It was good to be back on ‘Dialogue Works’ in discussion with host Nima Alkhorshid.

Today I was given the opportunity to set out a very different explanation of U.S. policy in the developing regional war in the Middle East/West Asia from what my peers are saying, or from what I myself would have said two weeks ago.

The generally accepted view on the U.S.-Israeli relationship in this war was repeated earlier today by Colonel Douglas Macgregor, a widely watched military expert.  He said that it appears the U.S. is now flying blind in the region, or to put it another way is on auto-pilot, following two steps behind Israel.

However, by his own acknowledgment, the successful Israeli bombing of the Hezbollah headquarters and decapitation of its leadership in downtown Beirut was made possible only by direct United States  support. The 86 two-ton bombs dropped on the residential buildings to tear deep underground and do the job were American supplied. The intelligence on the whereabouts of the intended victims was provided by the United States, which also brought its AWACS into play off the coast of Lebanon long enough to provide actionable information to the Israelis for their strike.

Let us put it another way:  the United States provided Israel with what it needed to do what the United States wanted done. After the confirmed killing of the 30 years plus leader of Hamas, US. officials said the dead man had the blood of American servicemen on his hands and it was good that he had been eliminated.

Then let us consider what Western media are reporting about the limits that Washington is putting on Israel’s coming retaliatory strike at Iran for the ballistic missiles that Iran fired at military targets in Israel a day ago. We are told that Joe Biden has warned Netanyahu against hitting any nuclear sites in Iran. That radical solution to the Iranian nuclear weapons program would surely bring the Russians directly into the conflict given that they are about to sign a comprehensive cooperation agreement later this month with a defense component that effectively makes the countries allies. Since the Americans are duty bound to defend Israel, they would then be fighting Russia, the nuclear superpower, something that the Biden administration is loathe to do. The Israelis are also being instructed not to hit oil and gas installations in Iran since that would drive up global energy prices and do great harm to the chances of the Democratic candidate Kamala Harris.

Does this not sound like Washington’s prohibition on Kiev’s use of ATACMS, Storm Shadow and other long range Western supplied missiles against the heartland of Russia?  In both cases, the beneficiary of U.S. military support is being deprived of the possibility of doing great harm to its enemy in a war for survival. The explanation for this similarity is ready to hand: the Israeli rampage in the Middle East is being directed from Washington in the same way as Kiev’s invasion of Kursk and other military operations against Russia are directed from Washington.

Washington is now ready to see Netanyahu fight to the last Israeli to tame the neighborhood for the sake of its Big Brother across the Atlantic.  The destruction of the neighborhood by ‘our boy’ in Jerusalem is surely seen by the Neocons who still control the levers of power in Washington as suitable retribution for the humiliations the United States experienced in each of the wars it has ignited or joined in the Middle East over the past two decades. Clipping the wings of Iran has been not only an obsession of Netanyahu; it has been an obsession of successive U.S. administrations since that of Jimmy Carter.  Let us remember that the USA is a vengeful and cruel superpower.

I say the Jewish State is being asked to fight to the last Israeli in the knowledge that Israel is being destroyed economically and politically while committing genocide in the neighborhood. The Israeli economy is taking enormous losses from this war which has barely begun, not from destruction of infrastructure by the enemy, as in the case of Ukraine, but by loss of access to shipments of essential raw materials inputs for production, in loss of manpower to operate production since the Israeli army is a nation at arms.

                                                                                   *****

I take the analytical approach to the Middle East conflict set out above following the logic that the Kremlin used to explain its decision to change its nuclear doctrine a week ago. They have lowered the threshold on use of nuclear weapons and specifically state that they may respond with nuclear arms if attacked by a non-nuclear power that is assisted in the aggression against Russia by a nuclear power.  That overturns the normal prohibition on use of these weapons against non-nuclear states and moves the threat also to the nuclear co-belligerent, meaning the USA.

The reason for this change is that the Kremlin sees that the United States has moved away from its longstanding doctrine of global nuclear attack using its triad. With the advances of Russian weaponry, the States understand that an attempted decapitating blow would not prevent Russia from still launching a massively destructive counter blow using unstoppable hypersonic missiles. So, instead, Washington is pursuing proxy wars aimed at decapitating the nuclear capabilities of an adversary like Russia but leaving the States at one remove and claiming to be uninvolved.

                                                                                *****

I fully understand that the contrarian view of the relationship between Israel and the USA set out above will meet objections from those who insist that Israel has bought up Congress through its lobbying activities. Reconsidering the actual relations today is only held up by the vanity of these objectors.

There are also other objectors to what I have proposed who ask incredulously how the USA could approve of the Israeli genocide in Gaza which has killed over 40,000 civilians, mostly women and children.  To this I answer firstly that the continued supply by Washington to Israel of the munitions necessary to carry out the genocide speaks for itself.

But I have another argument to add to this. I ask the objectors to open their minds to the reality of a vengeful superpower that has itself committed mass murder of civilians on a far vaster scale. We may put to a side the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima as something from the distant past.  But what about the entirely illegal invasion of Iraq undertaken by George Bush which killed perhaps as many as 1,000,000 civilians when the American forces stormed through the country on a wave of ‘shock and awe.’ Or what about the way tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq were allowed to die in the decade before the invasion for lack of medicines caused by U.S. sanctions on the Hussein regime?

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

Full transcript in English submitted by a reader, followed by a translation into German of the foregoing introductory text (Andreas Mylaeus)

Nima R. Alkhorshid: 0:02
So nice to have you back, Gilbert.

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
Well, it’s good to be back.

Alkhorshid:
And let’s get started with Russia’s policy in terms of the new strategy, the new nuclear strategy of Russia and how it sees the United States policy in this new strategy. What’s your take on this?

Doctorow:
Well, there has been a lot of commentary in Western media about the changed Russian nuclear doctrine. There are those like Stoltenberg, who would have you believe that nothing has changed and that Russia’s red lines are meaningless. There are others who are a bit more insightful and a bit more honest, who see a dramatic change and who understand the Russians are saying their red lines will be honored or there will be a war.

0:58
But very little attention has gone into why. Why did this come up now? Other than some need to be tough, Mr. Putin was under pressure, and so he responded to domestic pressures by toughening the Russian stance on use of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. There’s something else that was available to us all, but very few of my colleagues have used it. And that was the clear indication when Russia and Mr. Putin rolled out the new doctrine. But it’s based on a new evaluation of the threat from the United States.

1:40
The longstanding threat was a global strike. The United States had set up various satellites and missile systems to stage a global strike that would be decapitating against its enemy and had invested heavily in this. The Russians in the meantime had invested not so heavily but still substantial resources to frustrate such an attack if it were made.

However, what Russia is saying now, looking closely at American and NATO behavior in Ukraine, is that the United States has moved away from that, because what the United States had built up, in many respects was bypassed by latest Russian strategic offensive and defensive systems, weapon systems. And the United States has moved into a new strategy for holding its global dominance and for crushing the most important adversaries that it has, as it sees it, Russia and China.

3:06
And that is using hybrid wars, using proxy wars. And we know that, everyone has acknowledged, that the war in Ukraine is a proxy war of the United States in brackets NATO against Russia. But now, let’s add to that, what’s going on in the Middle East is also a proxy war by the United States. I was listening a few minutes ago to the latest interview that Colonel McGregor has given on the situation in the Middle East. I have the highest respect for the expertise, the military expertise, that he brings to his commentaries.

And I gather from his interviews useful material for my own work, just as I gather useful material from the work of Scott Ritter, although I make critical comments on these and other of my peers. We are all operating out of our own methodologies, and there is no need to look for identical conclusions if we’re using different methodologies for our analysis. Now, Colonel MacGregor was saying that the United States seems to be flying blind in the Middle East. It is not leading events, it is following events, and this is very dangerous for the American people. On reconsideration, I think he’s wrong.

4:38
I think the United States is fully in command of what’s going on, because they are using Israel the same way they are using Ukraine. And they will fight in the Middle East to the last Israeli. The Israeli economy is wrecked, just as the Ukrainian economy is wrecked. To a lesser extent by any externally administered infrastructure damage; that hasn’t happened yet. But as we know, the war has taken a very big toll on the Israeli economy, not just because its men at arms are essentially the managers and the workers of its industry and economy, but because its ports have been made unsafe, because supplies of vital hydrocarbons and other resources have been endangered by strikes from Houthis and other adversaries.

5:34
So the Israeli economy is suffering. But I don’t want to get distracted by that. The main point is that the United States was behind the attacks, the latest attacks in Lebanon. They were impossible without the American inputs. And so these were American planes. These were American intelligence AWACs off the coast, supplying the Israelis with all they needed to know of where to drop the bombs.

And the bombs themselves, the two-ton bombs, 86 of which were dropped on six apartment buildings downtown Beirut, one after another, going through layer and layer till they reached the “safe havens” of their enemies in Hezbollah. Those bombs were American. And of course, what we’re talking about is, as I see it, a kind of revenge by those same people in the deep state who gave us the war in Iraq, which was a disaster at the end, who gave us the Afghan War, which was a humiliation at the end. And these same neocons have not left the power levers in Washington, the influences in Congress. And they are looking for, and they are now achieving, their revenge for the humiliations that the United States has experienced in the last 20 years as a result of their policies, of the never-ending wars that they have inflicted on others for the purpose of maintaining American global dominance.

