte nicht glauben, dass es verschont bleiben würde, während wir in Europa uns gegenseitig zerstören. Wir werden uns zuerst mit ihnen [USA] befassen. Das war die Botschaft.
Napolitano: 14:21 Steht Putin unter Druck, steht Präsident Putin unter Druck, entweder von den Medien, politischen Kräften, Kollegen im Kreml, Kollegen im Militär, aggressiver in der Ukraine vorzugehen und den Krieg schnell zu beenden?
Doctorow: Sicher, es gibt Druck, aber das ist nichts, was in der Öffentlichkeit bekannt wäre, und ich habe auch keinen besseren Zugang dazu als jeder andere. Es ist einfach logisch, dass man weiß, dass er unter Druck steht, aber zu beweisen, wer genau was gesagt hat, das ihn unter Druck setzen würde, ist nicht möglich. Das geschieht hinter verschlossenen Türen. Was man ohne Frage sagen kann, ist, dass der Einfall in Kursk eine große Blamage und Demütigung für Putin und seine obersten Militärbefehlshaber war. Es ist eine große Enttäuschung für Herrn Putin. Das würde ihn zwangsläufig in die Defensive drängen und ihn dazu zwingen, den Anschein zu erwecken, sein Land zu verteidigen und diese Fehler wiedergutzumachen, die es ermöglichten, dass die Grenze auf so dramatische Weise durchbrochen wurde.
Napolitano: 15:45 Wie ist der aktuelle Stand der Invasion in Kursk?
Doctorow: Nun, die neuesten Informationen besagen, dass es weiterhin Gefechte gibt, dass die kleineren Einheiten, und das sind nur kleine Einheiten von Ukrainern, weil sie sich nicht in großer Zahl versammeln können, ohne durch einen einzigen Schlag, den Hammerschlag der russischen Gleitbomben, vernichtet zu werden. Sie sind isoliert, aber sie haben nicht genügend Verstärkung. Das Hauptaugenmerk Russlands liegt weiterhin auf der Grenze, wo sie versuchen, alle Männer und Ausrüstung zu vernichten, die zur Verstärkung der verbliebenen Truppen im Inneren eingesetzt werden könnten. Aber dieses Gebiet ist größtenteils bewaldet, wo es Verstecke gibt. Jetzt zeigt das russische Fernsehen, wie sie mit Drohnen Gruppen ukrainischer Soldaten und Nachzügler aufgespürt haben und mit Angriffsdrohnen und Kamikaze-Drohnen zehn Soldaten hier und zwanzig Soldaten dort getötet haben. Das ist die Art von Kämpfen, die hier stattfinden.
17:01 Die Russen und Herr – es gibt einen tschetschenischen Generalmajor namens Alaudinow, der im russischen Fernsehen interviewt wurde. Er reist in einem Fahrzeug umher, inspiziert seine tschetschenischen Kämpfer, spricht mit ihnen und sagt: „Wir haben es nicht eilig. Wir haben keine Eile, denn wenn man sich beeilt, verliert man viele Männer. Um das Leben der russischen Truppen zu schützen, haben wir keine Frist, um die ukrainischen Streitkräfte in Kursk zu liquidieren, aber sie werden alle aufgespürt und getötet oder ergeben sich.“
Napolitano: 17:39 Bevor ich Sie nach der Rolle von Geheimdiensten in all dem frage, was ist Ihre Meinung, Professor Doctorow, wie lange die Ukraine noch durchhalten kann? Ich meine, die Amerikaner wollen zum Beispiel Folgendes wissen: Schaffen sie es bis zum Wahltag? Hinken sie noch bis zum Wahltag? Oder wird das noch länger dauern?
Doctorow: Ich vermute, dass es länger dauern wird. Nicht, weil die Russen es nicht schnell beenden könnten, sie können es auf verschiedene Weise, ganz zu schweigen von einer großflächigen Bombardierung von Kiew und so weiter. Sie haben es in der Hand, den Krieg morgen zu beenden, wenn sie wollten, mit einem enormen Blutzoll auf ukrainischer Seite, oder übermorgen mit einem enormen Blutzoll auf ihrer Seite, denn sie führen einen Angriff, der für diejenigen, die ihn ausführen, immer tödlich ist. Es gibt keine Eile. Die Frage der US-Wahlen ist in Washington und den Vereinigten Staaten von viel größerem Interesse als in Moskau. Aus russischer Sicht ist es ein Twiddle Dee und ein Twiddle Dum, und sie erwarten keine großen Veränderungen.
Napolitano: 18:57 Sie haben meine nächste Frage vorweggenommen. Nur zum Spaß, hier ist Boris Johnson am Wochenende bei einer Versammlung. Er sitzt neben dem ehemaligen US-Außenminister und CIA-Direktor Mike Pompeo. Er nennt ihn Mike. Das ist der Mike, auf den er sich bezieht, aber ich bin sicher, dass Sie mit seiner Aussage nicht einverstanden sind. Die Art und Weise, wie er spricht, ist seine eigene, einzigartige Wahl. Chris, Schnitt Nummer sieben.
Johnson: Was die Rolle der Ukrainer selbst für die Stabilität und Sicherheit im euro-atlantischen Raum betrifft, so ist diese offensichtlich. Dank des Heldentums der ukrainischen Streitkräfte, die seit mehr als zwei Jahren, fast drei Jahren, kämpfen, sind sie die erfolgreichsten Streitkräfte auf dem gesamten Kontinent. Und es ist leicht zu erkennen, wie sie eine sehr, sehr wichtige Rolle für den Frieden und die Stabilität auf dem europäischen Kontinent spielen könnten. Eines der Argumente, das wir meiner Meinung nach unseren amerikanischen Freunden vorbringen sollten, ist: Wenn sie einige US-Truppen aus dem europäischen Einsatzgebiet abziehen und ein paar Milliarden, viele Milliarden, einsparen wollen, Mike, dann bin ich sicher, dass die Ukrainer, die die Russen besiegt haben – und niemand ist effektiver darin, die Russen zu besiegen als die Ukrainer – ich bin sicher, dass die Ukrainer nur allzu gerne in Europa einspringen würden. Das sind jedenfalls einige der Dinge, einige der Möglichkeiten, wie die Ukraine meiner Meinung nach eine Kraft für Stabilität sein kann.
Napolitano: 20:44 Das ist nicht sehr realistisch, eigentlich ist es fast absurd.
Doctorow: Nun, er hat seinen Gastgebern geschmeichelt. Inwieweit er das wirklich glaubt, ist eine andere Frage. Ich möchte jedoch sagen, dass einige Elemente dessen, was er gesagt hat, eine genauere Betrachtung und eine positivere Bewertung verdienen, als ich sie bei den Alternativen gesehen habe. Wenn er sagt, dass die Ukrainer heldenhaft waren, hat er Recht. Machen wir uns nichts vor, ich stimme nicht mit denen von uns überein, die sagen, dass die Russen alles überrollen. Sie walzen nicht alles nieder, das ist ein harter Kampf. Es kann nur ein harter Kampf sein, wenn es Ukrainer gibt, die aus Patriotismus und aufrichtigem Glauben an ihr Land kämpfen und kämpfen. Das sollte nicht belächelt werden. Dass Herr Selensky sein Land zerstört, ist eine andere Frage.
21:45 Aber die Ukrainer hatten zu Beginn dieses Krieges und bis weit in den Krieg hinein wahrscheinlich das effektivste Militär außer Russland. Wer sonst auf dem europäischen Kontinent hatte eine Armee dieser Größe und Entschlossenheit? Niemand.
Napolitano: Sie haben in zweieinhalb Jahren 600.000 Soldaten verloren. Das ist fast eine Generation junger Männer, 600.000 Tote.
Doctorow: Das heißt, viele von ihnen wurden getötet, weil sie nicht richtig vorbereitet waren, weil es keine Luftunterstützung gab und weil die NATO viele katastrophale Ratschläge erteilt hat. Das soll jedoch kein Kommentar über die Tapferkeit oder die Aufrichtigkeit derer sein, die in den Krieg zogen. Wir sehen im russischen Fernsehen genug über die Menschen, Zivilisten, die von der Straße weg zur Front geschickt wurden. Das ist eine andere Seite der Geschichte. Aber gehen wir nicht davon aus, dass das die ganze Geschichte ist. Es ist nur ein Teil der Geschichte.
Napolitano: 22:47 Welche Rolle spielen dabei die Geheimdienste, sowohl der russische als auch der ukrainische?
Doctorow: Ich bin verblüfft über die Äußerungen einiger Kollegen, die sagen, dass dies ein Krieg ist, der von Geheimdiensten geführt wird, oder ein Krieg der Geheimdienste, die die treibende Kraft hinter der Operation seien, aber ich höre nicht, dass meine Kollegen zugeben, dass das Pentagon die treibende Kraft hinter der Operation ist. Das Pentagon leitet Ramstein, nicht Mr. Burns. Ich sehe ihn bei diesen Dingen nicht. Wo die Rolle der CIA beginnt und endet, sollte unter uns diskutiert werden und nicht als selbstverständlich angesehen werden, wie es scheint.
Napolitano: 23:41 Glauben Sie, dass Ihre Aussage nun in das Narrativ einfließt, dass das Pentagon, nicht die CIA und schon gar nicht das Außenministerium, Joe Biden dazu überredet hat, die Entscheidung – zurück zu unserem Ausgangspunkt, Professor – die Verwendung von Langstreckenraketen zu genehmigen, hinauszuzögern?
Doctorow; Ich kann mir nur vorstellen, dass das Pentagon mehr Informationen hat, als man ihm zutraut. Ich bin kein großer Bewunderer von Herrn Austin, aber ich habe vor einer Woche seine Aussage zur Kenntnis genommen, als er gefragt wurde, ob er die Erlaubnis für diese Langstreckenraketen erhalten hat oder nicht. Seine Aussage war sehr gut durchdacht. Ob er selbst oder mit Hilfe seiner Berater zu diesem Schluss gekommen ist, ist egal. Die Position, die er erklärte – dass diese Wunderwaffen das Gleichgewicht des Krieges nicht verändern würden und dass die Ukrainer die Mittel hätten, das Herz Russlands zu treffen, ohne solche Raketen einzusetzen, und dass die Russen ihre Flugzeuge und Waffen, ihre Depots, außerhalb der möglichen Reichweite der Storm Shadow verlegt hätten – war vollkommen klar, intelligent, eine bewundernswerte Aussage, die man niemals vom Pentagon erwarten würde, von all denen, die sagen, dass die CIA am Drücker sei.
Napolitano: 25:20 Wie tief kann die Ukraine heute in Russland zuschlagen?
Doctorow: Ziemlich weit. Sie greifen bereits Twer an, das etwa 100 Kilometer von Moskau entfernt liegt. Und sie tun es mit Drohnen. Warum ist das so? Drohnen sind sehr schwer zu entdecken und abzuschießen. Natürlich kann eine Drohne im Allgemeinen nicht annähernd den Schaden anrichten wie eine Marschflugkörper mit einem großen Sprengkopf. Dennoch ist es ziemlich gut, wenn sie ein Lager mit Iskander-Raketen in Brand setzen kann, und dafür braucht man keine Storm Shadow.
Napolitano: 26:04 Als ich Sie vor ein paar Minuten gefragt habe, ob der Kreml, der russische Geheimdienst, das russische Militär und das russische Volk auf einen Krieg mit den Vereinigten Staaten vorbereitet seien, haben Sie sofort „Ja“ gesagt. Ist das Pentagon, soweit Sie das von Ihrem Posten in Brüssel aus beurteilen können, auf einen Krieg mit Russland vorbereitet?
Doctorow; Ich denke, die Antwort von Herrn Austin ist die Antwort auf Ihre Frage. Nein. Deshalb haben sie sich so intensiv mit dem Gleichgewicht der Schlagkraft in den Vereinigten Staaten und Russland heute befasst, nicht im Jahr 2026, nicht im Jahr 2030, nicht wenn sie alle Zeit der Welt haben, sich vorzubereiten, sondern heute. Sie sind nicht bereit.
Napolitano: Professor Doctorow, vielen Dank, mein lieber Freund. Ein faszinierendes Gespräch, das vom Publikum sehr geschätzt wurde. Ich kann das an den Kommentaren erkennen, die die Leute schreiben, und an meiner eigenen intellektuellen Neugier, die Sie nie enttäuschen, aber auch provozieren, was großartig ist. Vielen Dank, Professor. Alles Gute. Ich hoffe, Sie sind nächste Woche wieder dabei.
Doctorow: Dank an Sie.
Napoitano: Natürlich. Und wir haben heute einen anstrengenden Tag für Sie vor uns. Um 14 Uhr heute Nachmittag Max Blumenthal, um 15 Uhr Professor John Mearsheimer. Um 16 Uhr unser Runder Tisch der Geheimdienste mit Larry Johnson und Ray McGovern. Und um 17 Uhr „Moskau um Mitternacht“ mit Pepe Escobar.
I was very pleased this morning to find that four readers using my wordpress platform had delved into the website archive or used Google search to find my 2022 essay about the contents and relevance of a book of essays I published in 2010, Great Post Cold War American Thinkers on International Relations – the book which I mentioned in yesterday’s installment here. It was still more pleasant to find on my daily Amazon account that one reader had just purchased a copy of that book after reading my remarks yesterday.
On my substack platform, one subscriber posted a comment on yesterday’s introduction to my ‘Dialogue Works’ interview suggesting I was possibly being too self-promoting. To this I replied that when you are publishing even a gentle critical comment on Messrs. Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearsheimer directly not to mention a harsher critique of Scott Ritter indirectly, you are by definition no ‘wilting violet.’
Indeed, I am today battle-scarred from the Information Wars. Back in 2010, when I was a Visiting Fellow of the Harriman Institute, Columbia University, I delivered a book presentation of the newly released Great Post Cold War…Thinkers in a room of the Harriman Institute, which was then still a major center of Russian studies in U.S. higher education but is today a center of Ukrainian studies and of the ‘de-colonization’ of Russia. I was met by stony faces, since faculty had no idea that one might say anything other than complimentary if not adulatory when writing about the ‘greats’ of political science, namely Kissinger, Brzezinski, Huntington and Fukuyama, among others.
Then there was another communication yesterday from a reader with a properly inquisitive mind who asked for the link to my article written a decade or more ago which I mentioned in the chat with Nima Alkhorshid, the one dealing with Cheney’s gutting the Deep State, meaning here the State Department and the CIA along with other federal government intelligence groups. In that same article I spoke about why the Sovietologists were chased out and some Middle East and Islamist extremism experts were ushered in, plus the shift of a substantial part of the intelligence budget away from federal employees and towards commercial suppliers on short term contracts. All of this, by the way, is why I believe that sanitizing the intelligence agencies will take a great deal more than replacement of the very top echelons there who may be yes-men to the White House.
Regrettably, in trying to respond to this request, I discovered that I had not included that very important essay in my several published collections of essays, and that I do not have the skills to locate it in the archive of either of my web platforms, though in principle it should be there from when I transferred the entire record of my essays published over the course of five or more years on the guest platform of the French-language Belgian daily Le Soir away from there to my then new wordpress website. Perhaps I will succeed in locating the article in question in one of my memory sticks or on now retired PCs. In that case I will republish it here. But as a token indication of the sources I was using for my article I have cut and paste below the introductory pages of one of those key sources. Note that the information on outsourcing of intelligence work dates from 2006. I have not followed up this question recently and do not know the proportion of intelligence gathering done inside the federal agencies versus by contract to commercial service providers.
I was pleased to get this request, because we disseminators of commentary on current international events should, where possible, explain to readers and listeners what are our sources.
In its own way, this nasty experience of trying and failing to locate an important article that I had written a decade or more ago is the very reason why I periodically publish collections of my essays as e-books or paperbacks. Websites come and go; books do not. However, it is always a challenge to know what to republish in a book and what to leave to the side because it does not appear to be germane to the central idea of the book.
Quote
ANALYSIS 03/12/2007
OUTSOURCING INTELLIGENCE:
THE EXAMPLE OF THE UNITED STATES
by Raphaël RAMOS, Research Associate
This past September, the polemic around Blackwater USA[1] illustrated the growing reliance of the American government on the private sector to carry out security missions that formerly were entrusted to the military. In Iraq, this practice has assumed unprecedented scope. According to the Washington Post, the number of armed persons working in Mesopotamia for companies under contract with the United States government has ranged between 20,000 and 30,000[2]. If we look beyond the area of security, the number of individuals present in Iraq on the basis of contracts signed by companies with the Pentagon or US State Department was estimated in July, 2007 to be more than 180,000[3]. Among these civilians employed by private companies, some work on behalf of intelligence agencies such as the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) or the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency).
Contrary to conventional wisdom, this practice of outsourcing intelligence is nothing new. In fact it goes back to the very beginning of the American nation. Due to a lack of money and of intelligence professionals, certain activities involving collecting and analysing data were entrusted to civilians who were engaged for brief periods of time. Thus, during the War of Independence, General George Washington made use of many networks of civilian spies. In the same way, during the 19th century, the company of the well-known Allan Pinkerton conducted espionage on behalf of the American government. This process slowed down in the 20th century when intelligence became professional and specialised military agencies emerged. It reappeared in the 1990s and continued to develop, reaching a scale never seen before. According to internal sources within the American intelligence community, nearly seventy percent of its budget is spent via contracts with private companies[4].
While the ‘privatisation of security’ has been the subject of many articles and studies, the process of outsourcing party of intelligence activities still remains largely ignored. By taking the example of the United States, the leading country in this domain, it would seem interesting to go into the development of this phenomenon and examine its true extent, the reasons for its happening today and its limits.
A practice that is continuously expanding
Though, as we have seen, the use of private companies in the area of intelligence is nothing new, the extent of the phenomenon today is without precedent. It is still difficult to evaluate precisely, because of the secrecy inherent in the practice of intelligence and the polemics that have rendered this question very sensitive in the United States. Last April, Mike McConnell, Director of National Intelligence (DNI), was supposed to present a report on the practice of outsourcing within the community he directs. This report was initially delayed and then was classified, thus rendering its publication impossible.[5]
At the same time, the press revealed that according to a presentation made within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the American intelligence community devotes nearly seventy percent of its budget to outsourcing part of its activities. This is difficult to verify and has been challenged by certain officials in Mr. McConnell’s office[6], but the figure nonetheless confirms a tendency towards increased reliance of the federal intelligence agencies on subcontractors. Other sources revealed that for the year 2004, around half of the intelligence budget was used to obtain the services of private companies[7]. The explosion in the number of these specialised enterprises suggests there is a very lucrative market here being fed by the sixteen member bodies of the American intelligence community.[8]
w The agencies and the activities concerned
Outsourcing is greatest among the agencies reporting to the Defense Department. The intelligence activities managed by the NSA (National Security Agency), the NGA (National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency) and the NRO (National Reconnaissance Office) are undeniably the most costly. In addition, their high technology nature makes it inevitable to go to actors in the private sector. Thus, ever since the summer of 2001, the NSA has had a signed contract worth more than two billion dollars subcontracting certain of its activities concerning Information Technologies and communications over a period lasting ten years.[9] Similarly, ever since its creation in 1995, the NGA has relied on the private sector to supply it with software and Information Systems. Today, out of the 14,000 persons working in NGA premises, nearly half are in reality employed by subcontractor companies.[10] All the same, one must note that the most ‘traditional’ activities such as human collecting of intelligence or analysis are also affected by this phenomenon.
[1] On September 16, 2007, some employees of Blackwater USA killed seventeen Iraqi civilians during a shooting under circumstances that remain hazy. Following this event, the Iraqi government asked the security company to leave Iraq.
[7] Major Glenn J. Voelz, USA, Managing the Private Spies: The Use of Commercial Augmentation for Intelligence Operations, Washington D.C., Center for Strategic Intelligence Research, Joint Military Intelligence College, June 2006, p. 12.
[8] Basing ourselves on the official figure of the intelligence budget, 43.5 billion dollars, as published by the American Administration, the intelligence outsourcing market would be more than 30 billion dollars for the year 2007.
[9]National Security Agency Outsources Areas of Non-Mission Information Technology to CSC-Led Alliance Team, NSA Press Release, July 31, 2001. http://www.nsa.gov/releases/relea00034.cfm
[10] Tim Shorrock, ‘The corporate takeover of U.S. intelligence,’ op. cit.
Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)Das Feedback von wissbegierigen Menschen ist die beste Bestätigung für diese Website
Ich habe mich heute Morgen sehr darüber gefreut, dass vier Leser, die meine WordPress-Plattform nutzen, im Website-Archiv gestöbert oder die Google-Suche verwendet haben, um meinen Aufsatz aus dem Jahr 2022 über den Inhalt und die Relevanz eines Aufsatzbandes zu finden, den ich 2010 veröffentlicht habe, Great Post Cold War American Thinkers on International Relations – das Buch, das ich in der gestrigen Folge hier erwähnt habe. Es war noch erfreulicher, auf meinem täglichen Amazon-Konto zu sehen, dass ein Leser gerade ein Exemplar dieses Buches gekauft hatte, nachdem er meine gestrigen Ausführungen gelesen hatte.