7:17
Well, this reality struck a chord in Moscow. The Russians understood this perfectly. They seem to have understood it better than Colonel McGregor, although he was rather disparaging of Moscow’s ability to interpret events in his latest remarks. So the United States is behind the war in the Middle East, and it is using Israel to maintain its global dominance throughout the Middle East and to recover its stature from the, as I say, series of xxxxxx invasions in the recent wars that the United States instigated illegally and lost in a quite ugly manner.

So the Russians have understood this, and therefore they have changed their nuclear doctrine to accommodate to the new facts. The new facts are that the United States will stand back, will use its allies, its proxies, to do whatever it wants to do against Russia or China and to stand back with clean hands and say, “Oh, don’t touch us. We weren’t involved in this”, as you see from all of the latest denials coming out of Mr. Kirby and his fellow spokesman for one or another group in the United States leadership.

8:42
No, the United States is in it up to its neck, and It has taken great pleasure in facilitating the Israeli reign of havoc and destruction in this neighborhood.

Alkhorshid: 8:56
And the question is: to what extent do they want to continue the conflict in the Middle East? Because with this ground offensive on the part of the Israelis, it doesn’t seem that would be successful. And are they willing to sacrifice Israel the way they have been sacrificing Ukraine?

Doctorow:
You answered your own question. Yes, of course they are. The United States is very selfish and very cruel. And despite all of the talk about the brotherhood with, relations with Israel, how we stand up for them and we don’t forget the Holocaust and the rest of it, still they’re not us, they’re not the United States. The United States will sacrifice them, without a moment’s hesitation, to achieve what it believes to be its supreme objective of global domination.

Alkhorshid: 9:53
Yeah. And do you think that the way that they’re trying to attack Russian base in Syria, do you find it related to what’s going on between Iran and Hezbollah, or it’s something else, it’s totally different aspects?

Doctorow:
There are assets of the major powers in West Asia. The biggest assets, of course, are American assets. And I think that any American encouragement of or facilitation of attacks in Syria are in this, must be seen in this context, because American assets have been struck by the allies of the axis of resistance that Iran maintains. So it’s tit for tat. That being said, Iran has much greater capability, both itself and through its fellow fighters in the region, to damage the vast resources that the United States has sitting there as sitting ducks.

11:18
The most obvious sitting ducks, of course, are the aircraft carrier task force in Eastern Med, but there are the bases, the fifth fleet base in the region. There are American troops almost everywhere in those countries. And all of them can be struck by missiles from the Houthis, not from Hezbollah so far, but certainly from Iran. And everyone’s taking their time.

What’s going on in the Middle East is also a confirmation of conclusions that I reached with respect to the Ukraine war. That is, why is Mr. Putin so slow to react? Why has he allowed so many red lines to be crossed? Why did it take till now before the Russians have drawn a line in the sand and said, “Definitely, we will attack you, the United States, if you cross this line”?

12:30
I think what we have to consider is that both on the Russian side and on the United States side, there’s a very– it’s like two scorpions that are circling one another. Both these parties do not want to be drawn into a World War III. That being said, the Russians have a greater restraint on them than the Americans do.

The Americans are the unchallenged leader of NATO and of another 20 countries that have joined in, for example, on the anti-Russian campaign in Ukraine. The Russians don’t have that kind of dominance among their sympathizers, let’s call it. China, India, the global south. Russia does not have that dominance. It’s gaining that dominance.

Thanks to American, very ill-advised, very stupid, very ignorant American policies that have pushed China into Russia’s arms and have just pushed Iran into Russia’s arms. Now, what I’m saying now may sound like the unusual understanding of the man biting the dog. The dog usually bites the man, and the dog biting the man is the assumption throughout Washington, that the Ukraine war has forced Russia into China’s arms, and that they have made rather expensive for themselves deals on raised exports of hydrocarbons to China. That they have, they are dependent on China for various commercial assistance, which makes them a junior partner in the relationship.

14:28
That’s what we usually hear from everybody else. I’m saying now the situation is exactly reversed because of what Washington has done, because of the efforts to build a Pacific NATO, because of the agreements with South Korea, Japan, Australia, and hope for other members in an anti-China coalition, right at the borders, and to station these medium-range nuclear-armed missiles against China there.

Before, when we said that the Chinese didn’t want Russia to go under because they would be next, it was a statement of a general observer of what we supposed could be going on. What we see now is not a question of somebody’s arbitrary interpretation. The United States, by leading a trade war against China, by forcing allies to restrict or prohibit sale of advanced chip-making equipment to China, and by encouraging the EU to follow quickly with similar anti-Chinese trade measures, is trying to strike at the jugular of the Chinese economy and of the Communist Party rule in China.

16:15
And that cannot go on without China changing its policies towards the United States now, not five years from now. That’s going on as we speak. And the result, as I say, is that China needs Russia more than Russia needs China right now. Russia has solved its trade problems out of sanctions with India more than with China.

The Chinese, though, need the defensive systems, like the S-400 or S-500, that the Russians have developed, and other weapons that China has that will always charge potential to maintain Chinese defense against a very aggressive neighborhood led by the United States. Iran, under the newly elected moderate reform-minded prime minister, was speaking two weeks ago about wanting to reopen the talks with the signatories to the comprehensive agreement on a nuclear settlement and relaxing the sanctions on Iranian economy.

17:43
That was two weeks ago. What the United States has done by facilitating the Israeli attacks in Lebanon on Hezbollah is– by the decapitation strike in downtown Beirut, was to leave the new president and his advisors with no choice, but to respond in a way that heads towards a regional war and that makes essential the close military assistance that Russia is giving to Iran in the defense weapon systems. This is something that Scott Ritter has spoken about extensively, and I salute his remarks, particularly the notion that the advanced fighter jets that Russia is giving to Iran may very likely be piloted by Russians, and that the S-400s that are now in Iran, to protect them against Israeli strikes, are very likely manned by Russians, or very least have Russian technicians and advisors next to the Iranian crews who are operating systems.

19:04
Why? Well, the very same reason why there are Americans operating the Patriot systems in Kiev. These systems are very sophisticated. They take a long time to train qualified staff. And the time isn’t there. So the manufacturers of the systems have to be present to ensure that they will function properly on the ground. So we can assume safely that if there is going to be an Israeli air attack on Iran, the Israeli planes will be shot down by Russians. That’s where things stand now.

Alkhorshid: 19:47
Yeah. And the other thing in the Middle East would be other countries. How do you see Turkey and Saudi Arabia in terms of what’s going on? Do you find it that they’re getting what’s going on the way that you were describing it, or they’re seeing something else?

Doctorow:
Well, the predicaments of these countries are specific to the countries. Turkey is the most complicated, because of its NATO membership. I think that very quickly its continued presence in NATO will become impossible for Turkey. If that’s– the closer we come to a regional war, less tenable is Turkey’s membership in NATO, because NATO, or the leaders of NATO, are driving the attack on Turkey’s allies in the neighborhood by their blood and religious brothers. Now, will Turkey take part actively now? I don’t think so. Are they going to become co-belligerents? I don’t think so.

21:05
Mr. Erdogan talks big, and does very little. He is sitting on the fence for obvious reasons. But I think: let’s wait until the dust settles. As for Saudi Arabia, they are on the sidelines. They have changed their fundamental policy from being in favor of the Abraham Accords and reaching a settlement with Israel. They have the latest statements. They deny that they will make any peace with Israel until there is a two-state solution in place. But will Saudi Arabia engage in the war? Their defenses, even with American systems, the Houthis–

I apologize for this noise. I’m in my apartment; some neighboring apartments have decided to do renovations, but I hope that my voice nonetheless carries over this background. The Houthis demonstrate that Saudi Arabia was vulnerable in its most sensitive place, in its oil processing facilities. So, if a group as poorly equipped as the Houthis could achieve that, it’s clear that the Saudis are not going to go up against Israel. However, I’d like to call out the more important fact, as I see it.

23:02
Though these countries, the neighborhood of the conflict, will not sign up with Iran today against Israel, states in general go for winners and abandon losers. And if the conflict ends, as it may very well end, with serious damage to Israel’s war reputation, military reputation, I do not say defeat, because the defeat in the obvious terms will be prevented at all costs by the United States. But if Israel takes a beating in this conflict, then the neighborhood will move against Israel in its geopolitical positions, meaning in every international forum. This cannot be underestimated.

Russia has picked up friends and friends. The BRICS is going from strength to strength because of Russia’s apparent victory against all of NATO in Ukraine. As I said, states are not unlike individual humans in this respect. They all want to be on the side of a winner.

Alkhorshid: 24:32
We know that there would be a comprehensive military agreement between Russia and Iran. How do you see this agreement going to a security agreement between these two countries? Because the way that we are witnessing what’s going on in the Middle East and how is it connected to the conflict in Ukraine, it seems that would be the case at the end of the day.

Doctorow:
Well, as others who are more competent than I am to judge the military capabilities of Iran are saying, Iran is doing quite all right with offensive weapons. Their missiles seem to include Mach 10, which is really fully hypersonic missiles that you cannot, you can’t even detect them when they’re coming in. And so in that respect, Iran doesn’t need help.