Auf meiner Substack-Plattform hat ein Abonnent einen Kommentar zur gestrigen Ausgabe meines „Dialogue Works“-Interviews gepostet, in dem er mir vorwarf, ich würde mich möglicherweise zu sehr selbst bewerben. Darauf habe ich geantwortet, dass man per definitionem kein „zartes Pflänzchen“ istd, wenn man auch nur einen leicht kritischen Kommentar über die Herren Jeffrey Sachs und John Mearsheimer veröffentlicht, ganz zu schweigen von einer härteren Kritik an Scott Ritter.
Tatsächlich bin ich heute von den Informationskriegen gezeichnet. Damals im Jahr 2010, als ich Visiting Fellow am Harriman Institute der Columbia University war, hielt ich in einem Raum des Harriman Institute, das damals noch ein bedeutendes Zentrum für Russischstudien an US-amerikanischen Hochschulen war, heute jedoch ein Zentrum für Ukrainistik und die „Entkolonialisierung“ Russlands ist, eine Buchpräsentation des neu erschienenen Great Post Cold War… Thinkers. Ich stieß auf versteinerte Gesichter, da die Fakultät keine Ahnung hatte, dass man etwas anderes als Komplimente, wenn nicht gar Lobeshymnen, äußern würde, wenn man über die „Größen“ der Politikwissenschaft schreibt, nämlich Kissinger, Brzezinski, Huntington und Fukuyama, um nur einige zu nennen.
Dann gab es gestern eine weitere Nachricht von einem Leser mit einem wirklich wissbegierigen Verstand, der nach dem Link zu meinem Artikel fragte, den ich vor einem Jahrzehnt oder länger geschrieben hatte und den ich im Chat mit Nima Alkhorshid erwähnt habe. Es ging um den Artikel, in dem es darum ging, wie Cheney den „Deep State“ ausgeweidet hat, womit hier das Außenministerium und die CIA zusammen mit anderen Geheimdiensten der Bundesregierung gemeint sind. In demselben Artikel sprach ich darüber, warum die Sowjetologen hinausgeworfen und einige Nahost- und Islamismus-Experten hereingebeten wurden, sowie über die Verlagerung eines erheblichen Teils des Geheimdienstbudgets weg von Bundesangestellten und hin zu kommerziellen Anbietern mit kurzfristigen Verträgen. All dies ist übrigens der Grund, warum ich glaube, dass die Säuberung der Geheimdienste viel mehr erfordert als nur den Austausch der obersten Führungsriege, die möglicherweise Ja-Sager des Weißen Hauses sind.
Leider musste ich bei dem Versuch, dieser Bitte nachzukommen, feststellen, dass ich diesen sehr wichtigen Aufsatz nicht in meine verschiedenen veröffentlichten Aufsatzsammlungen aufgenommen hatte und dass ich nicht über die Fähigkeiten verfüge, ihn im Archiv einer meiner Webplattformen zu finden, obwohl er im Prinzip dort sein sollte, da ich die gesamten Aufzeichnungen meiner Essays, die ich im Laufe von fünf oder mehr Jahren veröffentlicht hatte, von dort auf meine damals neue WordPress-Website übertragen habe. Vielleicht gelingt es mir, den betreffenden Artikel auf einem meiner Memory Sticks oder auf inzwischen ausgemusterten PCs zu finden. In diesem Fall werde ich ihn hier erneut veröffentlichen. Als Hinweis auf die Quellen, die ich für meinen Artikel verwendet hatte, habe ich unten die einleitenden Seiten einer dieser Hauptquellen ausgeschnitten und eingefügt. Beachten Sie, dass die Informationen zur Auslagerung der Geheimdienstarbeit aus dem Jahr 2006 stammen. Ich habe diese Frage in letzter Zeit nicht weiterverfolgt und weiß nicht, in welchem Verhältnis die Datenerhebung innerhalb der Bundesbehörden und durch Verträge mit kommerziellen Dienstleistern erfolgt.
Ich habe mich über diese Anfrage gefreut, denn wir, die wir Kommentare zu aktuellen internationalen Ereignissen verbreiten, sollten unseren Lesern und Zuhörern nach Möglichkeit erklären, woher wir unsere Informationen beziehen.
Diese unangenehme Erfahrung, als ich einen wichtigen Artikel von mir von vor zehn oder mehr Jahren finden wollte, aber scheiterte, ist auf ihre eigene Art und Weise der Grund, warum ich regelmäßig Sammlungen meiner Essays als E-Books oder Taschenbücher veröffentliche. Websites kommen und gehen, Bücher nicht. Es ist jedoch immer eine Herausforderung zu wissen, was man in einem Buch erneut veröffentlichen und was man beiseitelassen sollte, weil es nicht mit der zentralen Idee des Buches in Zusammenhang zu stehen scheint.
Zitat
ANALYSE 03/12/2007
OUTSOURCING VON GEHEIMDIENSTINFORMATIONEN:
DAS BEISPIEL DER VEREINIGTEN STAATEN
von Raphaël RAMOS, Research Associate
Die Polemik um Blackwater USA[1] im vergangenen September veranschaulichte die wachsende Abhängigkeit der amerikanischen Regierung vom Privatsektor bei der Durchführung von Sicherheitsmissionen, die früher dem Militär anvertraut waren. Im Irak hat diese Praxis ein beispielloses Ausmaß angenommen. Laut der Washington Post liegt die Zahl der bewaffneten Personen, die in Mesopotamien für Unternehmen arbeiten, die mit der Regierung der Vereinigten Staaten unter Vertrag stehen, zwischen 20.000 und 30.000[2]. Wenn wir über den Bereich der Sicherheit hinausblicken, wurde die Zahl der Personen, die sich auf der Grundlage von Verträgen, die Unternehmen mit dem Pentagon oder dem US-Außenministerium abgeschlossen haben, im Irak aufhalten, im Juli 2007 auf mehr als 180.000 geschätzt[3]. Unter diesen von Privatunternehmen beschäftigten Zivilisten arbeiten einige im Auftrag von Geheimdiensten wie der CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) oder der DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency).
Entgegen der landläufigen Meinung ist diese Praxis des Outsourcings von Geheimdienstinformationen nichts Neues. Tatsächlich reicht sie bis in die Anfänge der amerikanischen Nation zurück. Aufgrund von Geldmangel und einem Mangel an Geheimdienstmitarbeitern wurden bestimmte Tätigkeiten im Zusammenhang mit der Datenerhebung und -analyse Zivilisten anvertraut, die für kurze Zeiträume engagiert wurden. So nutzte General George Washington während des Unabhängigkeitskrieges zahlreiche Netzwerke ziviler Spione. Auf die gleiche Weise führte die Firma des bekannten Allan Pinkerton im 19. Jahrhundert Spionage im Auftrag der amerikanischen Regierung durch. Dieser Prozess verlangsamte sich im 20. Jahrhundert, als die Geheimdienste professioneller wurden und spezialisierte Militärbehörden entstanden. In den 1990er Jahren tauchte er wieder auf und entwickelte sich weiter, wobei er ein nie dagewesenes Ausmaß erreichte. Laut internen Quellen innerhalb der amerikanischen Geheimdienste werden fast siebzig Prozent ihres Budgets über Verträge mit Privatunternehmen ausgegeben[4].
Während die „Privatisierung der Sicherheit“ Gegenstand zahlreicher Artikel und Studien war, wird der Prozess der Auslagerung eines Teils der Geheimdienstaktivitäten nach wie vor weitgehend ignoriert. Am Beispiel der Vereinigten Staaten, dem führenden Land in diesem Bereich, erscheint es interessant, die Entwicklung dieses Phänomens zu untersuchen und sein tatsächliches Ausmaß, die Gründe für sein heutiges Auftreten und seine Grenzen zu untersuchen.
1. Eine Praxis, die sich ständig erweitert
Obwohl der Einsatz privater Unternehmen im Bereich der Geheimdienste, wie wir gesehen haben, nichts Neues ist, ist das Ausmaß des Phänomens heute beispiellos. Eine genaue Bewertung ist aufgrund der Geheimhaltung, die der Geheimdienstpraxis innewohnt, und der Polemik, die diese Frage in den Vereinigten Staaten sehr heikel gemacht hat, nach wie vor schwierig. Im vergangenen April sollte Mike McConnell, Director of National Intelligence (DNI), einen Bericht über die Outsourcing-Praxis innerhalb der von ihm geleiteten Gemeinschaft vorlegen. Dieser Bericht wurde zunächst verschoben und dann als Verschlusssache eingestuft, wodurch seine Veröffentlichung unmöglich wurde.[5]
Gleichzeitig wurde in der Presse bekannt, dass laut einer Präsentation im Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) die amerikanische Geheimdienstgemeinschaft fast siebzig Prozent ihres Budgets für die Auslagerung eines Teils ihrer Aktivitäten verwendet. Dies ist schwer zu überprüfen und wurde von einigen Beamten in Mr. McConnells Büro angezweifelt[6], aber die Zahl bestätigt dennoch eine Tendenz zu einer verstärkten Abhängigkeit der Bundesnachrichtendienste von Subunternehmern. Aus anderen Quellen geht hervor, dass im Jahr 2004 etwa die Hälfte des Geheimdienstbudgets für die Inanspruchnahme der Dienste privater Unternehmen verwendet wurde[7]. Die explosionsartige Zunahme dieser spezialisierten Unternehmen lässt darauf schließen, dass es hier einen sehr lukrativen Markt gibt, der von den sechzehn Mitgliedern der amerikanischen Geheimdienstgemeinschaft bedient wird.[8]
2. Die Agenturen und die betreffenden Aktivitäten
Am stärksten ist das Outsourcing bei den dem Verteidigungsministerium unterstellten Behörden. Die von der NSA (National Security Agency), der NGA (National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency) und dem NRO (National Reconnaissance Office) verwalteten Geheimdienstaktivitäten sind unbestreitbar die kostspieligsten. Darüber hinaus macht es ihr hochtechnologischer Charakter unvermeidlich, auf Akteure des Privatsektors zurückzugreifen. So hat die NSA seit dem Sommer 2001 einen Vertrag über mehr als zwei Milliarden Dollar für die Vergabe bestimmter Tätigkeiten im Bereich Informationstechnologie und Kommunikation über einen Zeitraum von zehn Jahren abgeschlossen.[9] Ebenso ist die NGA seit ihrer Gründung im Jahr 1995 auf den Privatsektor angewiesen, um Software und Informationssysteme zu erhalten. Heute sind von den 14.000 Personen, die in den Räumlichkeiten der NGA arbeiten, fast die Hälfte in Wirklichkeit bei Subunternehmern beschäftigt.[10] Dennoch muss man feststellen, dass auch die „traditionellsten“ Tätigkeiten wie das Sammeln von Informationen oder die Analyse von Menschen betroffen sind.
[1] Am 16. September 2007 töteten einige Mitarbeiter von Blackwater USA bei einer Schießerei unter noch ungeklärten Umständen siebzehn irakische Zivilisten. Nach diesem Vorfall forderte die irakische Regierung das Sicherheitsunternehmen auf, den Irak zu verlassen.
[7] Major Glenn J. Voelz, USA, Managing the Private Spies: The Use of Commercial Augmentation for Intelligence Operations, Washington D.C., Center for Strategic Intelligence Research, Joint Military Intelligence College, June 2006, p. 12.
[8] Ausgehend von der offiziellen Zahl des Geheimdienstbudgets, 43,5 Milliarden Dollar, wie von der amerikanischen Regierung veröffentlicht, würde der Markt für die Auslagerung von Geheimdiensten im Jahr 2007 mehr als 30 Milliarden Dollar betragen.
[9]National Security Agency Outsources Areas of Non-Mission Information Technology to CSC-Led Alliance Team, NSA Press Release, July 31, 2001. http://www.nsa.gov/releases/relea00034.cfm
[10] Tim Shorrock, ‘The corporate takeover of U.S. intelligence,’ op. cit.
I heartily recommend today’s discussion with host Nima Alkhorshid because of the variety of the subject matter. This included my critical view of what is being said by fellow alternative media experts in recent days and why our various differences in interpretation of current events must be aired without unnecessary deference to one another if you, the public, are to come to a sensible and well-founded understanding of what is going on in the world.
I have in mind in particular my remarks on what was missing from the otherwise excellent discussion of the Deep State in a chat between professors John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs on the All-in podcast that was put on line yesterday. To my mind it is essential to mention that the Deep State, which, as these gentlemen say, is normally a force for continuity in the government of any of the Great Powers as they deal with the complexities of the world, lost all balance of skills and judgment back in 2002 when it was gutted by Vice President Dick Cheney. At that time, in the wake of 9/11 and in the midst of the War on Terror, Cheney carried out a purge of the State Department and of the intelligence services with a view to making them highly partisan, which is to say, bastions of Neocon thinking.
At this same time, whatever objectivity in the CIA and similar that one might expect from lifelong bureaucrats, was destroyed when whole swathes of that bureaucracy were forcibly retired, ostensibly to replace now superfluous expertise (Sovietologists, Russianists) with much needed expertise on current threats (Middle East experts). The situation was made still worse by the decision of Cheney and his colleagues to hasten the process of acquiring expert advice by outsourcing a large proportion of all intelligence work to commercial suppliers working from Open Sources and therefore needing no high- level security clearances. It is not that the new contractors lacked skills, because many of them actually had been Government employees before being made redundant. What matters is that the experts hired within the context of short-term contracts necessarily tailor their reports to the known desires of those signing their contracts in order to get extensions and new contracts. Net net: what they provide in their reports is what they know the Bosses want to hear, whether or not it is objectively correct.
As you will find viewing this interview, we talked about a great many topics of the day such as the latest assassination attempt on Donald Trump. I stand by my remark that would-be assassin Ryan Routh is probably not long for this world. I fully expect him to meet the fate of JFK’s assassin Oswald.
We also talked about the recent interest in Washington in negotiating a cease-fire and possibly a settlement for the Ukraine war. Then we moved on to the differences in approach to the way forward between the United States, which is now split 50-50 between Trump and Harras supporters, and the European Union where the split is 95-5, with only a couple of states, Hungary and Slovakia, voting against the overwhelming majority in favor of the war’s prosecution to a successful conclusion for Ukraine. I am especially satisfied with my likening the EU member states to the Бурлаки на Волге(Volga Boat Men) painting by Ilya Repin that hangs in the Russian Museum, St Petersburg. They are bound together by rope as they pull the barge. Only their barge is headed downstream, not upstream, and they are walking on the banks of the Niagara river just before it hits the Falls.
I took pleasure in explaining my professional historian’s skepticism of the scientific nature of the discipline studied by most of the foreign policy experts in our media who were not students of some Journalism School. To my way of thinking, “political science” is a contradiction in terms. Why I think so will be clear to any reader of my 2010 collection of essays in which I tried to get my mind around the writings of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, Francis Fukuyama, Samuel Huntington, Noam Chomsky and two others: Great Post-Cold War American Thinkers on International Relations. Call it the revenge of an historian against those in the parallel profession who tend to raid history for “lessons” to support their latest theories. Notwithstanding the shortcomings of that book owing to its being my first self-published opus, I think it may still be the best I have written.
Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)followed by complete English transcript of the interview
„Dialogue Works“: Ausgabe vom 18. September 2024
Ich empfehle die heutige Diskussion mit Gastgeber Nima Alkhorshid aufgrund der Vielfalt der Themen von ganzem Herzen. Dazu gehörte auch meine kritische Sicht auf das, was von anderen Experten für alternative Medien in den letzten Tagen gesagt wurde, und warum unsere unterschiedlichen Interpretationen der aktuellen Ereignisse ohne unnötige Rücksichtnahme aufeinander geäußert werden müssen, wenn Sie, die Öffentlichkeit, zu einem vernünftigen und fundierten Verständnis dessen gelangen sollen, was in der Welt vor sich geht.
Ich denke dabei insbesondere an meine Bemerkungen darüber, was in der ansonsten ausgezeichneten Diskussion über den „Deep State“ in einem Chat zwischen den Professoren John Mearsheimer und Jeffrey Sachs im All-in-Podcast, der gestern online gestellt wurde, gefehlt hat. Meiner Meinung nach ist es wichtig zu erwähnen, dass der Deep State, der, wie diese Herren sagen, normalerweise eine Kraft für Kontinuität in der Regierung einer der Großmächte ist, wenn sie sich mit den Komplexitäten der Welt auseinandersetzen, bereits 2002 jegliches Gleichgewicht an Fähigkeiten und Urteilsvermögen verloren hat, als er von Vizepräsident Dick Cheney ausgeschaltet wurde. Zu dieser Zeit, nach dem 11. September und mitten im Krieg gegen den Terror, führte Cheney eine Säuberung des Außenministeriums und der Geheimdienste durch, um sie stark parteiisch zu machen, das heißt, zu Bastionen des Neokonservatismus.
Gleichzeitig wurde jegliche Objektivität in der CIA und ähnlichen Organisationen, die man von lebenslangen Bürokraten erwarten könnte, zunichte gemacht, als ganze Teile dieser Bürokratie zwangsweise in den Ruhestand versetzt wurden, angeblich um nun überflüssiges Fachwissen (Sowjetologen, Russisten) durch dringend benötigtes Fachwissen über aktuelle Bedrohungen (Nahostexperten) zu ersetzen. Die Situation wurde noch verschlimmert durch die Entscheidung Cheneys und seiner Kollegen, den Prozess der Einholung von Expertenrat zu beschleunigen, indem ein großer Teil der gesamten Geheimdienstarbeit an kommerzielle Anbieter ausgelagert wurde, die mit öffentlich zugänglichen Quellen arbeiteten und daher keine hohen Sicherheitsfreigaben benötigten. Es ist nicht so, dass es den neuen Auftragnehmern an Fähigkeiten mangelte, denn viele von ihnen waren zuvor Regierungsangestellte gewesen, bevor sie entlassen wurden. Entscheidend ist, dass die im Rahmen von Kurzzeitverträgen eingestellten Experten ihre Berichte notwendigerweise auf die bekannten Wünsche derjenigen zuschneiden, die ihre Verträge unterzeichnen, um Verlängerungen und neue Verträge zu erhalten. Unterm Strich: Was sie in ihren Berichten liefern, ist das, von dem sie wissen, dass die Chefs dies hören wollen, unabhängig davon, ob es objektiv korrekt ist oder nicht.
Wie Sie in diesem Interview sehen werden, haben wir über eine Vielzahl von aktuellen Themen gesprochen, wie z.B. über das jüngste Attentat auf Donald Trump. Ich bleibe bei meiner Bemerkung, dass der Möchtegern-Attentäter Ryan Routh wahrscheinlich nicht mehr lange auf dieser Welt sein wird. Ich gehe fest davon aus, dass ihm das gleiche Schicksal wie Oswald, dem Attentäter auf JFK, widerfahren wird.
Wir sprachen auch über das jüngste Interesse in Washington, einen Waffenstillstand und möglicherweise eine Einigung im Ukraine-Krieg auszuhandeln. Dann sprachen wir über die unterschiedlichen Herangehensweisen der Vereinigten Staaten, die nun zu 50 % aus Trump- und zu 50 % aus Harras-Anhängern bestehen, und der Europäischen Union, in der die Spaltung bei 95 % zu 5 % liegt, wobei nur ein paar Staaten, Ungarn und die Slowakei, gegen die überwältigende Mehrheit stimmten, die sich für die erfolgreiche Beendigung des Krieges zugunsten der Ukraine aussprach. Besonders zufrieden bin ich mit meinem Vergleich der EU-Mitgliedstaaten mit dem Gemälde „Бурлаки на Волге (Wolgaschlepper)“ von Ilja Repin, das im Russischen Museum in Sankt Petersburg hängt. Sie sind durch ein Seil miteinander verbunden, während sie den Lastkahn ziehen. Nur fährt ihr Lastkahn flussabwärts, nicht flussaufwärts, und sie gehen am Ufer des Niagara-Flusses spazieren, kurz bevor dieser in die Wasserfälle mündet.
Ich erklärte mit Vergnügen meine Skepsis als professioneller Historiker gegenüber der Wissenschaftlichkeit der Disziplin, die von den meisten außenpolitischen Experten in unseren Medien studiert wird, die keine Studenten einer Journalistenschule sind. Meiner Meinung nach ist „Politikwissenschaft“ ein Widerspruch in sich. Warum ich so denke, wird jedem Leser meiner Aufsatzsammlung aus dem Jahr 2010 klar werden, in der ich versucht habe, mich mit den Schriften von Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, Francis Fukuyama, Samuel Huntington, Noam Chomsky und zwei weiteren auseinanderzusetzen: Great Post-Cold War American Thinkers on International Relations. Nennen wir es die Rache eines Historikers an denjenigen seines Berufsstands, die dazu neigen, die Geschichte nach „Lehren“ zu durchforsten, die ihre neuesten Theorien stützen. Ungeachtet der Mängel dieses Buches, die darauf zurückzuführen sind, dass es mein erstes im Selbstverlag veröffentlichtes Werk ist, denke ich, dass es immer noch das Beste ist, was ich geschrieben habe.
Aber jetzt genießen Sie erst einmal die heutige Sendung!
Transcript submitted by a reader
Nima R. Alkhorshid: 0:03 So nice to have you back, Gilbert.
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: It’s a pleasure to be with you.
Alkhorshid: Yeah. And let’s get started with what’s going on with Russia and NATO. And Putin was warning NATO not to send long-range missiles to Ukraine using them, because in his mind Ukraine is not capable of using these missiles without NATO getting involved and just running the show behind the scenes, or not behind the scenes. But how– on the other hand, we had Stoltenberg talking about that sending these long-range missiles to Ukraine would not escalate the situation. Because Putin, every time Putin is putting out a red line and we’re going to cross that nothing is going to happen. In an interview with the “Times”, he said that. And how serious was Putin’s warning?
Doctorow: 1:06 Well, Putin’s remarks were said in an offhand way, in a factual way, in an unemotional way, and he didn’t deliver this on a television address to the Russian nation, or address it specifically to the Americans and the Brits. It was– let’s remember the context. This was made between two meetings that he had at the, just on Palace Square in downtown Petersburg. He was preparing to speak or coming from the cultural forum and he was interviewed by a man who interviews him regularly, he’s always following two steps behind him. And this is the guy from Russia’s state news, Pavel Zarubin.
And he asked him, and Putin gave the answer that you just mentioned, that has been repeated, repeated, and repeated on all media, both mainstream and alternative, forever, since last Thursday, Friday. Now, this was not a specific threat. It was a statement of fact. And going from that statement of fact to the next stage in escalation is a big step. And I think that those of us who believe that you go directly from that to exchanging missiles carrying nuclear warheads, I think they’re exaggerating very greatly the timing of the threat. Not that we can’t reach that stage. Of course we can. But it’s not going to happen in one step. The means at the disposal of Russia to respond, to, shall we say, to retaliate for the United States, Britain, or others, giving the right to use their long-range missiles to attack the heartland of Russia– the distance traveled from that permission to a Russian retaliation of one kind to or another is all by itself a step.
3:16 The Russians have many, many things they can do. Then in the case of Britain, they don’t have to bomb London. They just have to cut the cables attaching Britain to the world and the British financial district will fold. There are a great many things, infrastructure damage, that Russia can do without anybody hardly noticing. So let’s look at what happened with Iran. Iran and retaliating for the murder in Tehran of an important ally, one of the leaders of Hamas. Did they expire next day? Did they set off a missile barrage or do anything really earth-shaking in the days that followed? Notwithstanding all the warnings coming out of the United States, nothing happened. But … but two days ago, the Houthis suddenly had hypersonic missiles. And the Houthis suddenly and inexplicably got through the Iron Dome, got through the American air defense systems on board or that whole flotilla of the Southeastern Mediterranean precisely to to prevent attacks on Israel, it got through it all.
4:33 And it hit target, which hasn’t been identified by the Israelis, I assume, because it would be too embarrassing. Was that pure Houthi development? It’s unthinkable. It had to have been Iranian missiles. I would add something that nobody’s talking about, but I’d like to hear it discussed. And how were those, how was that missile programmed? To my knowledge, the Iranians and the Houthis do not have satellites that are providing reconnaissance to program the missile. So I, as a guess, and I will say explicitly, this is my guess, the Russians did it. The Russians gave them the, again, a direct response to the use of American and West European satellites to program any missile that would be fired from Ukraine into Russia.
5:28 So two can play the game, two can play proxy war. And I don’t see the necessity for an instant move from proxy war to exchange of nuclear missiles. Fortunately for all of us, I think there’ll be a few steps along the way before we get, if we ever get to that stage. So these are issues I’d like to raise with respect to how the events of– how Putin’s warning has been interpreted here among the mainstream and among alternative. If I just take a second just to point out mainstream. Yesterday morning, yesterday morning, I listened to BBC morning news and they had a talking head, a university professor, Bristol, I don’t know where he was, somewhere in the UK, who astonishingly was saying, “Oh, there’s no reason to take these red lines seriously. Mr. Putin is just a bully, and bullies bluff.”
6:32 My goodness, this is, this is, this nonsense, this very dangerous, ignorant nonsense was yesterday morning being promoted from the state-controlled BBC. I emphasize this. Anyone who thinks that the BBC is an independent news source has not been applying their mind to the issue.
Alkhorshid: 6:57 The other thing that Stoltenberg raised in this article in the “Times” was that he supports the position of France together with the United Kingdom in using these long-range missiles. And do you understand the position of the United Kingdom right now, with the Labour Party? Because it seems that they’re the same as Sunak was. And there is nothing changed in the United Kingdom. Even it’s getting worse. How do you find it right now, considering that?
Doctorow: Being worse than Boris is difficult. The Tory government was, and still, the man is still appearing before cameras. He was at this Yalta conference in Ukraine and he was saying the same old things. So the Tory government isn’t exactly a point of departure into new areas for Mr. Stormer’s government. He’s only continuing in an even slightly worse way under present conditions what Boris Johnson was doing in his time in office. But I think the reference has to be, speaking about labor, it has to be to the inventor of new labor. This goes back, well, two governments, three governments ago, to the period before the Iraq war, when Tony Blair was the lapdog, as he was, that’s what he was called in the States and elsewhere, the lapdog to Bush.
8:43 And he provided what Europe, in the person of France, Belgium, and Germany refused to provide, which was cover for the illegitimate, illegal war on Iraq, invasion, which killed maybe a million people. So Tony Blair was the enabler. He provided the bit of European sophistication to back up the rather crude and rude Mr. Bush Jr. and to give some oomph to this “alliance of the willing”.
Mr. Starmer, at New Labour today, is continuing the dog routine of Britain, but he’s not a lap dog. He’s a hunting dog. And he’s out two meters ahead of his boss in the White House. And he is really a dangerous personality. I haven’t studied his background; I’ve seen some brief information about his close tie-ins with American intelligence in the past. Let that be. I don’t want to look into his biography. I want to look into his present. And he’s getting terrible advice and he himself is pursuing a terrible policy. That can, that where Britain will be the, is the first country on this continent to have the Russian bullseye painted on it.
Alkhorshid: 10:15 Yeah, and there is an article in Politico talking about Zaluzhny was not in line with Zelensky, because earlier they had this thinking this type of thinking to attack the Kursk region. And Zaluzhny was not agreeing with them, and right now, with what has happened in the Kursk region, do you think, do you find it when you look at the whole conflict more than two years, do you think it was a very important turning point for the conflict, or it wasn’t that much important?
Doctorow; No, it’s important. And those Western commentators who said it was a great embarrassment for Vladimir Putin are correct. Let’s not underestimate that. For Russians, for ordinary Russians, it is an enormous embarrassment and open question mark: how and why this could happen. Two and a half years into the war, and they’ve been invaded. Their borders were not adequately protected by this massive armed force that Russia has put in play against Ukraine. How could that have happened? I say the chips have not yet taken their proper place, fallen properly with respect to Gerasimov and the high command.
You can imagine well that Mr. Putin was furious, utterly furious over this humiliation and embarrassment. When they speak about humiliation in the West, they think it’s going to bring about regime change. That’s totally nonsense. The only humiliation that could bring about regime change is a total loss of the war. That would bring about regime change. In that sense, Washington is correct. What is wrong in Washington is they think that Russia can lose the war. That is dead wrong. There’s no way that Russia can, that you can defeat a nuclear power like Russia. It’s excluded. These are the, should be the most obvious things to any statesman, to any politician and decision maker in the West. You go back to basics about what nuclear powers are. You don’t, taunt you can taunt, but you don’t inflict a strategic defeat on them if you want to live to the next day.
Alkhorshid: 12:44 When you look at the behavior of the Americans right now, the Biden administration, and compare it to what’s going on in the European Union, do you think they’re totally in line? They’re thinking the same way, or there is a difference, or maybe significant difference between these two parties when it comes to the conflict in Ukraine right now?
Doctorow: You know, this wonderful painting by Repin, that’s in the Russian Museum in Petersburg of the burlaki [boat men]. It’s the, those who are hauling barges up the Volga going against the current. And there they are, now 27 out of the 29 members of the EU out of 28 are those burlaki. They’re all pulling, they’re all tied to one another or chained to one another. And so, this operation in Europe is utterly bizarre. The 27 people, some of whom have a brain, I admit a few of them are brainless, but some do have a brain, they are as intelligent as all of us. And they’re going along with this in a mistaken belief that there is strength in unity, even if unity is pursuing a suicidal policy.
14:01 So, here in Europe, I think you can’t really compare it one-to-one with the States. The States might be split down the middle over these issues, as it is between Kamala and Trump in general. But here in Europe, it is 95 percent all pulling that cord towards the precipice. And this is not the Volga River; it’s Niagara Falls. And they’re not going against the stream, they’re going with the stream right off. So that is a situation here.
Alkhorshid: 14:41 Yeah, and did you watch these two Russian pranksters talking with Sikorski? Because I think the information coming out of this talk was so important in terms of how Poland feels about the conflict in Ukraine right now. He said that they’re not going to, NATO is not going to put troops on the ground in Ukraine officially, which I think, I found it so positive if that would be the official policy of NATO right now.
Doctorow: Well I wouldn’t look to Mr. Sikorski for wisdom or for comfort. He has said in his long time in public service– I mean, this is not his first time at the national level government– he has said some outrageous things about the relationship with Poland and the United States. I won’t repeat them because as the Russians say in such instances, these are censored remarks. He said outrageous things about the relationship between Poland and the United States, and I don’t think he needed to have pranksters to say outrageous things in a microphone about the relationship between Poland and Ukraine.
16.02 And certainly he is on the side of those who say that Ukraine cannot be admitted into the EU, until it admits its guilt in the slaughter of Poles, of tens of thousands of Poles. And as in the pursuit of the Bandera nationalism, there are grievances on the Polish side, which Sikorski is now airing. That being said, at the same time as he may be making these remarks, which would seem to give us comfort over the restraint of Poland with respect to the Ukrainian cause, he’s the same as Sikorski who a week ago said that his country should be allowed to shoot down Russian missiles over Ukrainian territory because of the alleged threat that they posed to overreach and to hit Poland.
17:00 This man, I think is a little bit, is an Eastern version of Mr. Macron of doing anything to steal limelight and his self-promotion. So, and the ambivalence, flip-flopping, one day you think he’s your friend, the next day you think he’s your enemy. So, I wouldn’t pay too much attention to Mr. Sikorski. And keep in mind that he’s an American asset. Keep in mind who his wife is. Applebaum, the contributor, I think, to the Washington Post, one of the most rabid Russophobes. And I will say at the same time, an extremely intelligent lady who works hard. You have to know your enemy. You know that I was a close associate of Professor Stephen Cohen. I’m sure many in your audience know his name, know what he stood for.
And Cohen made the mistake, it was about two years before his death, of going into a debate in Canada, at a university in Canada, with Applebaum. And he believed, “Well, me, Professor Cohen, of course I know everything, it’s all at my fingertips. and then we got this nitwit Applebaum, whom I’m going to debate with.” She wiped the floor with him. She was prepared. He looked like a dinosaur. So you have to know your enemies. There’s a reason why Sikorski is powerful. He’s got good, he’s got very good contacts in Washington, thanks to his wife, and his wife is no fool.
Alkhorshid: 18:35 When this conflict started, if I were to pick the most radical country in the European Union against, toward this conflict in Ukraine, that would be Poland in those days. And right now I would pick the United Kingdom. Do you feel the same way or do you find it differently? Because right now I don’t see Poland that aggressive toward the conflict, toward what’s going on in Ukraine. It seems that they’re just coming down. They’re not having that sort of excitement they had when this conflict started.
Doctorow: 19:10 Well, the Poles have got the Russian tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus just across the border. So, that could sober up their minds a little bit, despite all the rhetoric and everybody wanting to get into the newspapers. I think that may hold them back a little bit. It’s a real competition. Who is the bigger maniac in Europe? The Brits are, as you say, totally unreal, delusional in their behavior towards Russia. They think this is the Crimean War of the 1850s. They’re missing a beat here, but there are competitors in insanity. I think it’s very relevant to mention that the Estonian federal government, national government has been among the foremost crackpots in xenophobic statements. And it is very relevant to where we’re going now and to the nature of the head of the European Commission, von der Leyen, that she has appointed and is now promoting to the European Parliament for approval the outgoing Prime Minister of Estonia, Kallas, very pretty lady, by the way.
20:27 And I think the reason– but the same lady who about three weeks or four weeks ago said, “We have to bring Russia to its knees.” Well, there you have it. That means a total defeat, and that means World War III, and that means there you’ve got a timeline of a few days before we’re all ashes. Now, this lady, totally irresponsible, representing one million out of hundreds of millions — their population is 350-400 million, population of the EU member countries. You’ve got 1.2 million in Estonia, which frankly speaking, a hell of a lot are really Russians. Because you go to Tallinn and downtown Tallinn, not in the hotels, restaurants, but anywhere except street vendors who are speaking very Estonian. But normal people in stores are all speaking Russian. Anyway, that’s neither here nor there. The point is that Estonia is one million, or a little over a million population. And they are wagging 350 or 400 million, I don’t have at my disposal at this minute the actual population of the EU. They’re wagging that body, that dog. And this lady has been appointed to be the Supreme Representative, to replace Borrell, the Supreme Representative, the top diplomat, and also, since it hasn’t been hived off yet, she’s responsible essentially for defense.
21:57 This is the lady whom von der Leyen has appointed and who will be receiving approval shortly, next week, as the cabinet or commissioners go before the European Parliament. This is, why did she appoint her? I think that van der Leyen, considering what a power that she only plays power groups, appointed her because she thought this nitwit would be easy to control. I think von der Layen has misjudged. I think this nitwit will not be controllable. She is a very determined lady, a very ambitious lady, and it doesn’t do Europe any credit this will be its face to the world.
Alkhorshid: 22:42 A foreign minister of Ukraine recently said that Europeans should feel that Ukraine is already part of the European Union, that’s why they have any sort of decision, they have to consider that. But when it comes to the European Union, do they really feel that Ukraine would be part of the European Union in the future? Or maybe now? Or maybe in two years, five years?
Doctorow: I can’t answer that question for the European Union. I can only speak for what I hear about around me. These are privileged people around me, a social club that I belong to. And I don’t think that is on the radar screen. I don’t think it’s a matter of any interest to them whether Ukraine will be in the EU, except when it comes to the question of how much money they’re going to have to cough up in taxes to pay for all that, because Ukraine is a black hole financially and will remain so for a few decades to come. But this is not a subject of discussion among the, I say, the privileged people whom I know, whom I know socially in reading a French-speaking royal club here in Belgium.
23:53 And I take that as my guideline, but otherwise, I don’t pretend to take a reading of what the man in the street here thinks. Certainly, the guy who runs the grocery store down on the corner is not concerned by that issue of Ukraine’s joining or not joining. Again, turning to those people who are well-educated, professionally very successful, and who should be interested in these things. Their interest in Ukraine is like America’s, ideological. They are defending freedom, they’re defending democracy, they don’t have a clue as to how democratic or undemocratic Ukraine is. It is going by the generalities that they see in newspapers and on their television sets. But it is that Ukraine, an unreal Ukraine, a non-existent Ukraine that never existed, that they are motivated by, interested in, and considering as the underdog in this war with Russia.
Alkhorshid: 25:02 Yeah. And recently, we had two important talks with Stoltenberg and Lloyd Austin. Both of them were pointing out the way of getting out of this conflict would be a negotiating table, a political settlement. And if we assume that in any sort of political settlement, a new security treaty between the European Union and Russia, how do you see Ukraine in that type of talks? Because at the end of the day, we know how important Ukraine, whatever we call it Ukraine and after this conflict, is as a buffer zone. Because the whole situation that we’re witnessing right now is part of this concept of Ukraine being a buffer zone between NATO and Russia. And how do you find it right now? Do you think in that type of talks they’re going to consider Ukraine to be a buffer zone that Russia would help Ukraine to grow or help them to– help their economy, help their infrastructure, because they’re totally connected with the Russian type of life, the type of technology. And how do you see at the end of the day, they’re going to consider Ukraine, that Russia and European Union together with the United States would help to reconstruct its infrastructure, or are we going to see something different?
Doctorow: 25:41 That was not one question, it was about a dozen questions you posed. It’s a very complicated set of issues. You started out talking about Stoltenberg and Austin, and the notion that they are now turning towards the idea of a ceasefire or negotiated settlement to the conflict. I think that their notion, if they are indeed moving away from, settled on the battlefield to negotiated settlement, I think that what they’re really talking about is a frozen conflict and one which gives Ukraine, just like Minsk Two, a chance to recover and to be restored by NATO instructors and new mobilizations and so forth.
So that will be a formidable opponent to Russia that would prevent Russia’s ever touching it again. That of course is unworkable. The Russians in no way will accept that. Now I’ll go forward. I’ll bridge several questions to me and go straight to this question of, will the Russians support Ukraine should it become neutral? Will they give them assistance? I would say at this point, flatly no. I was listening to, to briefly to, to the Vladimir Solovyov show last night. They put up on screen a video clip of Zhirinovsky, the nationalist Russian leader of the, of the LDPR party, liberal, liberal party of Russia, who usually got between 5, 10, maybe 12% of popular vote in presidential elections, and who died very sadly for his many followers in Russia. He died of covid a couple of years ago.
28:36 Anyway, Zhirinovsky was saying that, hey, Ukraine is not a state, it’s a beggar, And they only, this is going back perhaps to 2016, 2017, and compare that with what the status of Ukraine is today, which is totally on life support from Western Europe and the United States to pay its pensions, to pay all these government expenses, not to mention to cover a war that it’s waging. So, he was saying back then, this was a beggar, and that this is, maybe it’s earlier that this took place, because– yes, it must have been in 2013-2014 that this centripetal thing took place, because he was discussing still, in the fall of 2013, Russia had offered $15 billion in aid to Ukraine, and that was mentioned by Zhirinovsky, to help weigh the decision that they had to make between the European Union’s offer of a comprehensive cooperation or partnership as the path to membership and Russia’s offer to continue the cooperation with Russia and and with ease.
30:05 So that was hanging the balance there. And he was saying, “Why in hell are we offering these beggars 15 billion dollars? It’s going to be money down the drain.” And I think that attitude would, is the answer to the question you said now, posed now. Russia will not put up money for Ukraine’s prosperity. And then what is left of Ukraine? The last figure I’ve heard, and this is on various YouTube interviews of the last week, is that the Ukrainian population– perhaps it was Larry Johnson, I don’t recall exactly who said it– that the Ukrainian population has dropped from 40 million before this to 20 million today. Well, I don’t know if that’s correct. It’s a bit lower than I understood. Nonetheless, population has diminished greatly, and even after peace is established, it is most improbable that those Ukrainians who have set themselves up in Germany or across the EU are going to rush back to their devastated country and to instant poverty, when it takes years to restore power, water, heat, everything.
31:19 So, let’s say that the Ukraine is a basket case, and it will remain a low population. Where its boundaries would be, well, that will depend on exactly when the Russians stop marching. I think the boundary would be at the Dnieper River, but I could be wrong. In any case, the notion of a prosperous Ukraine as a buffer zone, as you’re saying, that is not to be excluded. But before that can be negotiated and won, we need to have a change in the governments of most all of the European Union and of the United States. Before these governments change is inconceivable that Ukraine buffer state will be approved by the successors to Biden, the Democratic Party, Kamala and her curators if they come to power.
32:24 And it’s inconceivable. It would be acknowledging a vast defeat while standing behind the policy. So it means Trump could do that if he wins the enough of the Congress to be able to get through Congress what he wants to do. Here in Europe for this to happen, von der Leyen has to go or she has to have her powers trimmed by the European Parliament. There has to be a shift away from the European People’s party and the Social Democratic two-party domination of the parliament towards the group that Viktor Orban has put together within the parliament, which represents now about 30 percent of membership. There has to be a drift of power away from those who created this disastrous policy towards those who have criticized it. So that is not going to happen today and tomorrow, but it could happen within the foreseeable future. Yes.
Alkhorshid: 33:33 And one of the points that Putin was talking about when Joe Biden was running against Donald Trump was that Biden is predictable. And the question here is, in my opinion, he wasn’t that much predictable during this conflict. He was saying many things during this conflict about tanks, F-16s, cluster bombs, and he sent all of them to Ukraine. And we couldn’t predict that Biden would do that. And at the end of the day right now, “Le Monde” is talking about that Zelensky is hoping to be part of NATO before Biden leaving office in the United States. This, do you think that these long-range missiles, and maybe something like that, as “Le Monde” pointed out about Zelensky’s vision, do you feel that Biden would do something that much different? Because we can understand some sort of escalations on the battlefield. Because when it comes to this type of activity on their part, doing something substantial in order to facilitate Ukraine being part of NATO. I’m talking about this. Do you think that the Biden administration would do that before leaving the office?
Doctorow: 34:57 Well, let’s take it straight back to the issue we had at the beginning. And that was the threat posed by these new superweapons to Russia, which would induce Mr. Putin to see that they are in a state of war with the United States and its allies. I’d like to just highlight something that, again, people are not talking much about. What is this? What is the real possibility of those Storm Shadow missiles being launched against Russia? Even if permission is given, these missiles could only be launched from aircraft. The Russians have already destroyed almost everything that flies in the Ukrainian air force from the Soviet days, and the assumption has been that these missiles will be carried by F-16s.