25:29
But on the defense side and on the air force side, Iran is deficient, and Russia is by no means deficient. This is why the dispatch of these highly advanced air defense systems to Iran is of major importance. And clearly the Russians could not supply enough of their systems to cover all of the assets and infrastructure that are of value, of great value to the Iranian economy and state. So there’s plenty of room for further development of this, once the security agreement is signed and implemented. It is expected that the signature will take place during the BRICS summit in Khazan, which is 25th, 24th, 26th of this month.

Alkhorshid: 26:30
Yeah. And talking about the conflict in Ukraine right now, we had Zelensky was in the United States talking with Biden and then with Donald Trump. Two different meetings totally in terms of the concept and the way they were talking about the conflict. How did you find it?

Doctorow:
Well, I have not much to say about Mr. Biden and his people around or about Kamala Harris. They are all-in on a failed policy of supporting a dictator in Kiev, a dictator who has played a decisive role in military strategy that has not turned out well for his country, most recently the Kursk invasion of Russia that has taken a very bad turn, and been very costly to the Ukrainian military.

27:32
As for Mr. Trump, the situation is a bit more difficult to understand or explain. He is a man known for bluster. He’s a man known for exaggerated statements of one kind or another. He has backed away a little bit from his statements going back a month or more ago that If elected, he would proceed directly to bang heads together and to find a peace in Ukraine in a day’s time.

Well, I don’t hear about a day’s time any more, but he’s still saying that he would be the person to achieve a peace between these parties that escapes Mr. Biden and Kamala Harris because of their ill-informed support for Zelensky and his military adventures. I don’t believe that Mr. Trump has the ability to bang heads together, or to use his charm with Mr. Putin, or threats on Mr. Putin, to bring an end to the war. Nothing of the sort.

28:59
But having said that, Trump does have the ability to end the war in, say, two weeks’ time, simply by pulling the plug on all further U.S. military equipment and financial contributions to Ukraine. In a matter of a week or two, the Ukrainian army would grind to a halt and collapse. In that sense, what Kamala Harris is saying about Trump is correct. Trump would, by withholding support, force a capitulation on the Ukrainians.

Is that a bad thing? No. It’s a wonderful thing for the Ukrainians, because the continuation of this war is a disaster for the nation. They have lost maybe 40% of their population, now refugees abroad,with a very significant proportion going to Russia. Those who went to Europe will not go back. Therefore, the Ukraine, to continue to exist as an independent nation desperately needs an end to the war. That old talk of NATO’s outgoing chief Stoltenberg and incoming leader Rutte that they support the goal of the Ukrainians indefinitely, all of that is very cynical and heartless destruction of Ukraine as a people and as a state.

30:52
So in this sense, the moral high ground is with Mr. Trump. And I hope that that may be appreciated by some of the voters. But to say that his negotiating skills, his art of the deal, will be behind the peace treaty is utter nonsense.

Alkhorshid: 31:16
And the situation in Ukraine and the way that Zelensky is trying to manage the situation if he’s trying to do that. And it seems that right now within the government we had all of Zeluzhny and the foreign minister of Ukraine right now, the head of intelligence is talking about resigning. And how do you see, because at the end of the day, it’s important what’s going on in Ukraine in terms of any sort of equation that the United States is putting on the table?

Doctorow:
Of course there are changes in the Ukrainian ranking and top administration. This is understandable. Mr. Zelensky is trying to find scapegoats for the various failures of his government and of his military. The United States is encouraging this because the United States will want to replace Mr. Zelensky himself at the first opportunity to give a fresh start to the failed adventure in Ukraine. At the end of the day, it is hard to see that Mr. Zelensky will stay in his post. If he were to enter into talks for peace, meaning capitulation, he would be on the first plane out, because he would be a dead man walking in Kiev. The extreme nationalists have said explicitly, they’ll murder him. And I think he is too smart a dude to test that will and ability of his comrade-in-arms.

Alkhorshid: 33:05
Yeah. And right now in the European Union, recently Macron was talking about the priorities of the United States. He said that the first priority is the United States itself, and then it’s China. And how do you understand what’s going on between the United States considering the conflict in Ukraine, and they know what would be the priority of the United States, why they’re not trying to find a solution for their benefit? And recently they’re talking about that the main threat to France is Russia. How is that, how can we put all of this together?

If the main threat is Russia, and they’re trying to understand the behavior of the United States the way that they’re describing it. And do they have any sort of substantial understanding on what’s going on?

Doctorow: 34:12
I think they don’t. The understanding of what is happening in Ukraine is very limited here. Bad news is considered to be disinformation. There is a lot of censorship in Europe, much more than in the United States. There is no division of the public, by the public I mean the politically active public, in Europe the way there is in the United States. And therefore, there is no big effort to explain the situation variously. It’s all explained in accordance with the Washington narrative here in Europe. There is, of course, a growing skepticism about that narrative, even when you pick up the “New York Times” or the “Financial Times”, and you see very frank and open reporting on the disastrous situation in the front of Ukraine, on the level of deaths of those who were newly recruited and sent to the front.

35:29
This is all frankly stated now. It’s not alternative media that are providing this to the public, but it is not so much in European media. And the European leadership is split, as we know, but not 50-50; it’s maybe 75 in favor of the failing policies of today and 25 percent rising who are opposing it. These 25 percent are generally denounced as extremist rightists, which is a very convenient form of slander against parties that are not extremist at all. They’re simply expressing the popular discontent with the failed policies of existing leadership.

And that is shown in the elections in the two states, well, three states now, of what was East Germany, the latest in Brandenburg. And where the, what they could be called, the traffic light coalition of Mr. Scholz, has failed. The Greens have been thrashed, trashed, and the social democrats have done very, very poorly. The SPD. So there is a movement in the public that finds some expression at the ballot box, but has not been sufficient to overturn the ruling majority and the very censorious policies of the governments, which make it difficult to articulate in public space what you and I are talking about.

Alkhorshid: 37:16
Yeah. And the way, in your opinion, in the eyes of Russians right now, they’re thinking of the conflict in Ukraine as it’s going to continue for years or they know that they can put an end to this conflict as soon as possible?

Doctorow:
Well, it is hard to say with certainty what is a genuine change of policy and what is symbolic. The symbolic part, if you want to call it that, is the increase in the Russian military budget for 2025, I think by around 30 percent. If you look at it, if you look backwards a bit, two or three years ago, the Russian military budget planned for 2025 is double, double the Russian military budget before the start of the Special Military Operation. And of course, the formal Russian military budget does not include a lot of spending on security forces, which one could also consider military spending.

38:30
So Russia now is, I think it’s going to have something like 150, 160 billion dollars allocated directly to the military. It is raising the latest call, the latest numbers put out for the Russian armed forces has been raised by another 180,000 men. Russia is bulking up to do what you just said, to go as long as necessary within this war against NATO on the territory of Ukraine. That is a preparation. Preparation doesn’t mean that you anticipate that it will be used. You are doing that as a deterrent to ensure that it doesn’t have to be used.

Therefore, to say exactly what the Kremlin is thinking would be impossible. Do they seriously intend this war to go on for years in the same way that Mr Stoltenberg does? I doubt it. I think they’re looking to a much earlier solution to this, assuming a collapse of Western will, whether that starts in Europe with the unwinding of the German and French governments and the inability of successor governments to provide any aid of importance to Ukraine, or whether it’s the United States elections which change in the single biggest supporter of Ukraine today, the United States.

40:05
But the Russians have good reason to expect the war to end sooner rather than later. Nonetheless, they do not expect the United States to disappear, to go into hiding, to hide under a rock. They expect the conflict with the United States to emerge and re-emerge in various places, as it’s now doing in the Middle East, where very shortly, if this conflict becomes regional, if Iran becomes genuinely engaged, then Russia will be engaged and engaged against whom? Essentially against the United States again. So the Russian need for a large army is justified by its evaluation of world trends, and not just in the locality of Ukraine.

Alkhorshid: 41:03
Yeah. And do you find it right now on the battlefield? How do you see the situation? Is Russia going to take more territories or they’re just satisfied with what’s already in the hand of Russians?

Doctorow:
I would have a difficult time answering that question if I only based myself on this morning’s “New York Times” or “Financial Times”, because they’re telling you, “Oh yes, the Russians have just taken Uhledar, and they’re moving in on Pokrovsk. And these are very important centers of logistics and support for the Ukrainian forces.
But at the same time, the Russians have had massive losses in this operation. Their army is tired, the same with the Ukrainian army is tired. And so everybody’s looking for an exit.”

41:56
Well, if that’s your news for the morning, then you’d have a hard time answering your question. But if you listen to more generally accepted news of developments, the Russians are rolling on, at great expense in terms of planning, effort, munitions, logistical supplies; as for human lives– it is difficult to judge. I think it is safe to guess still the Russians have a between five and 10 to one advantage in terms of casualties compared to what Ukraine is experiencing. And that is explained by their very cautious approach. Oh, we used to read it in the “New York Times”. They are repeating propaganda from Ukraine, which almost always is a mirror image of what we know from Russian sources.

The Russians are telling us that the Ukrainians are sending human waves into attacks. And then the next day, the Ukrainians are saying the Russians are sending human waves and sacrificing the lives of their soldiers to achieve minimal results. These results are no longer called minimal. Talk about Russian will to take the military action to victory, of achievement of its goals from the outset. I think it’s very clear that is what they’re doing and what they will succeed in doing.