35:48 Now, wait a minute, they’re taking possession of six, maybe those five of them are still capable of flying, being held in Romania or wherever else they’ve been held. One has already been shot down by an American Patriot system by accident. If these planes enter Ukraine airspace to launch missiles against Russia, how many minutes will it take before they’re shot down by the Russian S-500 or other, or by Russian jet fighters who take off precisely to destroy them.
So, I have a hard time seeing how this wunderwaffe is going to really threaten Russia in any way. As I understand the talking point, Mr. Putin cannot allow this to pass unchallenged and cannot have credibility with his own people, if he doesn’t say what he said late last week. But the reality is, how’s it going to happen? ATACMs could be used. ATACMs are the American missiles, which are ground-based. They don’t require a jet to be fired. And they have a 500-kilometer radius of action, which is pretty good, certainly good enough to cause havoc in Russian-controlled Crimea. But Biden has not allowed that to be used. I think it’s most improbable that he will before he goes out of office, because his advisors have said this will be war. And brain dead as he may be, I think there’s a residual intelligence that that is not going to be good for his children and grandchildren.
37:46 Therefore, it’s not going to happen. So, the cycle of big talk, I don’t think that the West is capable right now of striking deep into Russia unless it’s done with Western pilots from a NATO country and at the expense of triggering a Russian nuclear response.
Alkhorshid: 38:18 Yeah, and we had this new attempt to assassinate Donald Trump in the United States. And CNN wrote that Ryan Routh’s support for Ukraine is a propaganda win for Moscow at a very tricky time for Kiev. And I wouldn’t be surprised– and the other day, the next day they come with a title that Putin was behind this type of attack, which is– they do these things unbelievably. And you wrote a very good article about the misinformation and disinformation. How do you find these type of wars on the part of the media? Because it doesn’t seem that they’re getting anything truthful out of this article, but they’re trying to inject some sort of excitement in the society in order to achieve something. And what’s your understanding on this type of rhetoric?
Doctorow: 39:27 Well, we’re just at the very beginning of the investigation into it, and unlike the first assassin, would-be assassin, he survived and was captured. Unlike the first would-be assassin who would have been, or the investigation around him has all been at the federal level, the event we can anticipate an investigation at the state level in Florida. And I will be surprised if Mr. Routh survives. I would not be a least bit surprised if his fate is that of of Oswald, murdered on his way from one prison cell to another, because if he starts talking, it will get quite ugly. What he was doing in Ukraine, he was meeting with Afghan killers, which in a manner that could only be understood if he was being directed by the CIA, which wouldn’t surprise me and many other people in the slightest.
40:34 This takes us back to the whole question of why the JFK killing was kept secret. I don’t think they can keep this secret because of the political commotion, and precisely because of the interest in the governor of Florida to expose whatever it is to be exposed about this plot. And let’s call it a plot, not a madman or an effort by some character to wage a repeat performance, the copycat phenomenon. It’s very doubtful this was a copycat phenomenon. It’s much more probable that this was another inside job. And if this is investigated properly, as may well happen, there it will be a great embarrassment to the intelligence services or some part of them. There have been, there’s been a lot of discussion now about the deep state. There was a very interesting chat, I wouldn’t call it a debate, but it’s a roundtable discussion between Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearsheimer on just this headache, the deep state.
41:48 And deep states exist almost everywhere. They are the perpetual part of a government that serves, that’s supposed to serve the elected part of the government, the top bosses, but very often doesn’t serve them at all. And quite the contrary, pulls in the opposite direction. Deep states everywhere have a certain– their value is they continue state policy regardless of elections, to give some permits to policies. The negative is something I didn’t hear these two gentlemen talk about. The Americans, the deep state was cut to pieces by the Bush Jr. period and by none other than Dick Cheney. And this astonishes me that nobody mentioned it. Cheney purged the Deep State. Cheney purged the intelligence services.
We, I did an essay on this going back at 10, 12 years, based on some very interesting information that I found on the web pages of a French intelligence analyst. And the essence of it was that the American intelligence, after 2001, when it was clear that the only thing of interest to American security was the Muslims and the religious extremists in the Middle East, so the Russian assets that the CIA and other intelligence organizations the United States had were deemed to be irrelevant and expendable. And they were expended, they were fired. And a lot of the information that has informed, has advised the policy decisions of the State Department and elsewhere in the U.S. government have been done on a outsourced basis by commercial organizations using largely open sources.
44:03 Whether this is good or bad is something we can talk about for a long time. The point is, the United States deep state is not today what it was 30 years ago. It has been given a political direction precisely by Dick Cheney. And that is undeniable and it has made it very, especially difficult to uproot the neocons all around government. because the neocons are the deep state. So that is where we are today and I would hope that this enters into a bigger discourse that was partly raised by two very worthy gentlemen, by Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearsheimer, but I believe is missing an important dimension to what the deep state that is driving things like the assassination attempts on Trump is all about.
Alkhorshid: 45:03 And since you brought up this discussion between, this talk of Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearsheimer, one point that was so crucial in this talk, which they were not totally in line with each other, was what’s going on with China? And how do you find John Mearsheimer’s view toward China? Because it seems that the same kind of view that neocons have toward Russia and the main reason behind this disaster in Ukraine was this type of idea that we have to contain Russia. And it seems that John Mearsheimer is suggesting the same kind of policy when it comes to China. On the other hand, we had Jeffrey Sachs talking just vastly about how important the relationship between the United States, Russia, and China is for the future of the world, which I totally, I found it so much fascinating. It’s so much sane when you think how he’s putting out his mind and against what John Mearsheimer is suggesting.
Doctorow: 46:15 Well, let’s come back to basics. I have the highest respect for John Mearsheimer. I think he’s a real national hero in that he is saying what he’s saying, and saying things that are not conformist for a long time, at great jeopardy to his professional career, that he was co-author of the book exposing the Israeli lobbying effort, which almost cost him his professional reputation. It was remarkable. And so he has taken, since 2014, when he published his outstanding essay on who’s to blame for the conflict between Russia and the West in “Foreign Affairs” magazine, of all places, and did a video of that lecture, which I don’t know how many millions, 10 million people have seen it, more, I’ve lost track. So I have the highest respect for Mearsheimer.
47:14 But saying that, let’s come back to basics. I’m an historian, he’s a political scientist. Political scientists raid history to find lessons, and I don’t think John Mayersheim is any different. We historians have a professional bias, and I would say my bias is that political science is a misnomer. There is no science. It is, what they are doing is systematic, a great intellectual exercise to explain their own personal positions. And to say that this is an objective science is very often an exaggeration. John Mearsheimer has a lot of experience with China. He was invited as an honored guest there many times. But that does not mean that he is objective about China.
And I think when Jeffrey Sachs threw him a bouquet, this was an exchange they had a week ago, or maybe it was just Sachs speaking alone without Mearsheimer present. He was saying that he understood the sagacity of Mearsheimer because back in 2002 Mearsheimer said that inevitably there’s going to be a big conflict between the United States and China. and Jeffrey Sachs said, “I didn’t see that at all.” So he has the highest respect for Mearsheimer, given that Mearsheimer foresaw that this is the nature of nations and empires, that they they fight to the death to maintain their supremacy when they think it is threatened, or when they’re about to lose their top position.
48:59 Okay, good, I won’t take anything away from that operating assumption. Maybe it’s right, maybe it’s wrong. Maybe we’re condemned, and maybe we’re not. But without criticizing any individual, we all have our own perspectives based on our own experience and specific knowledge, and there’s no reason to expect they will all be saying the same thing. We can be aligned on the big issues of who are the angels and who are the devils. I think pretty much, we’re all pretty much aligned on that. We’re all in the– so many of us in the alternative media are so-called “fighters for peace”, just to enjoy that little contradiction. But having said that, there’s no reason for us to be totally aligned on every interpretation, including whether a conflict with China is inevitable or can be avoided, whether the destruction of Russia is necessary for the United States to sit at the Board of Directors’ table of world governance or not. So that is where we are. I don’t throw bouquets nor do I throw brickbats of any of these worthy experts.
Alkhorshid: 50:22 Thank you so much for being with us today. Great pleasure as always.
Doctorow: Well, thanks for allowing me this non-conformist exposition.
If the two-minute interview I had with Iran’s Press TV at noon Central European Time today is re-posted on the internet then, you will be able to hear my hearty approval of Scott Ritter’s one-paragraph comments on the latest developments in the United States’ war on RT which he has just disseminated.
Washington’s efforts to destroy RT’s ability to distribute its programs in the United States have been of long duration. What is changing now that makes this newsworthy is the decision by Mark Zuckerberg, the substantial owner and director of Meta, CEO of its Facebook and other platforms counting many millions of subscribers, to ban RT and several other Russian news purveyors from Meta’s global network.
Scott Ritter rightly denounced this U.S. government-inspired attack on RT as a war not on the Russian broadcaster but on the American people, whom it seeks to deprive of the right to decide for itself whom it watches, whom it listens to without U.S. government interference. The intent of the latest decision by Meta, which bends to the policy dictated to it by Capitol Hill, is to cancel our freedoms. I said and repeat here: bravo to Scott Ritter for an eloquent and pithy statement.
So much for the ‘information’ aspect of this brief note. Now let us move to ‘disinformation’ by the very same Scott Ritter within the past 24 hours: namely what he is saying on ‘Judging Freedom’ and other authoritative internet channels about how we all narrowly escaped death this past weekend, because “back channel” communications from top Russian intelligence officials to their counterparts in Washington delivered a threatening and substantive message that scared the receiving party down its socks and led them to impose on Biden and Blinken to end all talk of allowing Kiev to send US and NATO long range missiles into the heartland of Russia.
I call this ‘disinformation’ because apart from Ritter, I have not seen or heard any credible accounts in major media, Russian as well as Western, even hinting that such a backchannel exists and was used. The last time we heard about a stern message being delivered by the Kremlin to Washington was several months ago when Russian Defense Minister Belousov picked up a telephone and called his American counterpart Secretary of Defense Austin to persuade the Americans to back down on the latest threat they were then making to Russian security. Note that the intelligence services were never mentioned in that connection. Nor does it make much sense now, given that the subject at hand – use of ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles – would fall within the competence of the Pentagon, not the CIA, whose specialty is political assassinations and regime change.
However, the issue of who made and who received the phone call this time is not the main point in my objection. Rather, what I find incredible is the very notion that Putin, through his subordinates, would, as Scott Ritter is saying, read off a list of targets for immediate destruction by Russian hypersonic missiles like the Mach-20 Avangard and that this demonstration of advanced preparation for the Doomsday scenario and readiness to execute it would shake the Americans down to their socks.
Vladimir Putin is not given to drastic shifts in tone and intent such as Ritter is describing. And there is absolutely no reason for him to risk everything on one throw of the dice, to risk a U.S. preemptive strike at once now that the scenario against them had been so neatly laid out.
First of all, even if permission were given by Washington for the British to send their Storm Shadows on their way to the Russian heartland under the flimsy cover of Ukrainian fingers on the button, where are the jets to carry those missiles aloft and fire them towards Russia from somewhere very close to the line of confrontation? And if jets were taking off from Moldova or Romania for this purpose, the Russians could with full legal justification attack those same jets on the ground at the airports that harbor them whether in NATO or not – doing all of this without triggering any WWIII.
Of course, this problem of a launch vehicle does not relate to ATACMS, which is a ground-to-ground missile. But the talks of British PM Starmer with Biden were said to be limited only to the British missiles, since Biden & Co. had in advance emphatically ruled out use of American missiles so as not to come between the Russian cross-hairs.
Still more, knowing Putin’s behavior in the past at moments of crisis in the relationship with the United States, I believe his first instinct would be to address the American people directly about his intentions and the reasons for them, rather than to confine the discussion to ‘back channels’ with the likes of Burns or Sullivan.
Ritter speaks about the decision in Washington to suspend any decision on long-range missiles as a big humiliation for Joe Biden and says this explains the President’s outburst in answer to a reporter’s question, saying that he does not think at all about Vladimir Putin. I have not seen any word in mainstream U.S. media suggesting that there was a humiliating climbdown. When Biden’s mental state is widely considered in the U.S. as a national humiliation, there is not much to say about any given decision by this senile creature.
I have in the past several days freely admitted that my ‘end is nigh’ remarks with respect to the risks of giving unrestricted rights to Kiev on the missiles, were exaggerated. But then I was measuring the countdown to Doomsday in weeks, in the worst scenario, not in hours or minutes as Scott Ritter has done.
We are not out of the woods yet, to be sure. And the task before all ‘warriors for peace’ is not to celebrate our surviving this past weekend but to continue to spread the word in the broadest possible public arenas that our governments are pursuing utterly ignorant and reckless policies. We need more street demonstrations and fewer popping of corks.
Wenn das zweiminütige Interview, das ich heute um 12:00 Uhr mitteleuropäischer Zeit mit dem iranischen Press TV geführt habe, im Internet erneut veröffentlicht wird, können Sie meine uneingeschränkte Zustimmung zu Scott Ritters Ein-Absatz-Kommentar zu den neuesten Entwicklungen im Krieg der Vereinigten Staaten gegen RT hören, den er gerade verbreitet hat.
Washington bemüht sich schon seit Langem, RT daran zu hindern, seine Programme in den Vereinigten Staaten zu verbreiten. Was sich jetzt ändert und diese Nachricht berichtenswert macht, ist die Entscheidung von Mark Zuckerberg, dem Haupteigentümer und Geschäftsführer von Meta, CEO von Facebook und anderen Plattformen mit vielen Millionen Abonnenten, RT und mehrere andere russische Nachrichtenanbieter aus dem globalen Netzwerk von Meta zu verbannen.
Scott Ritter verurteilte diesen von der US-Regierung inspirierten Angriff auf RT zu Recht als einen Krieg nicht gegen den russischen Sender, sondern gegen das amerikanische Volk, dem das Recht genommen werden soll, selbst zu entscheiden, wen es sieht und wem es zuhört, ohne Einmischung der US-Regierung. Die Absicht der jüngsten Entscheidung von Meta, die sich der von Capitol Hill diktierten Politik beugt, ist es, unsere Freiheiten aufzuheben. Ich sage und wiederhole hier: Bravo an Scott Ritter für eine eloquente und prägnante Aussage.
So viel zum „Informations“-Aspekt dieser kurzen Notiz. Kommen wir nun zur „Desinformation“ durch denselben Scott Ritter innerhalb der letzten 24 Stunden: nämlich zu dem, was er auf „Judging Freedom“ und anderen maßgeblichen Internetkanälen darüber sagt, dass wir alle am vergangenen Wochenende nur knapp dem Tod entkommen sind, weil „Back-Channel“- von hochrangigen russischen Geheimdienstmitarbeitern an ihre Kollegen in Washington eine Drohbotschaft übermittelt wurde, die die Empfänger in Angst und Schrecken versetzte und sie dazu veranlasste, Biden und Blinken zu drängen, jegliche Gespräche über die Erlaubnis an Kiew, Langstreckenraketen der USA und der NATO ins Kernland Russlands zu schicken, zu beenden.
Ich nenne dies „Desinformation“, denn abgesehen von Ritter habe ich in den großen Medien, sowohl in russischen als auch in westlichen, keine glaubwürdigen Berichte gesehen oder gehört, die auch nur andeuten, dass es einen solchen inoffiziellen Kanal gibt und dass er genutzt wurde. Das letzte Mal, dass wir von einer strengen Botschaft hörten, die der Kreml an Washington gerichtet hat, war vor einigen Monaten, als der russische Verteidigungsminister Belousov zum Telefon griff und seinen amerikanischen Amtskollegen, Verteidigungsminister Austin, anrief, um die Amerikaner davon zu überzeugen, von der jüngsten Drohung, die sie damals gegen die russische Sicherheit ausgesprochen hatten, abzurücken. Beachten Sie, dass die Geheimdienste in diesem Zusammenhang nie erwähnt wurden. Es ergibt auch jetzt nicht viel Sinn, da das eigentliche Thema – der Einsatz von ATACMS- und Storm-Shadow-Raketen – in die Zuständigkeit des Pentagons und nicht der CIA fällt, deren Spezialgebiet politische Attentate und Regimewechsel sind.
Die Frage, wer den Anruf getätigt und wer ihn entgegengenommen hat, ist jedoch nicht der Hauptgrund für meinen Einwand. Was ich vielmehr unglaublich finde, ist die bloße Vorstellung, dass Putin, durch seine Untergebenen, wie Scott Ritter sagt, eine Liste von Zielen für die sofortige Zerstörung durch russische Hyperschall-Raketen wie die Mach-20 Avangard verlesen würde und dass diese Demonstration fortgeschrittener Vorbereitung auf das Doomsday-Szenario und die Bereitschaft, es auszuführen, die Amerikaner bis ins Mark erschüttern würde.
Wladimir Putin neigt nicht zu solch drastischen Änderungen in Ton und Absicht, wie sie Ritter beschreibt. Und es gibt absolut keinen Grund für ihn, alles auf eine Karte zu setzen und einen Präventivschlag der USA zu riskieren, jetzt, wo das Szenario gegen sie so klar auf dem Tisch liegt.
Zunächst einmal, selbst wenn Washington den Briten die Erlaubnis erteilen würde, ihre Storm Shadows unter dem fadenscheinigen Vorwand ukrainischer Finger am Abzug auf den Weg ins russische Kernland zu schicken, wo sind dann die Jets, die diese Raketen in die Luft befördern und sie von einem Ort in unmittelbarer Nähe der Konfrontationslinie aus auf Russland abfeuern? Und wenn zu diesem Zweck Flugzeuge von Moldawien oder Rumänien aus starten würden, könnten die Russen diese Flugzeuge mit voller rechtlicher Begründung am Boden auf den Flughäfen angreifen, die sie beherbergen, unabhängig davon, ob sie der NATO angehören oder nicht – und all dies tun, ohne einen Dritten Weltkrieg auszulösen.
Natürlich bezieht sich dieses Problem einer Trägerrakete nicht auf ATACMS, bei dem es sich um eine Boden-Boden-Rakete handelt. Aber die Gespräche des britischen Premierministers Starmer mit Biden sollen sich nur auf die britischen Raketen beschränkt haben, da Biden & Co. den Einsatz amerikanischer Raketen im Voraus nachdrücklich ausgeschlossen hatten, um nicht ins Fadenkreuz der Russen zu geraten.
Wenn man Putins Verhalten in der Vergangenheit in Krisenzeiten in den Beziehungen zu den Vereinigten Staaten kennt, glaube ich außerdem, dass sein erster Instinkt darin bestehen würde, das amerikanische Volk direkt über seine Absichten und die Gründe dafür zu informieren, anstatt die Diskussion auf „Schleichwege“ mit Leuten wie Burns oder Sullivan zu beschränken.
Ritter spricht über die Entscheidung in Washington, jegliche Entscheidung über Langstreckenraketen auszusetzen, als eine große Demütigung für Joe Biden und sagt, dies erkläre den Wutausbruch des Präsidenten als Antwort auf die Frage eines Reporters, dass er überhaupt nicht an Wladimir Putin denke. Ich habe in den Mainstream-Medien der USA kein Wort darüber gelesen, dass es einen demütigenden Rückzieher gegeben hat. Wenn Bidens Geisteszustand in den USA weithin als nationale Demütigung angesehen wird, gibt es nicht viel zu sagen über eine Entscheidung dieses senilen Wesens.
Ich habe in den letzten Tagen freimütig zugegeben, dass meine Bemerkungen über das „Ende ist nahe“ in Bezug auf die Risiken, Kiew uneingeschränkte Rechte an den Raketen zu gewähren, übertrieben waren. Aber damals habe ich den Countdown bis zum Jüngsten Tag in Wochen gemessen, im schlimmsten Fall, nicht in Stunden oder Minuten, wie Scott Ritter es getan hat.
Wir sind noch nicht über den Berg, das ist sicher. Und die Aufgabe aller „Krieger für den Frieden“ besteht nicht darin, unser Überleben am vergangenen Wochenende zu feiern, sondern weiterhin in möglichst breiten öffentlichen Bereichen zu verbreiten, dass unsere Regierungen eine völlig ignorante und rücksichtslose Politik verfolgen. Wir brauchen mehr Straßendemonstrationen und weniger Korkenknallen.
Early yesterday evening I participated in a 50 minute news analysis and interview program of the global broadcaster TNT News, which is Australia owned and operates the given show from the U.K.
I recommend this video to you as much or more for what the presenter Johnny Vedmore had to say and what his second interviewee Ned Ryan had to say in the 65% of air time that they spoke as I do for the 35% of time that was allocated to me.
Vedmore devoted his introductory remarks (minutes 1 -12) to present investigatory reporting on the would-be assassin of Donald Trump yesterday in Miami, Ryan Wesley Routh. His report is professional and well worth hearing. For his part, interviewee Ned Ryun also provides value to viewers with his commentary on the U.S. political scene. Ryun is the son of a Republican Congressman who worked as a speechwriter for George W. Bush before moving on and eventually producing the book entitled American Leviathan which was released by his publisher yesterday.