43:29
However, I must caution against the titles that are given to interviews by my peers, not necessarily what my peers are saying, but what those who try to attract, bring attention to what they’re saying, that Russia is steamrolling the Ukrainians and that the end of the war is near. No, the end of the war is not near, except if there is a breakdown in support for Ukraine or if there is, by some weird chance, a coup d’etat in Kiev by the military over the civilian leadership. The war can go on for a long time, in theory, not in practice, because the Russians don’t really intend to go beyond the Dnieper. And they could leave Ukraine as a rump state on the other side of the Dnieper. Perhaps the Russians will, if they have to proceed, at greater length, at more time in this fight, will take Odessa and Nikolaevsk, and they will deprive the rump Ukraine of the sea coast.

44:39
That’s all possible. But the rest of the territory of Ukraine, the Russians have no interest in taking that. They just want to see that that is militarily neutralized. And they may very well achieve that. I expect they will. In what time frame? A bit difficult to say, as they will not be decided on the battlefield. It will be decided in the global capitals.

Alkhorshid: 45:05
It seems that at the end of the day, it would be necessary for Russia to make a buffer zone between what’s the eastern part of Ukraine that’s now part of Russia and the western part of Ukraine, until they get to a political settlement or maybe in the aftermath of any sort of political settlement, they do need a buffer zone between the eastern and the western part. How do you find, do you think, have Russians started thinking about it?

Doctorow:
Well, I think this question would be better posed after November 5th, because the, how the American elections go will have a decisive say in whether the war ends very quickly or not so quickly. Buffer zone would be necessary if the war were to go on. It would not be necessary if Ukraine is facing an imminent capitulation.

Alkhorshid: 46:03
Yeah. And just to wrap up this session, yesterday there was an article in “The Hill”, and it says that why do Russians appear so satisfied despite the war in Ukraine? And you mentioned “New York Times” and these people who are thinking that Russia is losing and all of that. But there are people who are confused with what Russia is doing and why they’re so satisfied with the situation. What would be your answer to them?

Doctorow:
The answer to that came out about a month ago in the “Financial Times”, of all places. As I indicated, “Financial Times” is very deeply committed to the Ukrainian victory and to Russian defeat, but not all their journalists are on side of that. And they had a very lengthy article on why life is so good in Russia now, the prosperity that this war has brought to the Russian working class. That is, where salaries have spiraled, have gone up very rapidly, where they enjoy a great many benefits and subsidies from the government, subsidized mortgages.

47:15
We all know that Russia has an 18 to 19 percent interest rate set by the Russian National Bank. But mortgages to young families or to privileged professions like school teachers or medical workers– these are just a few percent a year. The shopping basket of the Russian middle class and working class, more importantly the working class, has been doing very well since the start of this war.

There’s a labor shortage. The people in menial jobs, people who are truck drivers or taxi drivers, they are earning several times what they were making before this war began. And so that gives you a feel-good factor, which is also adding to patriotic fervor that the invasion of Kursk sparked. It’s one thing for Russians to be sent for geopolitical interests abroad across the frontier into Ukraine. It’s another thing for Russians to be fighting on their own soil. And that has been a great spur to national patriotism.

48:46
So between the patriotism coming out of defending your own country and the feeling of prosperity, that’s not a feeling but a reality, is detailed in the “Financial Times”. That explains the phenomenon that you were asking about.

Alkhorshid:
Yeah. Thank you so much, Gilbert, for being with us today. Great pleasure, as always.

Doctorow: 49:11
Thanks for having me.

Translation below into German

Der israelische Amoklauf im Nahen Osten ist in Wirklichkeit ein neuer Stellvertreterkrieg der USA, um sich für die Demütigungen zu rächen, die sie dort in den letzten zwei Jahrzehnten erlitten haben

Es war schön, wieder bei „Dialogue Works“ zu sein und mit Gastgeber Nima Alkhorshid zu diskutieren.

Heute hatte ich die Gelegenheit, eine ganz andere Erklärung für die Politik der USA im sich entwickelnden regionalen Krieg im Nahen Osten/Westasien zu geben als meine Kollegen oder als ich selbst vor zwei Wochen.

Die allgemein akzeptierte Ansicht über die amerikanisch-israelischen Beziehungen in diesem Krieg wurde heute bereits von Colonel Douglas Macgregor, einem weithin beachteten Militärexperten, wiederholt. Er sagte, dass die USA in der Region nun im Blindflug unterwegs zu sein scheinen, oder anders ausgedrückt, dass sie auf Autopilot geschaltet haben und Israel mit zwei Schritten Abstand folgen.

Allerdings wurde die erfolgreiche israelische Bombardierung des Hauptquartiers der Hisbollah und die Enthauptung ihrer Führung in der Innenstadt von Beirut nach eigenen Angaben nur durch die direkte Unterstützung der Vereinigten Staaten ermöglicht. Die 86 Zwei-Tonnen-Bomben, die auf Wohngebäude abgeworfen wurden, um tief in den Untergrund einzudringen und ihre Aufgabe zu erfüllen, wurden von den USA geliefert. Die Informationen über den Aufenthaltsort der beabsichtigten Opfer wurden von den Vereinigten Staaten bereitgestellt, die auch ihre AWACS-Flugzeuge vor der libanesischen Küste lange genug im Einsatz hatten, um den Israelis verwertbare Informationen für ihren Angriff zu liefern.

Anders ausgedrückt: Die Vereinigten Staaten versorgten Israel mit dem, was es brauchte, um das zu tun, was die Vereinigten Staaten wollten. Nach der bestätigten Tötung des seit über 30 Jahren amtierenden Hamas-Führers sagten US-Beamte, der Tote habe das Blut amerikanischer Soldaten an den Händen und es sei gut, dass er ausgeschaltet worden sei.

Dann lassen Sie uns überlegen, was die westlichen Medien über die Grenzen berichten, die Washington dem bevorstehenden Vergeltungsschlag Israels gegen den Iran für die ballistischen Raketen setzt, die der Iran gestern auf militärische Ziele in Israel abgefeuert hat. Es heißt, Joe Biden habe Netanjahu davor gewarnt, Nuklearanlagen im Iran anzugreifen. Diese radikale Lösung des iranischen Atomwaffenprogramms würde die Russen sicherlich direkt in den Konflikt hineinziehen, da sie im Laufe dieses Monats ein umfassendes Kooperationsabkommen mit einer Verteidigungskomponente unterzeichnen wollen, die die Länder praktisch zu Verbündeten macht. Da die Amerikaner verpflichtet sind, Israel zu verteidigen, würden sie dann gegen Russland, die nukleare Supermacht, kämpfen, was die Biden-Regierung verabscheut. Die Israelis werden auch angewiesen, keine Öl- und Gasanlagen im Iran anzugreifen, da dies die globalen Energiepreise in die Höhe treiben und die Chancen der demokratischen Kandidatin Kamala Harris erheblich beeinträchtigen würde.

Klingt das nicht wie Washingtons Verbot für Kiew, ATACMS, Storm Shadow und andere von westlichen Ländern gelieferte Langstreckenraketen gegen das Kernland Russlands einzusetzen? In beiden Fällen wird dem Nutznießer der militärischen Unterstützung der USA die Möglichkeit genommen, seinem Feind in einem Überlebenskrieg großen Schaden zuzufügen. Die Erklärung für diese Ähnlichkeit liegt auf der Hand: Der israelische Amoklauf im Nahen Osten wird von Washington aus gesteuert, genauso wie Kiews Invasion in Kursk und andere Militäroperationen gegen Russland von Washington aus gesteuert werden.

Washington ist nun bereit, zuzusehen, wie Netanjahu bis zum letzten Israeli kämpft, um die Nachbarschaft im Interesse seines großen Bruders jenseits des Atlantiks zu zähmen. Die Zerstörung der Nachbarschaft durch „unseren Jungen“ in Jerusalem wird von den Neokonservativen, die immer noch die Schalthebel der Macht in Washington kontrollieren, sicherlich als angemessene Vergeltung für die Demütigungen angesehen, die die Vereinigten Staaten in jedem der Kriege erlitten haben, die sie in den letzten zwei Jahrzehnten im Nahen Osten angezettelt oder an denen sie sich beteiligt haben. Dem Iran die Flügel zu stutzen, ist nicht nur eine Obsession von Netanjahu, sondern auch eine Obsession der aufeinanderfolgenden US-Regierungen seit der von Jimmy Carter. Wir sollten uns daran erinnern, dass die USA eine rachsüchtige und grausame Supermacht ist.

Ich sage, der jüdische Staat wird aufgefordert, bis zum letzten Israeli zu kämpfen, in dem Wissen, dass Israel wirtschaftlich und politisch zerstört wird, während in der Nachbarschaft ein Völkermord begangen wird. Die israelische Wirtschaft erleidet enorme Verluste durch diesen Krieg, der gerade erst begonnen hat, nicht durch die Zerstörung der Infrastruktur durch den Feind, wie im Fall der Ukraine, sondern durch den Verlust des Zugangs zu Lieferungen wichtiger Rohstoffe für die Produktion, durch den Verlust von Arbeitskräften für den Betrieb der Produktion, da die israelische Armee eine Nation in Waffen ist.

                                                                                   *****

Ich gehe den Nahostkonflikt analytisch an, wie oben dargelegt, und folge dabei der Logik, die der Kreml vor einer Woche zur Erklärung seiner Entscheidung, seine Nukleardoktrin zu ändern, verwendet hat. Sie haben die Schwelle für den Einsatz von Atomwaffen gesenkt und erklären ausdrücklich, dass sie mit Atomwaffen reagieren können, wenn sie von einer Nicht-Atommacht angegriffen werden, die bei der Aggression gegen Russland von einer Atommacht unterstützt wird. Damit wird das normale Verbot des Einsatzes dieser Waffen gegen nicht-nukleare Staaten aufgehoben und die Bedrohung auch auf die nuklearen Kriegsparteien, d.h. die USA, ausgeweitet.

Der Grund für diese Änderung ist, dass der Kreml sieht, dass die Vereinigten Staaten von ihrer langjährigen Doktrin des globalen nuklearen Angriffs mit ihrer Triade abgerückt sind. Angesichts der Fortschritte bei russischen Waffen ist den USA klar, dass ein versuchter Enthauptungsschlag Russland nicht davon abhalten würde, mit unaufhaltsamen Hyperschallraketen einen massiv zerstörerischen Gegenschlag zu starten. Daher führt Washington stattdessen Stellvertreterkriege, die darauf abzielen, die nuklearen Fähigkeiten eines Gegners wie Russland zu schwächen, die USA aber außen vor zu lassen und zu behaupten, nicht involviert zu sein.

                                                                                *****

Ich bin mir darüber im Klaren, dass die oben dargelegte gegensätzliche Sichtweise der Beziehung zwischen Israel und den USA auf den Widerspruch derjenigen stoßen wird, die darauf bestehen, dass Israel den Kongress durch seine Lobbyarbeit gekauft hat. Die heutigen tatsächlichen Beziehungen neu zu überdenken, wird nur durch die Eitelkeit dieser Widersprechenden verhindert.

Es gibt auch andere Gegner meiner Vorschläge, die ungläubig fragen, wie die USA den israelischen Völkermord in Gaza gutheißen können, bei dem über 40.000 Zivilisten, hauptsächlich Frauen und Kinder, getötet wurden. Darauf antworte ich zunächst, dass die fortgesetzte Lieferung der für die Durchführung des Völkermords erforderlichen Munition durch Washington an Israel für sich selbst spricht.

Aber ich habe noch ein weiteres Argument hinzuzufügen. Ich bitte die Kriegsgegner, sich der Realität einer rachsüchtigen Supermacht zu öffnen, die selbst Massenmord an Zivilisten in weitaus größerem Umfang begangen hat. Wir mögen die Atombombenabwürfe auf Nagasaki und Hiroshima als etwas aus der fernen Vergangenheit abtun. Aber was ist mit der völlig illegalen Invasion des Irak durch George Bush, bei der vielleicht bis zu 1.000.000 Zivilisten getötet wurden, als die amerikanischen Streitkräfte auf einer Welle von „shock and awe“ durch das Land stürmten? Oder was ist mit der Art und Weise, wie Zehntausende Zivilisten im Irak in den zehn Jahren vor der Invasion aufgrund von Medikamentenmangel, der durch die US-Sanktionen gegen das Hussein-Regime verursacht wurde, sterben mussten?

All discussion in the Washington foreign policy establishment on how the Ukrainian war has pushed Russia into China’s arms and made it a ‘junior partner’ is utter nonsense.  My contention is that a hubristic U.S. foreign policy that pays no attention to what adversaries are saying because that is ‘disinformation’ has pushed China into Russia’s arms.

This took time to achieve: two years plus of the Special Military Operation, to be precise.  And this is not due just to blunders of the incompetents manning the top posts in the National Security Council and the State Department. No, the bipartisan majority in Congress has also enabled the incoming disaster for U.S. global standing by its full-voiced approval of punitive sanctions on Chinese goods and approval of what constitute kinetic war plans against Beijing as well as the formation of a military alliance directed against China in its neighborhood.  

The handwriting is on the wall. Beijing must support the new robust nuclear doctrine of Russia to ensure its neighbor’s victory over the U.S.-led coalition supporting Ukraine.

By the same token, unqualified U.S. support, including active participation in Israel’s latest atrocities in Lebanon that resulted in the death of Hezbollah’s high command has pushed Iran into Russia’s arms. The liberal-minded new president of Iran has reversed his recently declared readiness for dialogue with the signatories of the now suspended Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on nuclear arms. We saw the proof of that yesterday when Iran moved from wait-and-see mode into retaliatory mode for the humiliations Israel has inflicted on the Axis of Resistance. One hundred eighty ballistic missiles were fired at Israeli military targets and it would appear that they got through both the Iron Dome and air defenses provided by the U.S. fleet and by French anti-aircraft systems.

I contend that Iran’s missile attack on Israel was approved in advance by Moscow when Vladimir Putin sent his envoy to Teheran a few days earlier. It is unthinkable that Iran would challenge Netanyahu so directly without the certainty that Russian air defense systems give it the best protection known on this planet.

After serving as a reliable if unacknowledged guarantor of the state of Israel for decades, Russia has clearly changed sides.

There are also other important conclusions that we can draw from the above observations.

One of these relates to the open discussion I am having with John Helmer over Vladimir Putin’s commitment to defend Russia’s national interests.  Does he or does he not have backbone?  I insist that Russia’s backing for Iran, which surely made yesterday’s attack possible, is proof positive that the Russian president is ready for a fight with Washington that he previously avoided at all costs.  It is inevitable that Russia’s support for Iran will bring it into direct confrontation with Washington.

Who will blink first?   Given the vulnerability of all U.S. assets in the West Asian region starting with the aircraft carrier task force, I believe that Washington will blink first.

I intend to further develop these points as the situation evolves in coming days.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

Translation into German below (Andreas Mylaeus)

Washington treibt China in die Arme Russlands, treibt den Iran in die Arme Russlands

Alle Diskussionen im außenpolitischen Establishment Washingtons darüber, wie der Ukraine-Krieg Russland in die Arme Chinas getrieben und es zu einem „Juniorpartner“ gemacht hat, sind völliger Unsinn. Ich behaupte, dass eine anmaßende US-Außenpolitik, die nicht darauf achtet, was die Gegner sagen, weil das „Desinformation“ sei, China in die Arme Russlands getrieben hat.

Dies hat Zeit gekostet: zwei Jahre und mehr der Militärischen Sonderoperation, um genau zu sein. Und das ist nicht nur auf die Fehler der Inkompetenten zurückzuführen, die die Spitzenpositionen im Nationalen Sicherheitsrat und im Außenministerium innehaben. Nein, auch die parteiübergreifende Mehrheit im Kongress hat durch ihre uneingeschränkte Zustimmung zu Strafzöllen auf chinesische Waren und zur Genehmigung von kinetischen Kriegsplänen gegen Peking sowie zur Bildung eines Militärbündnisses gegen China in seiner Nachbarschaft die Katastrophe für das weltweite Ansehen der USA heraufbeschworen.

Die Zeichen sind an der Wand. Peking muss die neue robuste Nukleardoktrin Russlands unterstützen, um den Sieg seines Nachbarn über die von den USA angeführte Koalition, die die Ukraine unterstützt, sicherzustellen.

Ebenso hat die uneingeschränkte Unterstützung der USA, einschließlich der aktiven Beteiligung an Israels jüngsten Gräueltaten im Libanon, die zum Tod des Oberkommandos der Hisbollah führten, den Iran in die Arme Russlands getrieben. Der liberal gesinnte neue Präsident des Iran hat seine kürzlich erklärte Bereitschaft zum Dialog mit den Unterzeichnern des nun ausgesetzten Gemeinsamen Umfassenden Aktionsplans für Atomwaffen rückgängig gemacht. Gestern haben wir den Beweis dafür gesehen, als der Iran von seiner abwartenden Haltung in den Vergeltungsmodus überging, um sich für die Demütigungen zu rächen, die Israel der Achse des Widerstands zugefügt hat. 180 ballistische Raketen wurden auf israelische Militärziele abgefeuert und es scheint, als hätten sie sowohl den „Iron Dome“ als auch die Luftverteidigung der US-Flotte und die französischen Flugabwehrsysteme durchbrochen.

Ich behaupte, dass der iranische Raketenangriff auf Israel im Voraus von Moskau genehmigt wurde, als Wladimir Putin einige Tage zuvor seinen Gesandten nach Teheran geschickt hat. Es ist undenkbar, dass der Iran Netanjahu so direkt herausfordern würde, ohne die Gewissheit, dass die russischen Luftverteidigungssysteme ihm den besten Schutz bieten, den es auf diesem Planeten gibt.

Nachdem Russland jahrzehntelang als zuverlässiger, wenn auch nicht anerkannter Garant für den Staat Israel gedient hatte, hat es eindeutig die Seiten gewechselt.

Aus den oben genannten Beobachtungen können wir noch weitere wichtige Schlussfolgerungen ziehen.

Eine davon bezieht sich auf die offene Diskussion, die ich mit John Helmer über Wladimir Putins Verpflichtung zur Verteidigung der nationalen Interessen Russlands führe. Hat er Rückgrat oder nicht? Ich bestehe darauf, dass die Unterstützung Russlands für den Iran, die den gestrigen Angriff sicherlich ermöglicht hat, ein eindeutiger Beweis dafür ist, dass der russische Präsident bereit ist, sich mit Washington anzulegen, was er zuvor um jeden Preis vermieden hat. Es ist unvermeidlich, dass die Unterstützung Russlands für den Iran das Land in eine direkte Konfrontation mit Washington bringen wird.