I can say that my time on air from minute 12 to 33 was well guided by the host and avoided repetition of points I have made in other recent interviews. Much attention was directed at why Donald Trump’s first presidency was as disappointing as it was in the foreign policy domain and why a second term in office could be much more constructive, starting with an early end to the war in and about Ukraine.
Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)followed by a transcription in English of the interview
Die Ausgabe der Johnny Vedmore Show vom 16. September, TNT News (UK)
Gestern Abend nahm ich an einer 50-minütigen Nachrichtenanalyse und einem Interviewprogramm des globalen Senders TNT News teil, der sich in australischem Besitz befindet und die Sendung vom Vereinigten Königreich aus betreibt.
Ich empfehle Ihnen dieses Video, und zwar genauso sehr oder noch mehr wegen dem, was der Moderator Johnny Vedmore zu sagen hatte und was sein zweiter Interviewpartner Ned Ryan in den 65 % der Sendezeit zu sagen hatte, die sie sprachen, wie ich es für die 35 % der Zeit tue, die mir zugewiesen wurde.
Vedmore widmete seine einleitenden Bemerkungen (Minuten 1–12) der Präsentation einer investigativen Berichterstattung über den mutmaßlichen Attentäter von Donald Trump gestern in Miami, Ryan Wesley Routh. Sein Bericht ist professionell und hörenswert. Auch der Befragte Ned Ryun bietet den Zuschauern mit seinen Kommentaren zur politischen Szene in den USA einen Mehrwert. Ryun ist der Sohn eines republikanischen Kongressabgeordneten, der als Redenschreiber für George W. Bush gearbeitet hat, bevor er sich schließlich dem Schreiben des Buches American Leviathan widmete, das gestern von seinem Verlag veröffentlicht wurde.
Ich kann sagen, dass ich während meiner Sendezeit von Minute 12 bis 33 gut vom Moderator geführt wurde und Wiederholungen von Punkten, die ich in anderen Interviews in letzter Zeit angesprochen hatte, vermieden wurden. Es wurde viel darüber gesprochen, warum Donald Trumps erste Präsidentschaft in der Außenpolitik so enttäuschend war und warum eine zweite Amtszeit viel konstruktiver sein könnte, beginnend mit einem baldigen Ende des Krieges in der und um die Ukraine.
Transcription below (Vedmore, Doctorow only) submitted by a reader
TNT: 0:02 Cutting through the clutter, this is Jonny Vedmore on today’s News Talk, TNT.
Vedmore: 0:10 Welcome my friends to a new week, a new day on “The Johnny Vedmore Show”, on Today’s News Talk, TNT. It’s even a new hour, would you believe, yes. And … it’s happened again, as many of us expected, another assassination attempt on Donald J. Trump. Mark’s another Black Swan event. Many people have told me that the establishment are desperate to postpone the American elections. There would only be a few ways in which they could possibly happen, or that could possibly happen. And one of those ways includes the successful assassination of the veritable Teflon Don himself. And on this occasion, Trump was being targeted on home territory, yes, he was.
1:01 The Secret Service detail, which was following him around– give me just one sec there– the Secret Service detail had been enhanced since the previous assassination attempt. So they were ahead of the game on this occasion. To be precise, the Secret Service detail were one hole ahead of the game when they first encountered the shooter. They were checking out the next hole Donald Trump would be visiting on the golf course when there was a rustling in the bushes and a man running away. The would-be assassin is already in custody and was quickly announced as Ryan Wesley Routh, a 58-year-old man who was spotted by Secret Service agents near the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach. Routh was also discovered to have an AK-47, which early reports said included a tripod and a specialised scope, along with a GoPro camera and some other equipment.
2:05 The agents initially opened fire on Routh, who fled the scene and was later arrested on the I-95 by local Palm Beach police. So who is Ryan Wesley Routh? Ryan Routh was born on the 18th of February 1966 and is registered as living in Hawaii most recently, although he previously lived in Julian and Greensboro, North Carolina. Routh maintained relationships with many family members including Oran, Adam, Sarah, Daphne and Laura Routh. Ryan Wesley Routh was granted a marriage license in 1989 to wed Laura Frances Wilson. The following year he officially registered his company which was called Routh Roofing.
His marriage to Laura lasted almost 15 years. They filed for divorce on the 22nd of January 2003, with the divorce being granted a few months later on the 10th of March 2003. The year before Ruuth married– now this is very interesting– he was arrested. Now he had been arrested a fair few times for a litany of different crimes, but this time he was arrested for possession, this is in 2002, I think it’s April, possession of weapons of mass destruction. Although the United States were in a war which focused on the depletion of weapons of mass destruction during this period, Routh was given a probation, and the case didn’t even seem to be featured in the newspapers at the time. I’ve looked through all the newspaper archives; nothing is there now. I can tell you if my neighbor got caught with weapons of mass destruction, I’m pretty positive it would be all over the news. And this isn’t the first time that I’ve seen this during that period between 2002 and 2004.
4:09 Ryan Routh and his wife had been in business with Park H. Washburn before their divorce. After their divorce, they transferred property rights for 5311 Bowman Brook Drive in Clay over to Mr Washburn. Officially, according to Ryan Routh’s North Carolina voter registration record, he didn’t affiliate with any political party in particular. However, his most recent actions suggest he wasn’t intending to vote Republican. Most recently, Ryan Wesley Routh was based in Kaua, Hawaii, where he was the owner of Camp Box Honolulu, which basically was building, I would say, small one-bedroom shed-like properties in Hawaii. There is only evidence of one on any of the websites, and it doesn’t seem to be necessarily a successful business. Could have actually been a front.
5:17 Although Routh will probably not be returning to Hawaii any time soon. It’s very unlikely. Relatively recently, Ryan Wesley Routh gave an interview to “Newsweek Romania” from Ukraine, where he encouraged civilians to pick up the torch and make things happen. He talks about promoting projects which were about getting people to Kiev to fight against Russia. It all sounds very deep-state. In 2022, Ryan posted comments directed at Tulsi Gabbard stating, “You are an idiot. Why don’t you go and join Putin and Trump and be their third leg? Please leave my Hawaii. You embarrass me. Shut your stupid mouth. This a war where people are getting slaughtered for no reason. I am going to fight and die for Ukraine.”
6:18 In a previous tweet targeting Gabbard, Routh also stated, “That grey streak in your hair is so stupid. Grow up or go away.” On the 16th of July 2024, Ryan Routh posted on X stating, “Joe Biden, you should visit the victims in the hospital of Trump rally victims,” this is his own words, so I apologize for the grammar, “and attend the funeral of the fireman that died. Trump certainly never would. Show the world what real leaders do.”
6:55 He also posted the same idea the following day to Kamala Harris. Ian Carroll, the wonderful researcher on X, has also pointed out that the first person Routh followed on Twitter, and the first person to follow him, was a CIA agent with many connections to the deep state. The FBI, though, pulled down Routh’s social media accounts soon after his name went public, that including his Twitter. A few of us got in quickly and managed to screenshot a few of the tweets. Someone actually archived all of the tweets, I believe, which again Ian Carroll mentioned, but this is what happens. FBI come in and try and stop anybody from looking at the evidence for themselves, because how can you cover up a deep-state assassin, if everybody has all the information?
7:56 Ryan Routh appears to show total disdain for Donald Trump and clearly believed that he was on the righteous path, especially when it comes to Ukraine. Regardless, Routh was rumbled and later captured by local police. He appears to have all of the motives and reasoning to kill Donald Trump, and he also had military training. It is not a surprise that someone who was trained in Ukraine as a US civilian to fight alongside Ukrainians would use that training in an attempt to murder a US presidential candidate who is most likely going to end the Ukrainian conflict. The event should also raise the issue of American civilians who go off to fight in foreign wars and whether they should be arrested and questioned as de facto when they return to the United States.
8:57 RFK Jr’s son also has been stationed in Ukraine, which is of note, and there are many deep-state actors involved in that conflict. Ryan Wesley Routh is a perfect example of Western military asset in Ukraine. He believed that he knew best and that everyone should be preparing to fight Putin together. In many ways, Routh had clearly lost his grasp of reality and believed himself to be akin to a martyr, aiming to finish a job where Thomas Matthew Crooks previously failed. It’s hard to put yourself in the shoes of someone like Ryan Routh, partly because it would mean you’d need to leave reality behind, and become so swept up with the agenda that you’d be willing to die for another man’s war or another agency’s war or a neocon war, however you want to put it.
10:00 The Ukraine war is an extremely contrived affair, which has been decades in the making. Ryan Routh is now a good example of why Ukrainian war should come to an end. Special forces have been training up the likes of Routh, and in doing so they appear to have created a monster. Whether it was by accident or on purpose is not clear. However, Routh’s agenda to assassinate President Trump is not only of benefit to the deep state; it also serves the agenda of the Democrats, the military-industrial complex, and the neocons. Ryan Wesley Routh is not only a tool and an asset, he may also be something much worse than that, a Manchurian candidate of sorts.
10:52 Today, Ryan Routh will be staring at the walls of his prison cage, hoping that he has inspired someone else to fight for Ukraine or to assassinate Trump. He will believe himself to be a hero, but Routh is a despot, and while Routh is stuck inside a cell probably for the rest of his life, Donald J. Trump will continue to play golf, he’ll continue to campaign and he’ll continue to be the best hope to end the war in Ukraine. I think we can all agree that out of the two candidates, Donald Trump is likely to be the one who settles that conflict. But, remember, at TNT we never go home. We are committed to bringing you our take on the biggest topics of our time. We broadcast live 24-7, online, globally, no matter what. We got you covered on today’s News Talk TNT.
TNT: TNT. Today’s News Talk. TNT.
Vedmoire: 11:52 Welcome back to the “Johnny Vedmore Show” on Today’s News Talk, TNT. Now, my next guest up today is a returner, is someone I’ve spoken to a few times now, Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, who has authored five books of essays, participated in expert forums devoted to international affairs and appears in Russian domestic political talk shows on all national channels. He is a mind to explore, knows a lot about what’s going on in Ukraine and this war against Russia. Thanks for coming on the “Johnny Vedmore Show” again Gilbert. How are you today?
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: I’m very well, thanks, and thanks for the invitation.
Vedmore: 12:33 I’m always happy to speak with you; you’re a man who understands a lot, you understand the game, you understand what’s being, what is, you know, on the table, what’s being played for. So, let’s start off. A lone assassin was planning to kill Donald Trump yesterday. It turned out that he had fought in Ukraine, recruited others to fight against Russia and had once been given probation for possessing weapons of mass destruction. Does this sound like the modus operandi for a deep state asset?
Doctorow: Well, the group headed by Mr. Budanov in Kyiv certainly would like to murder Mr. Putin. But I think Mr. Putin is probably better guarded by his security detail than Donald Trump is. The elimination of Donald Trump would have the same positive effect for Kyiv, at least as viewed from Kyiv, as removing Mr. Putin. So if you can’t get Putin, then you certainly have a better chance of getting Trump. And I think that’s what this latest incident was all about.
Vedmore: 13:43 Do you think that, I mean, would that be even possible, trying to get Putin? I think it would be almost impossible, wouldn’t it? And what would happen to Russia if there was a successful assassination attempt on President Putin?
Doctorow: Well, I don’t think we’d have much time to worry about it, because the people around Mr. Putin are certainly far quicker of a trigger than he is. And he’s a man of astonishing calm and self-collected and rational, who does not give in to pressure from outside and does not submit to his own emotions. The people around him are quite different. They’re more like the rest of us, who do submit to our emotions and who can be provoked. Therefore, the chances of the current situation taking a very nasty turn towards open warfare would be far higher if Mr. Putin is eliminated from the scene. But from the perspective of Zelensky, that isn’t an issue. They are looking for, Kiev is looking for any way possible to involve the West in a direct war with Russia, so that Kiev would not stand alone. Of course it wouldn’t stand alone, but we all would be going straight to the wall.
Vedmore: 15:09 Yeah, and it seems like, I’m surprised that there’s been no, with all of the bad mouthing of Putin and saying that he’s an evil man, I’m quite surprised there’s been no assassination attempt on Zelensky if those rumors are true. Do you think Zelensky is only protected while the war is happening? Do you think that if it enters into peace negotiations that he would start to sweat a little bit more?
Doctorow: Well, I don’t think he’s in a position to enter into those negotiations. I think he would be best advised to take the first plane out if it came to that, because the people around him have said explicitly, and this is not conjecture, they have said for public consumption that he will not remain. I think what they mean is he will not be breathing if he dares to enter into negotiations. Today’s news, the tickers from Moscow, are saying that those around him, that the army has said, that there’ll be a coup d’etat against him if he enters into negotiations.
Vedmore: 16:20 That is, that must be, I mean, stuck between a rock and a hard place, but you kind of put yourself there, especially when you’re such an amazing actor and dancer as Zelensky is. Now, do you think they will actually allow Trump to run in the presidential election or will it be a case of third time lucky and he won’t make it that far?
Doctorow: Well, nobody can say. But there are many people who have the backing of certain parts of the American security apparatus to remove Mr. Trump, who fear him, who detest him because he stands– at least his political statements, not his actions as president in the past, but his political statements– are such that one might expect him to destroy NATO, for example, certainly to undo American foreign policy. Well, we’ve been through this before. Back in 2016, these types of fears were raised by his talk, by what he was saying would be his policy if he became president. In point of fact, none of that was realized, very sadly, sadly for us, who are opposed to the current course of American foreign policy. Under Donald Trump, one, the relations with Russia went from bad to worse. The sanctions imposed on Russia became very, very cruel under Donald Trump. And so how do we view him today?
18:00 Well, today, of course, is a different situation, in that this is no longer what Washington does, to seize property of the Russian consulate or the summer resort of the Russian ambassador. These are not the issues of the day. The issues of the day are, will we be in direct war with Russia in the near future? So the situation is far more critical, far more dire for global survival than it was in 2016. But another aspect of it is that in 2016, Mr. Trump was more or less a man by himself. He had his family to fill in key slots in his support when he became president, but he didn’t have any particular allies of weight and of good sense to help him run the US government.
19:02 His own administrative experience until he became president was to run about 10 people in the Trump Organization. This was not a manufacturing corporation. It was a narrowly-held real estate operation. He had no real administrative experience that was worth anything. These are simply the facts. Now, US senators don’t have much administrative experience either. They come in with a secretary and a few boot lickers, but not with experience running a few hundred, a few thousand, a few hundred thousand federal employees. Nonetheless, those senators who can become president, they have fellow senators and people all through the federal government in its three branches, whom they know and whom they can rely on to assist them when they’re appointing cabinet members and other high positions for their administration.
20:01 Mr. Trump had none of that. He, for reasons that are quite obscure, he chose people to, I think– well, not so obscure. I think the reason is, he chose people whom he knew could pass through the Senate approval process. Regrettably, all of them were, all of those people he chose were standing against his policies. And so you had this peculiar situation where he appointed people who made a mockery of all of his political policy lines.
Vedmore: 20:38 Yeah, and when you… Go on. Sorry, go on. What were you saying?
Doctorow: And Mr. Trump today has had four years to align himself, to find people who could, who have the quality, who have the experience, who have the recognition to serve his policy objectives faithfully and not to undermine and destroy his policies, which was the case in his first administration. Therefore, there is reason to hope, I can’t say to be certain, but at least to hope that he would succeed in his first and most important policy mission, which is to end the war.
Vedmore: 21:24 Yeah. Now, in that 2016 presidential run, he was successful; and like you say, he brought in a load of people who were against him, really, and he was very strict on Russia, as you say. Was he doing those things as a response to all of the criticism and smearing that was happening? We know the Steele dossier, you know, the infamous Christopher Steele or Trump-Russia dossier, which was a clear fabrication by UK intelligence, had come out and had been well publicized everywhere. Was Donald Trump actually reacting to that? And is that why his first administration was much tougher on Russia?
Doctorow: 22:16 Well, Trump, I think, his self-vision is that of a person with cold blood, sang-froid, who is good at negotiation and making deals. But that is really some image that he’s painted of himself. You cannot compare Mr. Trump with Mr. Putin in the sense of rational behavior and cool calculation of all of the possible results of any action he takes. I think he’s far more emotions-driven and, of course, he has far less depth to him than the Russian leader, and that remains the case. So, was he, as you suggest, influenced by all of these threats around him and did he feel that he had to make concessions to his enemies to keep his hold on power? It’s entirely possible. I think the scenario that you’ve drawn is correct.
Vedmore: 23:21 Yeah, it was very hard for him, that’s for sure. There’s a quick question from the chat from Dark Commission. He says, “I can’t see how a major war with Russia, possibly with nuclear weapons, could be at all compatible with the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset. A nuclear World War III would be the end of all globalist plans, wouldn’t it?”
Doctorow: Well, there are certain assumptions that go behind and drive the risk-taking that we see in the in the Biden administration. I think the first element here is their appraisal of Mr. Putin as a leader and as a decision maker and as somebody who will respond appropriately to defend his country if it’s under attack. And the assumption is that he won’t. The assumption of people like Jake Sullivan, who are the masters of the universe and who do not allow others to have similar decisiveness. They believe that American first strike on Russia is feasible, a disarming strike that would knock out the Russian land-based missiles and essentially disarm, decapitate the country, leave it in chaos because it’s only ruled by one person, as they think.
24:47 And you remove that one person, and Russia is at a loss. This is their understanding, and this understanding is based on their own reflections without any interest in the reality of Russia. They don’t study it. They only, or the people they listen to. are also echo- chamber people, people who were brought on board as supposed Russian experts, and they’re saying what they know their bosses want to hear. In this case, the decision makers, such as they are like Jake Sullivan, are ultimately making decisions in total ignorance of the opposite side.
Vedmore: 25:27 Yeah. There’s a lot of big trouble at the moment all around the world, isn’t there, and everybody is working on these stereotypes and caricatures, but the reality is, people are a lot more complex than that, leaders especially. We’re going to take a quick break for the news. You’re listening to Today’s News Talk, TNT.
TNT: CO2 sustains all life on earth, but now it’s in long-term decline. We face the return of an ice age. We mandate that the truth be told, on Today’s News Talk, TNT.
Vedmore: 26:02 Welcome back to “The Johnny Vedmore Show” on Today’s News Talk, TNT. I’m here with Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, who is a fantastically interesting man who’s got such a fantastic knowledge of Russia and the Ukraine conflict. Gilbert, can you tell me why people with your sort of knowledge and your sort of ability to rationalize, reason and understand the players involved are not more central in the modern media sphere?
Doctorow: Well, the modern media sphere is very subordinate to the powers that be. There are many reasons for that, and I don’t want to bore the audience with ticking them off. But that is the fact, the bottom-line fact. And they toe the line, and they get along, and they get invited to press conferences. They don’t toe the line, they don’t get invited to press conferences, and their ratings fall. So, the ability of Mr. Kirby and Jake Sullivan and other people who speak for the administration or are insiders of the administration to control the press is unfortunately all too simple.
27:17 The other factor is that the media, journalism in general, has a collective memory going back two weeks. And so even in the best of circumstances, people are unfortunately ill-prepared to put what we see in front of us in a perspective that is relevant. I don’t mean a 200-year perspective. A 10-year perspective is a good start, to see how we got where we are and where we may end up. That is unfortunately not the case.
Vedmore: 27:51 Yeah, and that’s interesting. Dark Commissioner again comes up with a question, says, “So we are looking at then the ultimate Peter Principle. The world is run by people who have been promoted to a level of incompetence.” Would you agree?
Doctorow: I would agree, yes. And that’s very regrettable. The people in the highest offices in this administration, and Mr. Biden, are really beyond their depth. Everybody’s looking for something. I don’t mean to say that these are worthless people, but they’re not in the right slots and certainly not at the administrative level where they should be of decision makers.
Vedmore: 28:28 No, they’re in the slots where nodding dogs are best put, I think, for these people. So going back, the military-industrial complex, is that who is currently– and the security services– is that who’s currently really panicking about Trump ending the war in Ukraine? Is this just a money game, really, at the end of the day? Does it really matter about the policy? Is it just all about them, the military industrial complex, making money?
Doctorow: Well, that is a raw fact, and it’s an indisputable fact, that the people who make money off of the war are a factor, because they make very big contributions to the whole of Congress, and so they cannot be ignored. But I think something else cannot be ignored, And that’s that our politicians do have agency. They are not simply puppets of this military-industrial complex. And they are subject to another set of considerations, which is pure power. I mean, these are the big factors that always drive the world, money and power. And the power side is the American domination of the world. It’s the belief that it is– about the leaders in Congress– that the United States is the global leader, and that without its leadership the world will fall into chaos. That is their justification, which is quite separate from and in parallel to what you were describing.
Vedmore: 29:56 Yeah, yeah, most definitely. Now, do you think that before a potential Trump presidency is possible, is allowed, shall we say, Russia will make another major military push into Ukraine?