Wer wird zuerst nachgeben? Angesichts der Verwundbarkeit aller US-Einrichtungen in der Region Westasien, angefangen beim Flugzeugträger-Einsatzverband, glaube ich, dass Washington zuerst nachgeben wird. Ich beabsichtige, diese Punkte weiter auszuführen, während sich die Situation in den kommenden Tagen weiterentwickelt

As a rule, on these pages I do not write critiques or responses to the writings of others, but today will be an exception.  A colleague in Germany sent me the link below to a remarkable essay by John Helmer which is too important to ignore. Then one reader of my essays spontaneously asked me to comment on the points Helmer makes in the article in question.   I now will do justthat.

For those who are unfamiliar with him, John Helmer is an Australian born, Harvard educated journalist who has been living in Moscow since 1989 and who is best known for his web platform Dancing with Bears. His long residence in Moscow, his broad contacts with political elites there and his diligence at investigative reporting all mean that Helmer fills his articles like this one with invaluable insider’s talk. However, the question is whether his assembly of the facts at his disposal and his overall interpretation are as good as his skills at bringing to our attention little known connections between state actors.  I have my doubts, which I will set out here.

In the given case, Helmer focuses attention on a certain Vladimir Medinsky, the man most widely known in the West as Putin’s chief negotiator in the March 2022 Russia-Ukraine peace talks in Istanbul that produced a lengthy draft treaty that was initialed by both sides but subsequently was rejected by Zelensky at the urging of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Helmer intimates that Medinsky was working on the side of the oligarchs back in March 2022 for a settlement that would end the conflict with minimal loss to the oligarchs’ interests and at the cost of Russia’s national interests. Moreover, he sees the same likelihood should Medinsky now be reappointed by Putin to lead the next round of peace talks, which appears probable given his recent reappearance at top state meetings relating to the Ukraine war.

Helmer airs the attacks that some high military officers have made on the political leadership of Putin going into peace talks. The suggestion is that Putin has been aligned with the oligarchs in Round One of the peace talks and cannot be trusted now.  As for Medinsky, Helmer somewhat gratuitously tells us that he was born in Ukraine. He talks about Medinsky’s dubious merits during his term as Culture Minister which ended in the fall of 2019 when Putin reassigned him to be a presidential adviser. That was his title when, out of nowhere, Medinsky was made chief negotiator.

                                                               *****

I take a personal interest in the discussion of Medinsky because he is someone whom I actually met back in the autumn of 2019 when he was still Culture Minister and visited various seminars within the St Petersburg Cultural Forum that Helmer mentions at the start of his essay. Medinsky spent perhaps 20 or 30 minutes with the dozen of us sitting around a seminar table. This was enough time to understand that he was a shallow chap. Subsequently I looked closely at the whole series of Russian history books that were published over Medinsky’s name for use in Russian secondary schools.  None of them was impressive from an academic point of view, though they all were strongly patriotic. Indeed, Medinsky’s chief goal as Culture Minister was to restore patriotism to the school curricula. I also became acquainted back then with the allegations over possible plagiarism by Medinsky in his dissertation. These charges eventually were dropped but certainly tarnished his name.

Nonetheless, I must ask how this bears on his role as chief negotiator in the peace talks?  Helmer chooses to ignore that the biggest failing of Medinsky as Culture Minister and as author-editor of history books was his overbearing patriotism, or nationalism, if you will. 

Mention of Medinsky’s birth and early years in Ukraine is really a false scent if Helmer intends to impune his zeal for defending Russian interests.  In Soviet times, Party and military families moved jobs and lived all across the USSR. If you look at the upper echelons of Russia’s political establishment, you will find a great many examples of Russians who grew up in Ukraine and/or come from mixed marriages.  The Number Three ranking politician, chairwoman of the upper house of parliament, Valentina Matviyenko, is a case in point.

Would Medinsky have negotiated a treaty with Kiev that betrayed Russia’s state interests?  I think that has to be excluded. After all, he did not go into the talks as sole negotiator, only as the lead.  At his side there was Leonid Slutsky, who was present in his capacity as Chairman of the Duma Committee for International Affairs. Slutsky was/is the successor to the arch nationalist founder of the LDPR party Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who, we were recently reminded by Russian state television, was saying back in 2014 that Ukraine is not a country but a collection of beggars who should not be given one ruble (this when Putin was offering them $15 billion to keep them on Russia’s side and out of the clutches of the EU). Accordingly, Slutsky’s  complicity in a sell-out of Russian interests, of a capitulation to satisfy oligarchs, is unthinkable.

We do not have the original text of the March 2022 draft treaty to inspect. But the very fact that it was not a dozen pages long but well more than a hundred, that it was a couple of inches thick, tells us that the terms governing Ukraine’s future military and state status were very detailed, meaning almost certainly that Russia’s security interests and the welfare of the Russian speakers in what remained of Ukraine would be assured.

Helmer does well to call our attention to the contradictory voices in the Russian civilian and military elites. He also does well to pose questions about Vladimir Putin’s judgment in pursuing a ‘gently, gently’ policy and ignoring the violation of Russia’s red lines by NATO for far too long. 

But that last issue would appear to be behind us. The latest definition of Russia’s nuclear doctrine was as tough as tough can be.  It seems that the Putin government has turned a corner, something which the longtime critic of Putin’s gentlemanly ways, Paul Craig Roberts, celebrates in his latest web essay.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

John Helmer und der Verrat an den staatlichen Interessen Russlands durch seinen eigenen Friedensunterhändler

In der Regel schreibe ich auf diesen Seiten keine Kritiken oder Antworten auf die Schriften anderer, aber heute wird es eine Ausnahme geben. Ein Kollege aus Deutschland hat mir den untenstehenden Link zu einem bemerkenswerten Essay von John Helmer geschickt, das zu wichtig ist, um ihn zu ignorieren. Dann bat mich ein Leser meiner Essays spontan, zu den Punkten Stellung zu nehmen, die Helmer in dem betreffenden Artikel anführt. Genau das werde ich jetzt tun.

Für diejenigen, die ihn nicht kennen: John Helmer ist ein in Australien geborener und in Harvard ausgebildeter Journalist, der seit 1989 in Moskau lebt und vor allem für seine Webplattform „Dancing with Bears“ bekannt ist. Sein langer Aufenthalt in Moskau, seine vielfältigen Kontakte zu den dortigen politischen Eliten und sein Fleiß bei der investigativen Berichterstattung sorgen dafür, dass Helmer seine Artikel wie diesen mit unschätzbaren Insiderinformationen füllt. Die Frage ist jedoch, ob seine Zusammenstellung der ihm zur Verfügung stehenden Fakten und seine Gesamtinterpretation ebenso gut sind wie seine Fähigkeiten, uns auf wenig bekannte Verbindungen zwischen staatlichen Akteuren aufmerksam zu machen. Ich habe meine Zweifel, die ich hier darlegen werde.

Im vorliegenden Fall lenkt Helmer die Aufmerksamkeit auf einen gewissen Wladimir Medinsky, der im Westen vor allem als Putins Verhandlungsführer bei den Friedensgesprächen zwischen Russland und der Ukraine im März 2022 in Istanbul bekannt ist, bei denen ein umfangreicher Vertragsentwurf entstand, der von beiden Seiten paraphiert, aber anschließend von Selenskyj auf Drängen des britischen Premierministers Boris Johnson abgelehnt wurde. Helmer deutet an, dass Medinsky im März 2022 auf der Seite der Oligarchen an einer Einigung arbeitete, die den Konflikt mit minimalen Verlusten für die Interessen der Oligarchen und auf Kosten der nationalen Interessen Russlands beendet haben würde. Darüber hinaus sieht er die gleiche Wahrscheinlichkeit, sollte Medinsky nun von Putin erneut mit der Leitung der nächsten Runde von Friedensgesprächen betraut werden, was angesichts seines jüngsten Wiederauftretens bei hochrangigen Staatstreffen im Zusammenhang mit dem Ukraine-Krieg wahrscheinlich erscheine.

Helmer greift die Angriffe einiger hoher Militärs gegen die politische Führung Putins auf, die auf Friedensgespräche abzielten. Unterstellt wird, dass Putin in der ersten Runde der Friedensgespräche mit den Oligarchen verbündet war und man ihm jetzt nicht mehr trauen könne. Was Medinsky betrifft, so erzählt uns Helmer etwas grundlos, dass dieser in der Ukraine geboren wurde. Er spricht über Medinskys zweifelhafte Verdienste während seiner Amtszeit als Kulturminister, die im Herbst 2019 endete, als Putin ihn zum Präsidentenberater ernannte. Das war sein Titel, als Medinsky aus dem Nichts zum Chefunterhändler ernannt wurde.

                                                               *****

Ich interessiere mich persönlich für die Diskussion über Medinsky, weil ich ihn im Herbst 2019 persönlich getroffen habe, als er noch Kulturminister war und verschiedene Seminare im Rahmen des Kulturforums in St. Petersburg besuchte, das Helmer zu Beginn seines Essays erwähnt. Medinsky verbrachte vielleicht 20 oder 30 Minuten mit uns, einem Dutzend Menschen, die um einen Seminartisch saßen. Das reichte aus, um zu verstehen, dass er ein oberflächlicher Typ war. Anschließend habe ich mir die ganze Reihe russischer Geschichtsbücher, die unter Medinskys Namen für den Einsatz an russischen Sekundarschulen veröffentlicht wurden, genau angesehen. Keines davon war aus akademischer Sicht beeindruckend, obwohl sie alle stark patriotisch waren. In der Tat war es Medinskys Hauptziel als Kulturminister, den Patriotismus in die Lehrpläne der Schulen zurückzubringen. Damals erfuhr ich auch von den Vorwürfen wegen möglicher Plagiate in Medinskys Dissertation. Diese Anschuldigungen wurden letztlich fallen gelassen, aber sie haben seinen Namen sicherlich beschädigt.

Dennoch muss ich fragen, wie sich dies auf seine Rolle als Chefunterhändler bei den Friedensgesprächen auswirken würde. Helmer ignoriert, dass Medinskys größter Fehler als Kulturminister und Autor und Herausgeber von Geschichtsbüchern sein überbordender Patriotismus war, oder Nationalismus, wenn man so will.

Die Erwähnung von Medinskys Geburtsort und frühen Jahren in der Ukraine ist wirklich ein Ablenkungsmanöver, wenn Helmer beabsichtigt, dessen Eifer für die Verteidigung russischer Interessen zu schmälern. In der Sowjetzeit wechselten Familien aus Partei- und Militärkreisen ihren Arbeitsplatz und lebten in der gesamten UdSSR. Wenn man sich die oberen Ränge des politischen Establishments Russlands ansieht, findet man zahlreiche Beispiele für Russen, die in der Ukraine aufgewachsen sind und/oder aus Mischehen stammen. Die drittplatzierte Politikerin, Vorsitzende des Oberhauses des Parlaments, Valentina Matviyenko, ist ein typisches Beispiel dafür.

Hätte Medinsky einen Vertrag mit Kiew ausgehandelt, der die staatlichen Interessen Russlands verraten hätte? Ich denke, das muss ausgeschlossen werden. Schließlich ging er nicht als alleiniger Verhandlungsführer in die Gespräche, sondern nur als einer der Verhandlungsführer. An seiner Seite stand Leonid Slutsky, der in seiner Eigenschaft als Vorsitzender des Duma-Ausschusses für internationale Angelegenheiten anwesend war. Slutsky war/ist der Nachfolger des erznationalistischen Gründers der LDPR-Partei, Wladimir Schirinowski, der, wie uns kürzlich das russische Staatsfernsehen in Erinnerung rief, bereits 2014 sagte, die Ukraine sei kein Land, sondern eine Ansammlung von Bettlern, denen man keinen Rubel geben sollte (und das, als Putin ihnen 15 Milliarden Dollar anbot, um sie auf der Seite Russlands zu halten und aus den Fängen der EU zu befreien). Dementsprechend ist Slutskys Beteiligung an einem Ausverkauf russischer Interessen, einer Kapitulation zur Befriedigung von Oligarchen, undenkbar.

Wir haben den Originaltext des Vertragsentwurfs vom März 2019 nicht zur Einsicht. Aber allein die Tatsache, dass er nicht ein Dutzend Seiten lang war, sondern weit über hundert, dass er ein paar Zentimeter dick war, sagt uns, dass die Bedingungen für den künftigen militärischen und staatlichen Status der Ukraine sehr detailliert waren, was mit ziemlicher Sicherheit bedeutet, dass die Sicherheitsinteressen Russlands und das Wohlergehen der russischsprachigen Bevölkerung in den verbleibenden Teilen der Ukraine gewährleistet gewesen wären.

Helmer tut gut daran, unsere Aufmerksamkeit auf die widersprüchlichen Stimmen in den russischen zivilen und militärischen Eliten zu lenken. Er tut auch gut daran, Fragen über Wladimir Putins Urteilsvermögen zu stellen, wenn es darum geht, eine Politik der „sanften Hand“ zu verfolgen und die Verletzung der roten Linien Russlands durch die NATO viel zu lange zu ignorieren.

Aber dieses letzte Thema scheint nun hinter uns zu liegen. Die jüngste Definition der russischen Nukleardoktrin war so hart wie nur möglich. Es scheint, als hätte die Putin-Regierung eine Kehrtwende vollzogen, was der langjährige Kritiker von Putins Gentleman-Ansatz, Paul Craig Roberts, in seinem neuesten Web-Essay feiert.

I am aghast at the Israeli actions in Lebanon, culminating a couple of days ago in the assassination of the thirty years plus leader of Hezbollah in downtown Beirut. The ‘collateral damage’ of that assassination measured in terms of dozens if not hundreds of civilians who died in the apartment block below which the Hezbollah offices were located made this an act of savagery similar in kind to what Israel has been perpetrating in Gaza for close to a year. There the official death toll is now over 40,000 civilians, meaning mostly women and children, though the real number of killed may be twice greater, given that so many died under the rubble of Israeli bombings and never were recovered.

The latest attack in Beirut may finally set off the tinderbox that is the Middle East today, sparking a regional war that will bring vast destruction and death to the neighborhood. Of course, that may not happen. The tragedy may be accepted by cowed leaders of Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan and others and by an indifferent further removed international community insofar as it falls in line with the governing maxim of our day: might makes right.

Appeasement has for decades been trotted out by defenders of American global hegemony as the villainous and near sighted mindset that led to WWII. We never stop hearing about Munich and Chamberlain.  Regrettably or not, the tables have turned and appeasement of American aggression by the Rest of the World is the real and present force heading us all to an eventual Armageddon.

                                                                        *****

Somewhat arbitrarily I have chosen to highlight here two public personalities, Samantha Power and Sir Andrew Wood to give a human face to the incredible double standards, hypocrisy, call it what you will, that characterize our times and in particular the entire issue of human rights and its opposite, genocide.

I know Samantha Power only from a distance. I followed in the mass media her meteoric rise to high public office under Senator, then President Barack Obama on the strength of her supposed expertise in the field of genocide based on her experience as a journalist on the ground in Yugoslavia during that country’s break-up and  bloody civil war. From 2009 to 2013 she had responsibility for human rights within the National Security Council. With the return of the Democrats to power under Joe Biden, Power once again floated to the top and has been serving as Administrator in the U.S. Agency for International Development. I have not heard that she resigned over the Biden policies enabling Israeli genocide.

 As for Sir Anthony Wood, I knew him fairly well from our several meetings during 1998-2000 when I was chairman of the Russian Booker Prize Committee and he was the generous host at his ambassador’s residence for annual dinners to honor the visiting British Booker officials and our own Russian Booker management.

What do Power and Wood have in common?  One answer is their revulsion at the murders and ethnic cleansing carried out by the Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevich against Croats, against Muslim Bosniaks, against Kossovars.This was the time when the killing of 8000 or more Bosniak men and boys in Srebrenica in 1995 was described with horror by our Western media and was called the largest mass murder in Europe since the Second World War.

Power’s thoughts about this topic were widely published.  Sir Andrew’s were privately expressed….to me in terms that made them unforgettable and worthy of citation here.

Before Sir Andrew took up the ambassadorial post in Moscow, he served a term as British ambassador to Yugoslavia. What he told me at one of our chats was that he still regretted that he had not had a dagger with him to stab Milosevich to death during one of their tête-à-têtes. Given Sir Andrew’s generally polite if not meek demeanor this was a rare expression of high emotion that corresponded at the time to Western elites’ revulsion for the Serb as a mass murderer, proven for all to see at Srebrenica.

What else did/do Sir Andrew and Samantha Power have in common? Answer: a visceral hatred for Vladimir Putin, whom they denounce for his alleged murders of political opponents, disrespect for democratic procedures and thuggery. In the case of Sir Andrew, he became a key supporter of the virulently  anti-Putin publicist Lilia Shevtsova, then still at the Carnegie Centre Moscow.  Shevtsova was/is an arch-typical Russian Liberal in the sense that Lev Tolstoy described very pithily in one sentence on page three (or thereabouts, depending on your edition) of Anna Karenina when speaking of the Liberal newspaper to which Anna’s brother Stiva subscribed: “Liberals in the sense that they hated everything Russian.”

When Shevtsova fell afoul of the authorities and when the Carnegie Centre itself came under the pale, Sir Anthony extended his protection to her and found a new nest for her in London at Chatham House, where he himself after retirement found a platform for his anti-Russian, anti-Putin views.

My point in all these details is to highlight the dramatic fact that the crimes of Milosevich which so moved Sir Andrew and Samantha Power were always taken in isolation from the context. No one then and very few since have called out the fact that ethnic cleansing and mass murder were practiced  by the Serbs’ most powerful enemy in the civil war, the Croats, under the criminal leadership of Franjo Tudman.  Perhaps some understand that Tudman was also a monster, but as they say, he was our son of a bitch. Indeed, none of the parties to the Yugoslav civil war came away from that conflict with clean hands. Even the nicest of nice people in the former Yugoslavia, the Slovenes, did their share of skullduggery. Several of the agents at Iskra Commerce, my interlocutors during my years as a Country Manager in that country, turned out to be quite wealthy at the war’s end, and the source of their fortunes was easy to guess: they had been very active in illicit arms sales to the combatants on all sides.

Now in conclusion allow me to bring these various observations together.