Doctorow: There is such a conjecture, and it has substance to it, yes. However, it’s not obligatory. Mr. Putin does not want to sacrifice the lives of his soldiers unnecessarily, to meet a given deadline. And so I would be very cautious in agreeing with you on that, if it’s before November 5th. After November 5th, I don’t think that Mr. Putin as yet sees a reason to hasten the move toward the Dnieper River. And that also assumes that reaching the Dnieper will be the end of the war. And that is, I think, a false assumption, because there still is the rest of Ukraine. And what will happen to that? Will the country give up because they retreated to the Dnieper? That is possible, but not necessary.
31:01 So where we are right now, after the exchange of courtesies between Mr. Putin and the Biden administration, Thursday and Friday, when Putin said openly that allowing the use of these American and European missiles against the heartland of Russia would essentially mean that countries are at war with Russia and that his country would respond appropriately. And then the next day, we find that the White House is saying, “Oh, no, no, no, no, we haven’t changed our position, no use of our weapons in the heartland of Russia.” This is even before Mr. Starmer, the British Prime Minister, touched down in Washington for what was highlighted to the press as a meeting to get the approval of the United States on his plans to use his missiles, the Storm Shadow, that way.
32:02 Well, we had a quiet weekend. And it’s still, my colleagues, even today listening to them on YouTube interviews, like my colleagues in the American intelligence community, are still fairly satisfied that the issue has been resolved in a favorable way for the US Pentagon, which has some reason left to it, versus the US State Department, which is delusional and has no reason. Nonetheless, I can tell you that last night’s main news program of the week on state television in Russia, Dmitry Kiselyov’s “News of the Week”, was speaking as if nothing had happened to change the US determination to use the missiles. So the Russian official position, if I can say that state television represents that, is that these missiles are still slated to be used against the Russian heartland. We’ll see where we are.
Vedmore: 32:59 We’re still heading towards it. You don’t think that Western nations will be forced to take a step back now and re-evaluate their efforts after Putin’s very clear drawing of a red line in the sand? You don’t think that they will be the ones to re-evaluate?
Doctorow: I was listening to the BBC this morning, and they had one of the talking heads at the university in Britain who was saying the Washington line, that Putin is just a bully and it’s all a bluff.
Vedmore: 33:31 That’s it. That’s it. That’s it. They really are just playing the same old game. It’s like the Cold War never ended, it just went digital. Well Gilbert, thank you very much again for coming on the show. I really appreciate your expertise in this field, and keep up the sterling work and the amazing commentary. Thank you so much for coming on the show.
Doctorow: Thanks again to you. A pleasure.
Vedmore: 33:56 Excellent. You’re listening to Today’s News Talk, TNT.
For those who want a recapitulation of the warning given in St Petersburg on Thursday and its consequences in Washington on Friday, here is a six minute summary which I provided to Iran’s English-language global broadcaster Press TV yesterday:
Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus) of text and transcription followed by a transcription of the interview in English
Press TV, Iran: Eine sechsminütige Zusammenfassung von Wladimir Putins Warnung an die NATO und ihre Folgen
Für diejenigen, die eine Zusammenfassung der Warnung vom Donnerstag in St. Petersburg und ihrer Folgen am Freitag in Washington wünschen, habe ich gestern eine sechsminütige Zusammenfassung für den englischsprachigen globalen Sender Press TV des Iran präsentiert:
PressTV: 0:00 Nun, wir sind jetzt mit dem unabhängigen internationalen Analysten Gilbert Doctorow verbunden, der sich uns aus Brüssel anschließt. Herr Doctorow, willkommen in der Sendung. Zunächst einmal, erläutern Sie uns doch bitte die erneute Warnung Russlands an die USA und ihre NATO-Verbündeten. Und was erwarten Sie? Welche Art von Reaktion erwarten Sie von Moskau?
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 0:24 Moskau gab seine Warnung heraus, oder genauer gesagt, Präsident Putin stellte Bemerkungen zusammen, die in den letzten Wochen von seinen Untergebenen gemacht worden waren. Nun übernahm er die Verantwortung dafür, als er am Donnerstag zu mehreren Treffen in St. Petersburg war und einem der führenden Moderatoren des staatlichen Fernsehens ein Interview gab, und zwar in einer Sendung mit dem Titel „Moskau, Kreml, Putin“.
In dieser fünfminütigen Frage-Antwort-Sequenz sagte er sehr ruhig, sehr überzeugend und ohne jegliche Emotionen, welche Position Russland zu einer möglichen Erlaubnis der USA und der NATO für den Einsatz von Langstrecken-Präzisionsraketen einnimmt, die der Westen der Ukraine im Krieg der Ukraine geliefert hat. Selenskyj beabsichtigt, diese für Langstreckenangriffe im Landesinneren, in Zentralrussland, einzusetzen.
1:32 Was Herr Putin sagte, war zunächst eine Erklärung dessen, was wir in der Vergangenheit gehört haben. Die russische Position ist, dass es nicht um eine Frage der Erlaubnis geht, sondern um den tatsächlichen Einsatz dieser Raketen durch die NATO-Staaten, die sie geliefert haben, was sie zu Mitschuldigen macht oder sie eindeutig zu Kriegsteilnehmern gegen Russland macht, wenn diese Praxis zur offenen Politik der Vereinigten Staaten und ihrer Verbündeten gemacht wird. Ich sage, wenn dies zur offenen Politik gemacht wird, denn de facto wurden die fraglichen Raketen, die in den USA hergestellten ATACMS und die in Großbritannien hergestellten Storm Shadow, von der Ukraine tatsächlich eingesetzt, um innerhalb der russischen Grenzen zuzuschlagen.
2:19 Sie sind auf der Krim eingeschlagen, die Russland als zu Russland gehörig betrachtet, und sie sind in den letzten Monaten in Gebieten nahe der Grenze zwischen der Ukraine und der Russischen Föderation eingeschlagen. Beide Raketentypen sind den Russen inzwischen wohlbekannt, und sie haben sie erfolgreich zerstört, entweder durch Abfangen oder durch elektronische Kriegsführung. Dennoch stellen sie eine erhebliche Bedrohung dar. Eine hundertprozentige Luftverteidigung gibt es nicht.
Und wenn Storm Shadow beispielsweise auf die Kertsch-Brücke gerichtet wäre – was durchaus denkbar ist, da die Briten dahinterstecken und wenn die Briten versuchen sollten, diese symbolische und mit enormen Investitionen der Russischen Föderation erstellte Brücke zu zerstören, die das russische Festland mit der Halbinsel Krim verbindet – wenn das passieren würde, dann hätte das verheerende Auswirkungen auf die Moral und das Selbstbewusstsein der Russen und auf die russische Öffentlichkeit, die die Fähigkeit der Regierung, sie zu verteidigen, in Frage stellen würde.
3:25 Es geht hier also nicht so sehr um die militärische Wirkung der jeweiligen Waffensysteme, sondern um den Versuch, das politische System des Landes zu destabilisieren, worum es dem Westen von Beginn des Konflikts Russlands und des Westens über die Ukraine an ging. Die Absicht der Vereinigten Staaten und ihrer Verbündeten, Russland eine demütigende Niederlage zuzufügen, sollte, wie es bei solchen Niederlagen immer der Fall ist, eine politische Wirkung haben, die Instabilität schafft und eine bestehende Regierung stürzt.
4:01 Nun sagte Herr Putin nicht nur, dass diese Raketen von den NATO-Lieferanten kontrolliert werden würden, da die Ukraine nicht in der Lage sei, sie zu warten, selbst die Ziele zu programmieren und auf die Aufklärung durch Satelliten angewiesen sei, die von den Vereinigten Staaten und ihren Verbündeten bereitgestellt werden, sowie auf Techniker vor Ort in der Ukraine, die eigentlich alles tun, außer den Knopf für den Abschuss zu drücken. Das ist Punkt eins.
4:34 Punkt zwei ist, dass Russland dies so auffasst, dass die Lieferanten dieser Raketen de facto als Mit-Kriegsbeteiligte zu betrachten sind, dass sie sich an einem Krieg gegen Russland beteiligen und dass Russland dementsprechend Maßnahmen ergreifen muss, je nachdem, wie gross die Bedrohung durch diese Angriffe eingeschätzt wird. Das ist eine sehr klare Botschaft – an Großbritannien, das als erstes vorgeschlagen hat, der Ukraine seine „Storm Shadow“-Raketen für Angriffe überall im Kernland Russlands zur Verfügung zu stellen, und an die Vereinigten Staaten für ihre ATACMS-Raketen, die, wie gesagt, bereits eingesetzt wurden und möglicherweise auf die gleiche Weise eingesetzt werden könnten, um 500 Kilometer tief in die Russische Föderation einzudringen.
5:27 Die Auswirkungen dessen waren im Westen unmittelbar spürbar, obwohl man das aus keiner Erklärung der US-Regierung und der Mainstream-Medien entnehmen kann. Die US-Regierung wird in keiner Weise zugeben, dass Herr Putin von ihrer Führung ernst genommen werden könnte, de facto wurde er es aber. Das erste, was innerhalb weniger Stunden nach Putins Demarche geschah, war, dass das Weiße Haus – noch vor der Ankunft des britischen Premierministers Keir Starmer, um genau diese Frage der Raketen in der Ukraine zu besprechen – erklärte, dass es keine Änderung der Politik gebe. Das bedeutet, dass es den Einsatz seiner Waffen in der Ukraine für Angriffe im russischen Landesinneren nicht zulässt.
PressTV: 6:21 Richtig. Vielen Dank. Der unabhängige Analyst für internationale Angelegenheiten Gilbert Doctorow, der aus Brüssel zugeschaltet ist.
Transcription in English below submitted by a reader
PressTV: 0:00 Well, we’re now joined by independent international affairs analyst Gilbert Doctorow, who’s joining us from Brussels. Mr. Doctorow, welcome to the program. First of all, walk us through Russia’s warning yet again to the US and its NATO allies at this point. And what are you expecting? What kind of a response are you expecting to see from Moscow?
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 0:24 Moscow issued its warning, or to be precise, President Putin put together remarks that had appeared in the last several weeks made by his subordinates. Now, it was he who took charge of this, when he was in St. Petersburg for several meetings on Thursday and gave an interview to one of state television’s leading hosts, one on a program that’s called “Moscow, Kremlin, Putin.”
In this five-minute question-answer, he said very calmly, very cogently, and without any sense of emotion, what Russia’s position is on the possible US and NATO permission for use of long-range precision missiles supplied by the West to Ukraine in Ukraine’s war, the intention of Zelensky being to use these for long-range strikes inside the interior, central Russia.
1:32 What Mr. Putin said was first explaining what we’ve heard in the past. The Russian position is that it is not an issue of permission, it is an issue of actual operation of those missiles by NATO countries that supplied them, which makes them co-belligions, or makes them clearly waging a war on Russia, if this practice is made the open policy of the United States and its allies. I say if it’s made the open policy, because de facto the missiles that are in question right now, the American-made ATACMSs and the British-made Storm Shadow, have in fact been used by Ukraine to strike within Russian borders.
2:19 They struck in Crimea, which Russia considers to be its own, and they have struck in areas near the border between Ukraine and the Russian Federation over the past several months. Both of these missiles are well known now to Russians, who have successfully destroyed them, either by interception or by electronic warfare means. Nonetheless, they pose a significant threat. You never can have 100% air defense.
And if, for example, Storm Shadow were directed at the Kerch Bridge– which is entirely thinkable, since the British are behind this and the British have been seeking to destroy that symbolic and enormous investment of Russian Federation in a bridge that connects mainland Russia to the Crimean Peninsula– if that were to happen, then it would have a devastating effect on Russian morale, Russian self-confidence, and on the Russian public, who would question the ability of the government to defend them.
3:25 So there is in question here not so much a military impact of the given weapon systems, but an attempt to destabilize the country’s political system, which from the very beginning of the conflict between Russia and the West over Ukraine has been about that. The intention of the United States and its allies to deal a humiliating defeat on Russia has, as is always the case in such defeats, a political impact to create instability and overthrow an existing government.
4:01 Now, Mr. Putin said not only that these missiles were going to be controlled by the NATO suppliers, because the Ukraine has no ability to maintain them, to target them on its own, and is dependent on reconnaissance from satellites supplied by the United States and its allies, and on technicians on the ground in Ukraine, who actually do everything except push the button for them to be fired. That is point one.
4:34 Point two is that Russia considers this to mean that the suppliers of these missiles are de facto co-belligerents, that they are engaging in a war on Russia and that Russia must take steps accordingly, depending on the level of threat that it perceives by these strikes. Now this is a very clear message. to Britain, who are foremost in proposing that their storm shadow be available to Ukraine for striking anywhere in the heartland of Russia, and to the United States for its ATACMSs, which, as I say, have already been used and could potentially be used in the same way, to attack 500 kilometers into the Russian Federation.
5:27 The impact of this in the West was immediate, although you will not know that from any statement by the US government and from mainstream media. who will in no way, shape or form admit that Mr. Putin could be taken seriously by their leadership, de facto he was. The first thing that happened within hours of Mr. Putin’s demarche is that the White House– ahead of the arrival of the British prime minister, Keir Starmer, to discuss precisely this question of missiles to Ukraine– the White House stated that there is no change in policy. which is not allowing use of its weapons in Ukraine for striking the interior.
PressTV: 6:21 Right. Thanks a lot. Independent international affairs analyst Gilbert Doctorow, joining us from Brussels.
I have not seen any comments on what I am about to describe in alternative media recently, not to mention in mainstream, which by definition only takes an interest in Vladimir Putin and could not care less about who is who in the Kremlin line-up below Number One. So much the worse for mainstream, because watching the musical chairs in Moscow is no less valuable open source intelligence on where policy is headed than it would be with respect to leading politicians and statesmen in London or Washington or Berlin.
As we all know, Sergei Shoigu, who is as close a friend to Vladimir Putin as anyone in Russia may be said to be, was this past spring unceremoniously removed from his position as Defense Minister, which he occupied for more than a decade, and was made Secretary of the Security Council; which took him out of the line of command and entrusted him with unclear responsibilities of an advisory nature. The reasons for his removal were fairly clear, namely a number of corruption scandals among his direct subordinates, which suggested that it was high time for cleaning house. Moreover, no one had forgotten how Shoigu and the head of the Russian general staff General Gerasimov had been denounced publicly for incompetence and corruption by head of the Wagner Group Pavel Prigozhin in the months before Prigozhin staged his insurrection.
In the intervening period, I would say not so much that Shoigu’s star has risen on its own as that the luster of his successor, Andrei Belousov, and of the aforementioned Valery Gerasimov has been tarnished by the stunning failure of the Russian military leadership to anticipate and prevent the Ukrainian invasion of Kursk Oblast, which has been a big embarrassment for the Putin government even if it is ending badly for Kiev. It should never have happened.
Now in the past several days we have seen proof positive that wind is once again in the sails of Mr. Shoigu. He was present, as a silent witness, to be sure, but present nonetheless as the senior representative of Russia’s siloviki (security and defense apparatus) when Putin received the directors of national security from the BRICS countries at the Konstantinovsky Palace outside Petersburg on Thursday. He was present at the sidelines meeting there of Putin and the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi. Presumably Belousov was not there because he was busy managing Russia’s largest global naval exercise in 30 years, Ocean 2024, with large scale Chinese naval participation and a great many foreign observers.
Now today’s news indicates that Mr Shoigu is in Pyongyang negotiating directly with the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. This can only be about the most serious defense issues, including further shipments of armaments to Moscow.
All of these moves of personnel on the chessboard are yet further proof of Vladimir Putin’s remarkable skills in Human Resources. He never completely discards any of his underperforming subordinates. They are not simply ‘fired’ in the spirit of Donald Trump. No they are held close to him so that their talents may be used at some future point as needed for the country’s greater benefit. And if I may be allowed a side glance at what The Donald was saying in his debate with Kamala, none of those removed from high positions is given the opportunity or the incentive to write a denunciation of The Boss.
Ich habe in letzter Zeit keine Kommentare zu dem, was ich gleich beschreiben werde, in den alternativen Medien gesehen, ganz zu schweigen in den Mainstream-Medien, die sich per definitionem nur für Wladimir Putin interessieren und denen es völlig egal sein könnte, wer in der Kreml-Besetzung unter der Nummer Eins wer ist. Umso schlimmer für die Mainstream-Medien, denn das Beobachten der musikalischen Stühle in Moskau ist nicht weniger wertvolle Open-Source-Aufklärung darüber, wohin die Politik steuert, als es in Bezug auf führende Politiker und Staatsmänner in London, Washington oder Berlin der Fall wäre.
Wie wir alle wissen, wurde Sergei Schoigu, der Wladimir Putin so nahesteht wie kaum ein anderer in Russland, im vergangenen Frühjahr kurzerhand von seinem Posten als Verteidigungsminister, den er mehr als ein Jahrzehnt lang innehatte, entfernt und zum Sekretär des Sicherheitsrates ernannt, wodurch er aus der Befehlskette herausgenommen und mit unklaren Verantwortlichkeiten beratender Art betraut wurde. Die Gründe für seine Entlassung waren ziemlich klar, nämlich eine Reihe von Korruptionsskandalen unter seinen direkten Untergebenen, die darauf hindeuteten, dass es höchste Zeit für eine Säuberungsaktion war. Darüber hinaus hatte niemand vergessen, wie Schoigu und der Chef des russischen Generalstabs, General Gerassimow, in den Monaten vor Prigoschins Aufstand vom Chef der Wagner-Gruppe, Pavel Prigozhin, öffentlich wegen Inkompetenz und Korruption angeprangert worden waren.
In der Zwischenzeit würde ich nicht sagen, dass Schoigus Stern von selbst aufgegangen ist, sondern dass der Glanz seines Nachfolgers, Andrei Belousov, und des bereits erwähnten Valery Gerasimov durch das eklatante Versagen der russischen Militärführung, die Invasion der Ukraine in der Oblast Kursk vorherzusehen und zu verhindern, getrübt wurde. Dies war eine große Blamage für die Regierung Putin, auch wenn sie für Kiew schlecht ausgeht. Das hätte nie passieren dürfen.
In den letzten Tagen haben wir nun den eindeutigen Beweis dafür gesehen, dass Herr Schoigu wieder Rückenwind hat. Er war zwar als stiller Zeuge anwesend, aber dennoch als ranghöchster Vertreter der russischen Silowiki (Sicherheits- und Verteidigungsapparat) zugegen, als Putin am Donnerstag im Konstantinowski-Palast außerhalb von Petersburg die Leiter der nationalen Sicherheit der BRICS-Staaten empfing. Er war bei dem dortigen Treffen am Rande der Veranstaltung von Putin und dem chinesischen Außenminister Wang Yi anwesend. Vermutlich war Belousov nicht dort, weil er mit der Leitung der größten globalen Marineübung Russlands seit 30 Jahren, Ocean 2024, beschäftigt war, an der eine große Abteilung der chinesischen Marine und zahlreiche ausländische Beobachter teilnahmen.
Die heutigen Nachrichten besagen, dass Herr Schoigu in Pjöngjang ist und direkt mit dem nordkoreanischen Staatschef Kim Jong Un verhandelt. Dabei kann es sich nur um die schwerwiegendsten Verteidigungsfragen handeln, einschließlich weiterer Waffenlieferungen nach Moskau.
All diese Personalbewegungen auf dem Schachbrett sind ein weiterer Beweis für Wladimir Putins bemerkenswerte Fähigkeiten im Personalwesen. Er entlässt nie einen seiner leistungsschwachen Untergebenen vollständig. Sie werden nicht einfach im Geiste Donald Trumps „gefeuert“. Nein, sie werden in seiner Nähe gehalten, damit ihre Talente zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt zum Wohle des Landes eingesetzt werden können. Und wenn ich einen Seitenblick auf das werfen darf, was „The Donald“ in seiner Debatte mit Kamala gesagt hat, wird keiner derjenigen, die aus hohen Positionen entfernt wurden, die Möglichkeit oder den Anreiz erhalten, eine Denunziation über den Boss zu schreiben.
As those of you who have read these pages for some time know, I appeared not long ago on the Johnny Vedmore show of the TNT global broadcasting network that is Australian owned and operates from Britain. On that program I was interviewed by Johnny in a 10 minute slot. Yesterday we were both panelists responding to questions posed by a moderator. The shows are aired live and then released on a number of internet platforms. On Monday I am scheduled to participate in another of their programs hosted by the former British MP James Freeman.
The tone of these programs is lively and always topical. Yesterday’s opened with discussion of the latest Russian expulsion of six British diplomats on spying charges. As I remarked, the Brits may look upon this as a down payment on possible severing of diplomatic relations that Russian Duma member Lugovoy called for a day ago on the Vladimir Solovyov talk show. Why? The answer lies in the aggressively hostile disposition of the recently installed New Labour government and its guiding role in the Ukrainian invasion of Kursk oblast. As we know, the preceding Tory government of Boris Johnson was responsible for the cancellation of the Russian-Ukrainian peace agreement initialed by both sides in March 2022 as well as for several high visibility terrorist attacks within Russia. I am pleased to have given the time to explain that severing diplomatic relations often is a precursor to the declaration of war.
Among other topics of the day, we also talked about Putin’s remark during his visit to Petersburg on Thursday that NATO members which end restrictions on Kiev’s use of the offensive weapons they have supplied for attacks on Russia’s heartland will be considered to have become co-belligerents.
I
I am hopeful that our three-way discussion with the moderator will be as interesting and informative for viewers as it was stimulating for me as panelist.
Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus) followed by full transcription in English)
Podiumsdiskussion von TNT Muckrakers: Russland weist britische Diplomaten aus, Putin und der Krieg mit der NATO, Starmer besucht Washington und gibt es ein Happy End im Ukraine-Krieg?
Wie diejenigen von Ihnen, die diese Seiten schon länger lesen, wissen, bin ich vor nicht allzu langer Zeit in der Johnny Vedmore Show des globalen Senders TNT aufgetreten, der sich in australischem Besitz befindet und von Großbritannien aus operiert. In dieser Sendung wurde ich von Johnny in einem 10-minütigen Slot interviewt. Gestern waren wir beide Diskussionsteilnehmer und beantworteten Fragen eines Moderators. Die Sendungen werden live ausgestrahlt und dann auf verschiedenen Internetplattformen veröffentlicht. Am Montag soll ich an einer weiteren Sendung teilnehmen, die vom ehemaligen britischen Europaabgeordneten James Freeman moderiert wird.
Der Ton dieser Programme ist lebhaft und immer aktuell. Gestern wurde die Sendung mit einer Diskussion über die jüngste Ausweisung von sechs britischen Diplomaten aus Russland wegen Spionagevorwürfen eröffnet. Wie ich bemerkte, könnten die Briten dies als Anzahlung für eine mögliche Abkoppelung der diplomatischen Beziehungen betrachten, die der russische Duma-Abgeordnete Lugowoi am Tag zuvor in der Talkshow von Wladimir Solowjow gefordert hatte. Warum? Die Antwort liegt in der aggressiven feindlichen Gesinnung der kürzlich eingesetzten New Labour-Regierung und ihrer führenden Rolle bei der Invasion der Ukraine in der Oblast Kursk. Wie wir wissen, war die vorherige Tory-Regierung unter Boris Johnson für die Aufhebung des von beiden Seiten im März 2022 paraphierten russisch-ukrainischen Friedensabkommens sowie für mehrere öffentlichkeitswirksame Terroranschläge in Russland verantwortlich. Ich freue mich, dass ich die Zeit gefunden habe, zu erklären, dass die Unterbrechung diplomatischer Beziehungen oft ein Vorläufer der Kriegserklärung ist.
Neben anderen Themen des Tages sprachen wir auch über Putins Bemerkung während seines Besuchs in Petersburg am Donnerstag, dass NATO-Mitglieder, die die Beschränkungen für den Einsatz der von ihnen gelieferten Angriffswaffen durch Kiew für Angriffe auf das Kernland Russlands aufheben, als Kriegsteilnehmer betrachtet werden.
Ich hoffe, dass unsere Dreierdiskussion mit dem Moderator für die Zuschauer genauso interessant und informativ sein wird, wie sie für mich als Diskussionsteilnehmer anregend war.
Transcription below by a reader
Andrew Eborn: 0:11 Well, it’s just gone 12 noon in London, 7 AM in Philadelphia; and around the world, It’s time for “The Muckrakers” with me, Andrew Eborn. And here on “The Muckrakers”, we pledge to continue tackling the most controversial and pressing news issues of our time. Our mission is to provide more light and less heat in our unwavering quest to uncover the truth and to inform, educate and entertain, all with dignity and respect.
And today we’re going to discuss Putin’s latest warning to NATO, the end game in the Ukraine conflict and the risk of thermonuclear war. And I’m delighted to be joined by TNT titan Johnny Vedmore and Dr Gilbert Doctorow, who joins us all the way– where are you based, Dr Gilbert? Where are you based?
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: Brussels, Belgium.
Eborn: Brussels in Belgium, oh, we love it over there. For those of you who don’t know, Dr. Gilbert Doctorow holds a PhD in Russian history from Columbia University and is a fluent Russian speaker. He spent most of his professional life in corporate business with a focus on Russia. He has authored five books of essays. He also posted his space in expert forums devoted to international affairs and appeared in Russian domestic political talk shows on all national channels. A very warm welcome to you both, gentlemen.
Doctorow; Thank you.
Johnny Vedmore: Thank you.
Eborn: 1:31 Let me deal with this sort of breaking news which has happened in the last few minutes about Russia has expelled British diplomats. Basically, the Russia’s FSB security service has revoked the accreditation of six British diplomats in Moscow, accusing them of spying and sabotage. The UK government called the spy accusations baseless and stated it is unapologetic about protecting its national interest. Let me get your reaction on that first of all, Gilbert.
Doctorow: 2:00 Well, I think this is a down payment on a much bigger set of problems that are about to appear in British-Russian relations. What I mean is, it’s entirely possible in the next few weeks that the Russians will cut diplomatic relations Britain. This was called for yesterday by a gentleman who many in your audience will find familiar by name, Mr. Lugavoy, who was held to be responsible for a rather high-visability political murder in Britain several years ago. Lugavoy is a deputy of the state Duma, and he called precisely to cut relations.
And why is that? It’s because of what Mr. Keir Starmer is doing as the new Labour government repeats the policies of the first new Labour government of Tony Blair and moves to be a reliable partner of the United States in the capacity of a dog. In the case of Mr. Blair, Prime Minister Blair was denounced by many in the opposition in the United States as being a lapdog of Bush. In the case of Mr. Stammer, I’d say he’s the hunting dog of the present administration, because he is one step ahead of the United States, not two steps behind like Mr. Blair. And he is bringing down on Britain the risk of being the first target for a Russian retaliation. So long as it remains in a diplomatic domain, the cutting of relations is the first step. Usually the cutting of relations is the first step before declaration of war. And that’s exactly the sense in which it has to be understood. So the expulsion of these six diplomats is only a foretaste of what is to come.
Eborn: 3:55 Right, Johnny?
Vedmore; Yeah, Keir Starmer, I’ll echo Gilbert there, Keir Starmer and David Lammy are one step ahead of the agenda, partially because the agenda is being created behind closed doors, and they have always been part of that deep-state infrastructure. We know that Keir Starmer, while he was in the administration under Corbyn, was actually joining the Trilateral Commission in secret, and he’s got a lot of secretive background. He seems like a deep-state actor, he seems like this is the perfect time for him come to power. The fact that the spies have been kicked out, it suggests there’s a new reset in the relationship in what’s about to happen.
4:43 This happened when Putin first got in as well, about ’99, 2000. You saw a load of spies, people being outed as spies in a leak by a former British intelligence agent who put out a load of names and that started another, you could say, exodus of spies, including some that were working in the Estonian embassy. One of them was a guy called Pablo Miller, whose handler was the infamous Christopher Steele of the Trump-Russia dossier, and who also handled Sergei Skripal. So you can see there’s, you know, there’s a web of spies always on the periphery of Russian borders, always working hard, some inside. This seems like a reset and there’s a big change coming.
Eborn: 5:37 Yeah, it is. I mean, you’ve called them spies. Many times they deny being spies. Basically, Russia claims that the British Foreign Office was coordinating efforts to escalate the political and military situation in Ukraine, aiming for Russia’s strategic defeat. And Russian state television, they had named and showed photographs of the six expelled diplomats, with the FSB warning the UK to stop intelligence activities. Gilbert, you mentioned this is basically the precursor for war; can you elaborate?
Doctorow: 6:06 Well, Mr Putin at the St Petersburg Cultural Forum, or on the sidelines of the Forum, was asked a question by a certain Pavel Zarubin, who is a journalist who runs a program called “Moscow, the Kremlin, Putin” on Sunday evenings. And he is a, he shadows Mr. Putin wherever he goes. And he was at the Forum yesterday. And in between meetings, he asked Mr. Putin a question that’s on the minds of most every Russian and on a lot of us here in the West. That is, how he will respond, how Russia will respond to the likely granting of permission by the United States and Britain to Kiev, to use whatever military hardware, particularly long-range missiles that they are given by the West to attack deep into Russian territory.
6:55 Mr. Putin opened his remarks. He was– this is a subject which you would think would generate a lot of heat. And I can say by contrast what I mean by heat. The Russian talk shows last night were showing images of Chancellor Scholz in a very heated discussion before a public in which he was making fist-like gestures and they showed on the side of the screen Hitler making the same fist-like gestures. So the heated discussions that are considered acceptable in German culture before audiences are not acceptable before Russian audiences. And Mr. Putin was very calm and reserved in his response. Obviously this was well prepared in advance, because he had a full day’s agenda, and you don’t just take up questions as deep and important as that on a moment’s notice.
7:44 His answer to Zarubin began with the explanation we’ve heard in the past few weeks from various sources, but here it was hearing, we heard it from the number one in Russia. From the standpoint of military expertise, Russia believes that it’s impossible for Ukraine alone to carry out, to use these missiles effectively against itself. That means they do not have the possibility absent the daily and I should say minute-by-minute provision of satellite reconnaissance to Ukraine officers to enable them, or to directly program missiles for targeting purposes.
But that’s not all. The second factor and the more important factor is that maintenance and ready preparedness of these weapons requires a great deal of skill, a great deal of education and knowledge of the sophisticated systems that are there, which nobody can impart in two or three weeks’ training. In short, only with the assistance and the presence of NATO officers in Ukraine can these weapons systems be used offensively against the Russian Federation. Accordingly, drawing the dots, Mr. Putin is saying that we view, we, Russia, view any attacks coming from Ukraine of these missiles, and particularly we’re talking about the British Missiles Storm Shadow, because the United States, to our best knowledge, is withholding permission to use its missiles, ATACMSs, for reasons that are very important to you, Britain in particular. But I will get to that, I hope, later in this discussion, how the United States is using Britain as another sacrifice, fighting Russians to the last Briton.
9:34 The point is that from the standpoint of Russia, the launch of such missiles against targets within the Russian Federation is the equivalent of NATO countries firing those missiles, meaning in short, at the end, his conclusion that the nature of this war changes with that permission to Ukraine, from a proxy war to a direct war that NATO countries are waging on his country; and that Russia will respond appropriately to the level, or calibrate it to the level of threat that it sees in these incoming missiles.
Eborn: 10:17 Yeah, and we’ve seen– and language is so important in this, isn’t it? We say “responding appropriately”. What does that mean in practice?
Doctorow: It means that he is not being aggressive, belligerent, bellicose, which is– the “aggressive” word was in today’s “Financial Times” review of just what we’re talking about. He was being factual and matter-of-fact. [“You do this, and we will do that. And I’m not telling you what we will do, but it will be calibrated to the level of danger that you’re imposing on us.”]
Eborn: You mentioned rather– I’m sorry, Gilbert. Carry on, yes.
Doctorow: It was intentionally vague, and it was to encourage Britain, the United States and others not to allow, for example, Ukraine to use those missiles to attack the Kursk nuclear power plant. If we do that, as I have written earlier today, it will be a memorable event But I doubt that any of us present will be around to remember it.
Eborn: 11:09 Right. Chilling stuff. Johnny.
Vedmore: Yeah, I think, you know, they’ve been pushing the buttons for a long time. The West have been seeing how far they can get in to Russia, basically: how much they can disturb the Russian State, the people. They want Russia to be broken down. And that’s what they really want to happen. And they’ve done this through a lot of other mechanisms, aside from warfare, actual warfare. So a lot of the runup to this has been neocon NGO kind of cold war, where lots of actions are taken to put pressure on the countries surrounding Russia to turn against Russia.
12:10 Now, we’ve reached the point where Putin has finally said, and Russia finally said, “This is it. You step over this line and it is war.” And we all knew that it was coming. We all knew that eventually, the more they push, the more they swamp the intelligence infrastructure into countries surrounding Russia, that this was going to lead to a state of war. And this is, this is the closest we’ve ever been within our lifetimes to something that is equal, if not even more severe than World War II. And that’s saying something. I just don’t– I think a lot of the British people are sleepwalking, and the Americans, all of the West, are sleepwalking into this. The actual citizens don’t realise the dangers and don’t realise that we’re the ones, we are the aggressors. We are the ones who are constantly pushing the button. We have swallowed our own propaganda, partially because after World War II, the Western powers had to adopt Soviet-style Leninist propaganda to compete, to really, really fight back against the narrative.
13:22 And what’s happened now is it’s flipped, it’s almost flipped completely. Russia has become kind of like the West once saw itself as, and the West have become this aggressive power that looks to push all of the buttons. And I hope it’s happy now. I hope they’re happy. They’ve pushed all of the buttons. And now we’re at the state where Putin’s saying, “If you keep going now, we this is the last straw. We will push the button back.” And that means something extreme, especially for the people of Britain, like Gilbert says, you know, we are now on the front line, as always. And you know one spark and this powder keg goes up.
Eborn: 14:05 Yeah, chilling stuff as I say. We’re going to take a quick break. When we come back, we’re going to be doing a deeper dive into how we got here and is there a way out of it. Don’t touch that dial.
TNT: 14:18 Critically analyzing global affairs. The Muckrakers on today’s news talk TNT.
Eborn: 14:25 Well welcome back to “The Muckrakers”, with me, Andrew Eborn. And if you’re interested in news for the Middle East, do check out Levantis.me which brings down all the main stories into plain English and presents you with just what you need to know each day for news, comments and analysis and a really fresh non-partisan take on news for the Middle East. And of course for what’s really going on in Gaza, try Levantis.me, which you can also find on X as Levantis underscore ME. And it’s a run and a big editor over there is our regular here on “The Muckrakers”, Martin J., who will be watching and listening to every word to make sure I plug his sites relentlessly, which I’ll continue to do.
15:07 Just before the break, I said we were going to unpack some of the history, so everything can be put into context. And how did we get here, Gilbert?
Doctorow: Well, I have to say my background, my professional training, you mentioned my PhD in history, and I think I’m virtually the only historian who’s the kind of commentator on programs like your own these days; that my peers, my colleagues, I think are all hiding under their desks because if they said anything like what I’m saying, they’d be fired the next day. But I have the benefit of being a bit older and not subject to firing. I speak as an historian. You asked for the background, and historians pay attention to the starting date.
We have different disciplines, some are journalists. Journalists usually have a starting date that goes back two weeks. Talking heads and pundits have a starting date that may go back 10 years. That’s already great. Historians, of course, can bore the public by going back centuries. I won’t do that. But I’ll say that a 20 year back look in the rear view mirror is appropriate to the situation that we’re now undergoing. And this is where I look at the statement of the head of MI6 at the “Financial Times” global meeting last weekend as being typical of the problem that we are all facing when we look at the Ukraine war. He takes it back no further than February of 2022. That’s when the Russians waged their, entered upon their war of aggression in Ukraine. And that’s the whole prehistory to where we are today in 2024.
16:52 Regrettably, when you start in February of 2022, you have already ruled out any understanding of what we’re facing. You have to go back at least to the, what’s called the coup d’etat in February of 2014 when the Americans effectively, Victoria Nuland, installed a nationalist government, overthrew the elected prime minister of Ukraine, sent him fleeing for his life to Russia, and installed a nationalist government in Ukraine, which remains with us today, one which is viciously anti-Russian for its own citizens who happen to be Russian speakers, and which has viscerally hatred for the Russian Federation and is very willing to allow itself to be used by the United States and NATO for their purposes, in the mistaken belief that their purposes and its purposes are the same: that is, the recovery of lands that Ukraine has lost to the Russian Federation over the last 10 years.
18:02 Well, if you go back to 2014, and you see that this government was installed for the purpose of buildup of an anti-Russian force, a NATO base, which NATO had been inviting the Ukraine and Georgia to join, or at least the Americans within NATO were doing that back to 2008 when it was resisted by some of their colleagues, and so it wasn’t approved formally by NATO back then. But it was already on the table that the United States was pushing for this NATO entry of Ukraine for the purpose that we now know, purposes which have been aired by various personalities in the military and political life in the States in the last couple of years: to bring Russia to its knees and to inflict a humiliating defeat, a strategic defeat on Russia.
19:00 And here I come to the point of Johnny a few minutes ago, the idea of causing great pain to Russia. The disruption of political life in Russia was the objective. When you inflict a great military defeat on a country, it is not unusual for there to be a revolution in that country or in some way, or coup d’etat, or in some way for the government to be overthrown. And that has been the objective of the United States and some of its allies in NATO going back two decades. And this has been a guiding light to all efforts in Ukraine by NATO and its allies. So that is what brought about the moment of truth in in December 2021, when Mr. Putin, and particularly in the words of the Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov, put terms of a settlement for a new architecture of security in Europe to NATO and to the United States.
20:06 These were peremptorally dismissed, and Russia decided that it had no recourse but to go to war. And so the so-called “unprovoked aggression” was, in fact, something that had taken a long time to build up, and it was the United States’ disparagement of Russia, United States’ interest in overturning the political order in Russia that was behind this whole development.
Eborn: 20:34 Right. And it is interesting, a lot of people have said strategically, I mean, Ukraine is basically the breadbasket of the world, and a lot of people said that a lot of property and the debt that they have, a lot of the land there, I think somebody even said as much as 30 percent, has already been taken by some of the people who are lending these huge sums of money. Can you shed any light on that?
Doctorow: 20:59 It was true that Ukraine was the breadbasket of the Soviet Union. Ukraine had black earth. This is the kind of soil in which you plant a broomstick and the next day you’ve got a tree. It is very fertile land. It was more than a meter, I think, maybe three meters thick. It’s now down to less than one meter because of depletion, abuse, abusive agricultural practices. Nonetheless, it is still some of the most fertile land in Europe and it can, under proper conditions and proper investments, proper agricultural techniques, be really, as you say, a breadbasket.
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. It’s for specific cultures, specific crops, not for all crops. Ukraine was the biggest producer in the world for sunflowers and sunflower oil. As an example, for this look at grains or corn, as you call it in Britain, the issue is a bit more complex. In point of fact, Russia, which was, which suffered famines in the late 19th century, Russia, which had a tremendous shortage of grain production in the years of Brezhnev and had to sign, to its great embarrassment, long-term procurement contracts with the United States for grain to feed its cattle, Russia has become a much bigger producer, a much bigger supply of agricultural products to the world at large. And if you have the proper management, proper investment and the proper personnel, they have done wonders with lands which were largely wasted during the Soviet period.
22:46 So to speak of Ukraine as a unique granary of the world is, I think, to mistake the agricultural balances as they are today. Nonetheless, it remains true that land in Ukraine is highly valuable, and as you say, a large, 30, I’ve even heard higher percentages of the land have been bought up on the cheap by international agricultural combines.
Eborn: 23:12 Johnny.
Vedmore: I would go back with history. I would go back to about 1989 to see the current modern development of how we got here. But that was spurred on by a lot of the philosophy, the ideas that came out of America, Harvard, places like that during the late 50s and through the 60s where they were deciding globalism is going to be the way of the future. And for that, we can expect multi-polls of globalism to appear, and one of those polls of globalism would be America, Britain and Europe united. And so that automatically then puts forward the enemy, doesn’t it? It says, if we’re going to be united, then who are we going to be united against? And that’s sort of the thinking.
Now over the years, the West developed leadership programs that we all know about, that we’ve all heard about, from a post-war period, started about 1950, with Kissinger’s International Seminar forming and training world leaders to put into power. And eventually in around 1989, you start to see the first colour revolution. And these colour revolutions were then weaponized in a way that allowed the West to take advantage and put pressure on the Soviet Union so it would fall, and then install their own leaders in. And we’ve seen this slow crunch since the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, this slow crunch, country after country, falling under some sort of Western influence.
24:54 We’ve reached a point now where the neocon agenda scares most of the people in the region. The Western world looks like a hellscape to the people who are very traditional in values and still hold religion and traditional values as in high regard in the East and in Russia. And so they don’t want to end up with the type of immigration that we’ve got over here, the type of society that we’re creating over here, the woke culture. They’re not interested in that at all. So there’s a breaking point now. And I think that’s why this is happening now. There’s two things, is that if you want to create globalism– whether you’re the West or the East, and if you want to implement an agenda which is extremely well mapped out, I don’t think people realize how well mapped out this is by public policy institutes such as the World Economic Forum– if you want to institute this, you need to destroy a lot of what is currently here.
25:54 And I think that we’re coming up to a point where a lot of these guys are saying, well, you know, we followed this neocon agenda through to the point where now we’re at breaking point. Ukraine, where I mean, in 2004, you had by the German Marshall Fund figures, you had roughly 30,000 NGOs working, Western NGOs working in Ukraine to destabilize the country. And you saw how that worked. But that was during relatively peacetime. Now we’ve reached a point where we see where that’s led. It’s led to a war. It’s led to a point where, you know, recently the Slovakian leader who had an assassination attempt soon afterwards was saying, “Hey, you know, we’re starting to look back towards the East, because we don’t like what’s going on in the West.” And I think that– they know in the West that that’s going to keep happening.
26:49 So the only way is to create something new and to have some form of reset. And the best way to reset is war. And I think when the greatest reset was announced by the World Economic Forum, I think that was really the start to say, “We are changing things within society, so much so that we need to completely and utterly start afresh and anew.” And like I say, the best way to do that is war for these people. That’s what they think. So be wary of the people you vote for. Be wary of the agenda you follow. Look at what’s going on behind the scenes because it’s been going on for donkey’s years, and it’s now reached a point where there’s a crescendo.
27:29 And at this moment today, on Friday the 13th, this is when Putin says, “No more” to the crescendo. “We’re now at the breaking point. You make your decision on what comes next.” So we’re at the end now; we’re at the end of this road. This is a new era of history.
Eborn: 27:46 Yeah. And as I say, very, very chilling stuff. Friday the 13th indeed. And we talked about this earlier, about some of the weapons and various things that have been used. We talked about the F-16 aircraft, we often reference that here on “The Muckrakers”, and actually pointing out: to learn to fly those F-16s actually takes months, if not years. So they’ve been basically having, NATO allies have already been helping on that sort of basis, haven’t they Gilbert?
Doctorow: 28:14 Well the Wunderwaffe, the wonder arms, have been a talking point over the last couple of years, and each time the suggestion was made that one or another of these wonderful sophisticated weapons or weapon systems would change the course of the war. But I’d just like to, that same idea, I’d like to build a couple of points that my fellow panelist just made. And indeed, starting point, why exactly did this break out in February 2022? Why not earlier? Why not later? It’s called a window of opportunity. And the window of opportunity precisely is around weapon systems.
In 2018, Mr. Putin, in his pre-election state-of-the-nation speech, about one month before they had the presidential elections, he said that, he unrolled before the public what his government had done in the period since the United States pulled out of the ABM treaty, the anti-ballistic missile treaty, to save themselves. And they invented, for the first time in Russia’s history, ancient or modern history, Russia had prepared weapon systems that are a generation ahead of anything in the West. They always were playing catch-up. In the nuclear age, they were rushing like hell to catch up first with the atomic weapons than the thermonuclear weapons developed in the United States.
29:49 This time, they declared they were a generation, they were at least 10 years ahead of the United States, and hypersonic missiles were the leading edge of this. There are other weapons systems too, but let’s leave it at that. We’ve seen what hypersonic missiles do in the last week in the attacks on Poltava with an Iskandar that is Mach 6 and with a Kinzhal or dagger missile that is Mach 10. The Mach 10 weapon hit Lviv, getting through the Patriot and three other air defense systems from Western Europe that were supposedly protecting Lviv. This is what Mr. Putin had announced in 2018, and it was realized and used effectively in front of the whole world in the past week.
But in 2022, Mr. Putin decided it was time to use or lose this window of opportunity. And if Russia was going to pressure NATO and the United States to redraw the rules of European defense, European security, this was the time. Also on the point that Johnny made, a very good point about America’s preparation of world leaders, I would add one point: weaponizing wives. It is noteworthy that people like Saakashvili has an American wife, that Mr. Radek Sikorski, who is the foreign minister of Poland today, has been a leading voice in pro-American and anti-Russian policies in Poland for the last decade. He has an American wife, Applebaum, who was a leading propagandist for neocon views.
31:35 So the United States played its role in precipitating what’s come, and the timing on the Russian side was, as I said, led by their advantage as they saw it in strategic weapon systems.
Eborn: 31:50 Albert Einstein said that “I know not with what weapons World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones.” I mean, chilling stuff again. What would war look like?
Doctorow: No one can say. I don’t pretend to have an insider knowledge here. But I think when Mr. Putin said that he will respond in an appropriate manner according to the level of threat, I can think of many things that would not look like thermonuclear bombs dropping on anybody. He could, for example– what has been rumoured, what has been discussed, as an idle topic of discussion, perhaps among the financial circles in Britain– is to cut the cables to Britain. I think your financial system and your economy would go down the next day without a person dying. So there are many things that can be done. They can attack the United States military bases around the world, and they can provide the Houthis with the Kinzhal, which is an aircraft carrier-capable missile.
They just don’t have to blow up New York or London, although that’s also available. Let’s face it, about six months ago, the Russians announced that one Sarmat missile, which is the updated most recent acquisition of the Russian military, one Sarmat missile can destroy the whole of Britain. How can it do that? It carries maybe a dozen avant-garde missiles or warheads. These are Mach 20, Mach 20, unstoppable, each carrying nuclear weapons. Britain would sink. So that dire scenario exists, but I think it’s very improbable that things will ever get to that point. And I think even when we’re hearing… Yeah, okay.
Eborn: 33:41 Johnny.
Vedmore: I was just going to say, on that point about, before we get into the break, about that point about Albert Einstein, he did not really understand what artificial intelligence was, what it would look like and what would happen. We had a pandemic that was purposely blown up out of all proportions so that they could introduce mRNA technology and leave back the chemistry of the past for making compounds that were meant to be for medicines. Now we are going to have World War III to introduce AI technology, AI weapons systems, and a world which has been mapped out by the same people who have been taking us to conflict against Russia. What people don’t realize is that those sticks and stones that Einstein talked about will be all that’s left when the robots are in charge because the world is seriously turning into a dark dystopian place with AI technology. And this is part, I think, why warfare is making those in power drool because they know that they get to test out weapons systems and technologies that are well beyond anything we’ve seen before.
Eborn: 34:56 We’re going to take another break. When we come back, we’re going to be pressing Dr Gilbert on his suggestion that we’re being used here in Britain by the United States. We’re also going to finish, we’ve promised, on a positive note to what peace might look like. Don’t touch that dial.
TNT: From national security to global corruption, this is “The Muckrakers” on Today’s News Talk, TNT.
Eborn: Well, a very warm welcome back to “The Mudcrackers” with me, Andrew Eborn, joined by Johnny Vedmore and also Dr. Gilbert Doctorow. And the US and the UK are close to allowing Ukraine to use Western missiles to strike inside Russia. This is going to be discussed at a White House summit between President Biden and UK PM Starmer. Gilbert, you were saying, [three seconds sound loss] –tion, can you elaborate?
Doctorow: 35:48 Yes. First of all, although Mr. Putin’s remarks yesterday about Russian reaction were taken to be aggressive and sort of … to have, to be nothing more than a reiteration of Russian saber-rattling of the past months, in fact, they’ve had an impact. If you just look, I think that Britain and the United States are wobbling right now. The more that comes out, the more I understand that they are hesitant. Certainly the United States is said, from back channels, to rule out the use of its own ATACMS missiles in the heartland of Russia. And those would be, frankly speaking, the most effective missiles to be used, because they are ground-launched missiles, whereas the British Storm Shadow or the French equivalent, Scalp, they are aircraft-launched missiles. They would be ideally on F-16s.
36:52 Wait a minute, the Ukrainians don’t have F-16s. The one thing, out of six of them that were delivered already has been shot down. So that is really a theoretical threat for Russia rather than a practical threat at this moment, whereas the ATACMSs would be a very real threat since, as I said, they are ground-launched. Nonetheless, the United States, it clearly is moving its feet towards the obvious. It does not allow its weapons to be used. And what does that mean? Why would it say to the British, “Hey, you go ahead, that’s great, you support Ukraine and protect them and so forth”? Well, it is setting up Britain to suffer the same fate as Ukraine has, to be used as a weapon against Russia at its own risk and suffering, while the United States, by the same logic, thinks that it can get away scot-free.
37:56 So Britain would go down. France would go down if its Scalps were involved. They would be subject to Russian retaliation that could be as severe as the threat to Russia had been the damage to Russia had been from the use of these missiles against the Russian heartland. This is not exactly a repeat of the Iraq War, where Mr. Tony Blair was sitting in the sunshine. He was the fair-haired boy of the United States. And he had enabled and legitimized American military action. Here, Britain will be at least to the Americans’ thinking the first and the only victim of this brave assistance to Ukraine. I’d just like to add a correction here. That’s dead wrong. I think it’s perfectly clear from what Mr. Putin was saying that Russia will go after the United States, whether they are ATACMSs or not ATACMSs, that are used to inflict damage on the Russian heartland.
39:02 Mr. Putin did not say this will be a war by Britain against Russia, or a war of France against Russia, or Germany against Russia. It is a war of NATO against Russia. And we all know who runs NATO. So this– if it is any comfort to British citizens, to listeners of this show. It is not Britain alone that would be subject to a Russian retaliation, should the Ukrainians use Storm Shadow to inflict grievous damage and loss of civilian life in the Russian heartland.
Eborn: 39:37 Right. I’m not sure what comfort that would necessarily give people, other than “we’re not alone in this”. I mean, you mentioned previously, Gilbert, that a lot of your contemporaries are too scared to speak out because they feel they might get sacked. Can you elaborate on that?
Doctorow: No, I know that there are some. Look, I’m in an awkward situation. My talking point is I’m fluent in Russian and watching the talk shows because Russia, I maintain, is a fairly open society despite all the prejudices against that position in the West, a fairly open society and open sources can provide a great deal of information which I use in what I write and what I say on air. Nonetheless, there are hundreds of specialists as well experienced with the Russian language as I am, and some of them still have their wits about them, and know which is up and which is down, which is to say that they are closet … thinkers, with the same view of the present situation as I have. If they were to dare to speak out, they would be fired peremptorally, and I have that on good information from people who should know that, because they are leading academics in the States.
40:56 In this sense, I use this moment to express my great appreciation for Professor Meersheimer at the University of Chicago and Professor Jeffrey Sachs at Columbia University, who suffer the slings and arrows from their colleagues at the university administration, when you consider that maybe 95 percent of staff come out against Russia and with unqualified support for the Washington narrative. That is the situation.
Eborn: 41:27 Yeah, it is. We always say here on “The Muckrakers” and TNT generally is that this is the home of free speech. We’re not trying to take sides. We’re just trying to look for the truth. And I think it’s jaw, jaw, not war, war. And I do want to finish on what peace might look like. We promise people that there is a shining ray of hope somewhere. But first of all, Johnny, just give me your reaction to what Gilbert said, and then we’re going to look at this positive side.
Vedmore: 41:56 Yeah … one of the things I really want to put forward is that, you know, if you study what a black swan event is, an event that is so massive in magnitude, but is relatively unexpected, but when you look back at everything that’s happened, it makes sense that we should have expected it. That’s a black swan event, and we’ve been saying, you know, there’s going to be some form of black swan event before election time, that will change the course of election. So in a sense, you could say this is an amazing moment. Again, a moment of opportunity, a window of opportunity to meddle in the elections, in a sense. The Russians have done the ultimate meddling. They’ve said, look, this is what we’re gonna do and we’re gonna go into all-out war If you continue along that path, and it’s a month and a half, two months till the election, and what’s going to happen? What are the American people going to do? They’re going to look for a peacemaker. They’re going to look for someone who can say, “Calm this down.” Someone who said over and over again, “Let’s stop this from happening. Let’s not go into World War iii.” We saw in debate the other night between Trump and Harris, Trump say, [“They want to lead us into World War Three. They want to lead us into what would be basically a nuclear apocalypse.”]
43:24 And this is what we’re seeing. And so Russia are taking this opportunity and this can be seen what Putin has said. And this threat should be seen as a black swan event, which can change the course of history. You know, it can change the direction we’re going. And now the Americans are going to be the ones who have a choice. Either they’re going to choose to continue on their current path where neocons are supported to undermine the stability of world peace, or they can choose another option where for at least a small amount of time sticking plasters are put over the wounds and we try and get towards something where we can develop some form of world peace that is stable.
44:12 I think that the American people, regardless of the propaganda, will end up voting in Trump based on something along these lines, based on fear for their livelihoods, fear for their societies. I think we’re approaching something which is a very, this is the most opportune moment for Putin to say what he said and do what he’s done, because America is watching now intently and they are going to say, “What are our options?” and look around. And whether you like him or not, whether you agree with him or not, there’s only one person who’s talking about making peace with Russia. There’s only one person.
44:53 It is interes– you raise the US Presidential debate where Harris, I think, surprised people, surprised a lot of people She performed a lot better than people thought. I had Errol Musk on the program again yesterday. He was saying she was wearing these wonderful earrings which could be used for communicating and people might have been feeding stuff into her ear. You can check that out yourself. But Harris warned that Trump would give up Ukraine to Russia while Trump avoided siding with either country, calling for an end to the war. What was your take on the debate, Gilbert?
Doctorow: 45:26 Well, unfortunately, the debate was hijacked by issues that are quite irrelevant to our survival. Whether or not illegal immigrants are eating dogs on the front lawns of peace-abiding citizens in the suburb here or there. There were many issues that were totally spurious and unfortunately are part of Mr. Trump’s electoral baggage. There were other issues which are not spurious, which are very much in the foreground in American political life, whether it’s green agendas or whether it’s reproductive rights of women. But the real problem is that people do not follow, to my knowledge, they don’t have top of mind, as Johnny just expected, that they are concerned about life and death. I think that most people in the States would, listening to this program, would think that this is, that we are speaking of something highly exaggerated and improbable.
46:34 Regretably, that’s not true. Regretbly, the United States administration, at least on the side of the State Department, is following insane policies and insane priorities. I’m very glad that Johnny mentioned the November election date, and that is really a key issue. One can interpret the behavior of the administration now as trying to bait the Russians to get them to do something explosive, something dramatic, something that would bring down on them the ire of the Global South, and could justify a massive– sorry, a massive American attack on Russia before the elections, while thereby pushing over the top Kamala Harris, absurd as that kind of thinking may be, insane as it may be.
47:29 I think it cannot be excluded from the game plan of somebody like Jake Sullivan or these other shallow, very shallow individuals like Tony Blinken. So the American public doesn’t quite get it. They don’t see this, but I agree with the overall idea of Johnny that the only thing that could save us, or the main thing that could save us, not the only, but the most visible thing that could save us all would be a Trump victory on November 5th. And I think that is the understanding of Mr. Putin as well. Therefore, should there be any strike on Russian Federation heartland using these missiles in the period between now and November 5th, I think it is improbable that Putin will go for that bait. He will hold off until the die is cast on November 5th, and it’s clear whom he’ll be dealing with.
48:28 If Trump wins, then I think the Russians will back off, however grievous harm done to them by these missiles will be, in the expectation that Trump will do– let’s face it, what Harris said, that he will instantly stop supplying weapons to Ukraine and the country will fall in a couple of weeks. That is a scenario that gives peace to the world. There are moved out other scenarios.
Eborn: 48:58 Yes. You mentioned, Gilbert, at the beginning that we would finish on a positive note. Is that your positive note, a Trump victory?
Doctorow: It’s not the only one. As I said, there are other things that the Russians could do that would not be the level of tactical or strategic nuclear weapons. If, let’s be honest, if the Russians were to cut all of your undersea cables, that would be enormous damage to Britain and it might sober people up. So I think there are these various solutions that are non-fatal that would bring to the attention of broad publics in Britain, in the United States, that they are not invulnerable, that Russians are capable of causing them enormous damage if they continue with their warmongering.
Eborn: 49:53 Right. The final word then is the– one minute left to us. The leaders around the world may well be watching “The Muckrakers”. Some do. It’s surprising what quarters, especially if they don’t get to hear this narrative elsewhere. What would you like to say to them?
Doctorow: To think about their own people and to put aside ideological prejudices that they are, they were elected by their nation, and they should be serving their nation, and at present that is not happening. The pragmatism that was once the common sense guiding American policy for decades, if not for centuries, has been overturned by ideologists who have caused havoc in the world and who do not look in a rear-view mirror, and have faced no consequences for the millions of deaths they have caused in a whole sweeping series of countries.
50:52 So if they were to consider for a moment what are the true interests of their peoples in economic welfare, and in collective approach with those Russians as well, to the major global challenges we have, then I think they would turn away from the present course that’s leading us to a nuclear war.
Eborn: 51:17 We can only hope that sense does prevail and that people heed those very chilling words if sense doesn’t prevail. Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, thank you so much for joining us here on “The Muckrakers”. Jonny Vedmore, it’s always a pleasure to see you. I hope that the rest of you, in spite of the chilling news that’s going on, have an enjoyable weekend. I’ll be back with you next week. Errol Musk, the father of Elon, will be joining me yet again, together with another galaxy of stars. I hope you join me then. But for me, Andrew Eborn, thanks very much for joining me, and I will see you next time.
TNT: 52:27 If you missed this hour, simply go to episodes@TNTradio.live.
Starmer backpedals on permission to Kiev on use of Storm Shadow in Russia
On this afternoon’s edition of The Great Game, host Vyacheslav Nikonov made use of a cleverly rhyming Russian expression for today’s backpedaling by the British Prime Minister on his bold and, shall we say rather stupid, assertions of late that Britain is ready to allow unrestricted use of its precision long range Storm Shadow missiles against the Russian heartland:
To wit: ‘ Я не трус но я боюсь’ This translates into non-rhyming English as ‘I am no coward, but I am afraid.’
The point is the apparent salutary effect of Vladimir Putin’s clear statement yesterday that such ‘permission’ is considered by Russia to place NATO in the position of co-belligerent with Ukraine in its war on Russia. Under these conditions, the Russian president will retaliate in accordance with the level of threat he perceives in any Ukrainian strikes on his country. What this means was left to the imagination of those it was addressed to, namely Joe Biden and Keir Starmer.
We already knew that in advance of Starmer’s arrival in Washington, Biden had reiterated the American prohibition on Kiev’s using its high precision offensive weapons inside Russia until further notice but that he is amenable to the British doing so. Now Starmer seems to have done the arithmetic and understood that the Americans were playing him for a fool. So he, too, seems to be backing off from his would-be solidarity with Kiev,
This, of course, cannot be taken to be a definitive decision by the Brits and Americans, but it is a move in the right direction that should cheer all those of us who would like to survive at least to year’s end so that we may celebrate St. Sylvester in peace. Of course there may still be some new convulsion of Russia hatred that prompts these actors to flip flop yet again. And in the meantime it is possible that they will back a planned appeal by Zelensky to the UN General Assembly during its September session to vote a resolution endorsing Ukraine’s use of such weapons against Russia as it continues its war of self-defense. Such a resolution, if passed, would have no legal weight but would be just the sort of Public Relations coup that is mistaken for a foreign policy and also for a military victory by the shallow personalities who populate the State Department.
Starmer rudert bei Erlaubnis an Kiew zur Nutzung von Storm Shadow in Russland zurück
In der heutigen Nachmittagsausgabe von Das grosse Spiel verwendete Moderator Vyacheslav Nikonov einen geschickt gereimten russischen Ausdruck für das heutige Zurückrudern des britischen Premierministers bei seinen kühnen und, sagen wir, eher dummen Behauptungen der letzten Zeit, dass Großbritannien bereit sei, den uneingeschränkten Einsatz seiner präzisen Langstrecken-Storm-Shadow-Raketen gegen das russische Kernland zuzulassen:
Wörtlich: „Я не трус но я боюсь“ (Ich bin kein Feigling, aber ich habe Angst). Dies lässt sich ins Englische übertragen, reimt sich aber nicht: „I am no coward, but I am afraid.“
Der Punkt ist die offensichtlich heilsame Wirkung von Wladimir Putins gestriger klarer Aussage, dass eine solche „Erlaubnis“ von Russland als eine Positionierung der NATO als Mitstreiter der Ukraine in ihrem Krieg gegen Russland angesehen wird. Unter diesen Bedingungen wird der russische Präsident entsprechend der von ihm wahrgenommenen Bedrohung durch ukrainische Angriffe auf sein Land Vergeltung üben. Was dies bedeutet, wurde der Vorstellungskraft derjenigen überlassen, an die es gerichtet war, nämlich Joe Biden und Keir Starmer.
Wir wussten bereits vor Starmer’s Ankunft in Washington, dass Biden das amerikanische Verbot, dass Kiew seine hochpräzisen Offensivwaffen in Russland einsetzt, bis auf weiteres bekräftigt hat, aber dass er nichts dagegen hat, wenn die Briten vorhaben, dies zu tun. Jetzt scheint Starmer die Rechnung gemacht zu haben und verstanden zu haben, dass die Amerikaner ihn zum Narren gehalten haben. Auch er scheint also von seiner vermeintlichen Solidarität mit Kiew abzurücken.
Dies kann natürlich nicht als endgültige Entscheidung der Briten und Amerikaner angesehen werden, aber es ist ein Schritt in die richtige Richtung, der all diejenigen von uns erfreuen sollte, die zumindest bis zum Jahresende überleben möchten, damit wir Silvester in Frieden feiern können. Natürlich kann es immer noch zu neuen Erschütterungen des Russlandhasses kommen, die diese Akteure dazu veranlassen, erneut umzuschwenken. Und in der Zwischenzeit ist es möglich, dass sie einen geplanten Appell von Selenskyj an die UN-Generalversammlung während ihrer Sitzung im September unterstützen, um eine Resolution zu verabschieden, die den Einsatz solcher Waffen durch die Ukraine gegen Russland im Rahmen ihres Selbstverteidigungskrieges befürwortet. Eine solche Resolution hätte, falls sie verabschiedet würde, zwar keinerlei rechtliche Wirkung, wäre aber genau die Art von PR-Coup, der von den oberflächlichen Persönlichkeiten, die das Außenministerium bevölkern, fälschlicherweise für eine Außenpolitik und auch für einen militärischen Sieg gehalten wird.
Gilbert Doctorow 