Samantha Power, Sir Andrew and countless other bleeding hearts for the long-suffering victims of Milosevich’s savagery in the 1990s seem not to have a word to say about the Israeli atrocities which are an order of magnitude greater in terms of deaths inflicted on civilians, and which are backed up by rhetoric that is openly genocidal in intent against the Palestinians and other immediate neighbors of Israel.

Thus, as I remarked at the start, we are living in an age of barbarism, when might makes right by general acknowledgement.  This, by the way, is the underlying conclusion that has driven Vladimir Putin belatedly but very pointedly to deliver his latest threats to the Collective West, telling them to mind their step, lest Russia use its greater might in nuclear weapons of all kinds, and even in conventional weapons, to raze to the ground all who threaten his country’s survival, all who invade his country as Ukraine did in Kursk with NATO assistance or who use Ukraine to strike against the Russian heartland.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Samantha Power und Sir Andrew Wood: Wie stehen sie heute zu den israelischen Gräueltaten in der Nachbarschaft?

Ich bin entsetzt über das Vorgehen Israels im Libanon, das vor einigen Tagen in der Ermordung des seit über dreißig Jahren amtierenden Führers der Hisbollah in der Innenstadt von Beirut gipfelte. Der „Kollateralschaden“ dieses Attentats, gemessen an Dutzenden, wenn nicht Hunderten von Zivilisten, die in dem Wohnblock starben, unter dem sich die Büros der Hisbollah befanden, machte dies zu einem Akt der Grausamkeit, der in seiner Art dem ähnelt, was Israel seit fast einem Jahr im Gazastreifen verübt. Dort liegt die offizielle Zahl der Todesopfer inzwischen bei über 40.000 Zivilisten, d.h. hauptsächlich Frauen und Kinder, wobei die tatsächliche Zahl der Getöteten doppelt so hoch sein könnte, da so viele Menschen unter den Trümmern israelischer Bombenangriffe starben und nie geborgen wurden.

Der jüngste Anschlag in Beirut könnte endlich den Funken auf das Pulverfass des heutigen Nahen Ostens überspringen lassen und einen regionalen Krieg entfachen, der in der Region für massive Zerstörung und Tod sorgen würde. Natürlich muss das nicht so kommen. Die Tragödie könnte von den eingeschüchterten Führern des Iran, der Türkei, Syriens, Jordaniens und anderer Länder sowie von einer gleichgültigen, weiter entfernten internationalen Gemeinschaft hingenommen werden, sofern sie mit der herrschenden Maxime unserer Zeit übereinstimmt: Macht geht vor Recht.

Appeasement wird seit Jahrzehnten von den Verteidigern der globalen Vorherrschaft Amerikas als die niederträchtige und kurzsichtige Denkweise angeprangert, die zum Zweiten Weltkrieg geführt habe. Wir hören immer wieder von München und Chamberlain. Ob wir es bedauern oder nicht, der Spieß hat sich gewendet und die Beschwichtigung der amerikanischen Aggression durch den Rest der Welt ist die reale und gegenwärtige Kraft, die uns alle auf ein eventuelles Armageddon zusteuern lässt.

                                                                        *****

Ich habe mich etwas willkürlich dafür entschieden, hier zwei Persönlichkeiten des öffentlichen Lebens, Samantha Power und Sir Andrew Wood, hervorzuheben, um der unglaublichen Doppelmoral, Heuchelei, nennen Sie es, wie Sie wollen, die unsere Zeit und insbesondere das gesamte Thema der Menschenrechte und seines Gegenteils, des Völkermords, charakterisiert, ein menschliches Gesicht zu geben.

Ich kenne Samantha Power nur aus der Ferne. Ich habe in den Massenmedien ihren kometenhaften Aufstieg in ein hohes öffentliches Amt unter dem damaligen Senator und späteren Präsidenten Barack Obama verfolgt, und zwar aufgrund ihrer angeblichen Expertise auf dem Gebiet des Völkermords, die auf ihren Erfahrungen als Journalistin vor Ort in Jugoslawien während des Auseinanderbrechens und des blutigen Bürgerkriegs in diesem Land beruhte. Von 2009 bis 2013 war sie im Nationalen Sicherheitsrat für Menschenrechte zuständig. Mit der Rückkehr der Demokraten an die Macht unter Joe Biden rückte Power erneut in die Führungsebene auf und ist seitdem Administratorin in der US-Agentur für internationale Entwicklung. Ich habe nicht gehört, dass sie wegen der Politik Bidens, die den israelischen Völkermord ermöglicht, zurückgetreten wäre.

Sir Anthony Wood kannte ich recht gut von unseren zahlreichen Treffen in den Jahren 1998–2000, als ich Vorsitzender des russischen Booker-Preis-Komitees war und er großzügig die jährlichen Abendessen zu Ehren der britischen Booker-Preis-Vertreter und unseres eigenen russischen Booker-Preis-Managements in der Residenz seines Botschafters ausrichtete.

Was haben Power und Wood gemeinsam? Eine Antwort ist ihre Abscheu vor den Morden und ethnischen Säuberungen, die der serbische Staatschef Slobodan Milosevic an Kroaten, muslimischen Bosniaken und Kosovaren verübte. Dies war die Zeit, als die Ermordung von 8.000 oder mehr bosnischen Männern und Jungen in Srebrenica im Jahr 1995 von unseren westlichen Medien mit Entsetzen beschrieben und als der größte Massenmord in Europa seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg bezeichnet wurde.

Die Gedanken von Power zu diesem Thema wurden weitläufig veröffentlicht. Sir Andrew äußerte sich privat … mir gegenüber in Worten, die sie unvergesslich und zitierwürdig machen.

Bevor Sir Andrew das Amt des Botschafters in Moskau übernahm, war er eine Amtszeit lang britischer Botschafter in Jugoslawien. Bei einem unserer Gespräche sagte er mir, dass er es immer noch bedauere, keinen Dolch dabei gehabt zu haben, um Milosevic bei einem ihrer Tête-à-Têtes zu erstechen. Angesichts von Sir Andrews allgemein höflicher, wenn nicht gar sanftmütiger Art war dies ein seltener Ausdruck hoher Emotionen, der zu dieser Zeit der Abscheu der westlichen Eliten vor dem Serben als Massenmörder entsprach, der in Srebrenica für alle sichtbar wurde.

Was hatten/haben Sir Andrew und Samantha Power noch gemeinsam? Antwort: einen tiefsitzenden Hass auf Wladimir Putin, den sie für seine angeblichen Morde an politischen Gegnern, seine Missachtung demokratischer Verfahren und seine Schlägertätigkeit anprangern. Im Fall von Sir Andrew wurde er zu einem wichtigen Unterstützer der heftigen Putin-Gegnerin Lilia Schewzowa, die damals noch am Carnegie Centre in Moskau tätig war. Shevtsova war/ist eine typische russische Liberale in dem Sinne, wie es Lev Tolstoi auf Seite 3 (oder so, je nach Ausgabe) von Anna Karenina sehr treffend in einem Satz beschreibt, als er von der liberalen Zeitung spricht, die Annas Bruder Stiwa abonniert hat: „Liberale in dem Sinne, dass sie alles Russische hassten.“

Als Shevtsova mit den Behörden in Konflikt geriet und das Carnegie Centre selbst in Verruf geriet, bot Sir Anthony ihr seinen Schutz an und fand für sie ein neues Nest in London im Chatham House, wo er selbst nach seiner Pensionierung eine Plattform für seine antirussischen, anti-Putin-Ansichten fand.

Mit all diesen Details möchte ich die dramatische Tatsache hervorheben, dass die Verbrechen von Milosevic, die Sir Andrew und Samantha Power so sehr bewegten, immer isoliert vom Kontext betrachtet wurden. Niemand damals und nur sehr wenige seither haben darauf hingewiesen, dass ethnische Säuberungen und Massenmorde von den mächtigsten Feinden der Serben im Bürgerkrieg, den Kroaten, unter der kriminellen Führung von Franjo Tudman begangen wurden. Vielleicht verstehen einige, dass Tudman auch ein Monster war, aber wie man so schön sagt, er war unser Hurensohn. In der Tat ist keine der Parteien des jugoslawischen Bürgerkriegs mit sauberen Händen aus diesem Konflikt hervorgegangen. Selbst die nettesten Menschen im ehemaligen Jugoslawien, die Slowenen, haben ihren Teil zur Niedertracht beigetragen. Mehrere der Agenten bei Iskra Commerce, meine Gesprächspartner während meiner Jahre als Country Manager in diesem Land, waren bei Kriegsende ziemlich wohlhabend, und die Quelle ihres Vermögens war leicht zu erraten: Sie waren sehr aktiv im illegalen Waffenverkauf an die Kämpfer auf allen Seiten.

Lassen Sie mich nun abschließend diese verschiedenen Beobachtungen zusammenführen.

Samantha Power, Sir Andrew und unzählige andere mitfühlende Menschen für die leidgeprüften Opfer von Milosevics Grausamkeit in den 1990er Jahren scheinen kein Wort über die israelischen Gräueltaten zu verlieren, die in Bezug auf die Zahl der getöteten Zivilisten um ein Vielfaches größer sind und durch eine Rhetorik, die offen auf einen Völkermord an den Palästinensern und anderen unmittelbaren Nachbarn Israels abzielt.

Wie ich bereits zu Beginn angemerkt habe, leben wir also in einem Zeitalter der Barbarei, in dem das Recht des Stärkeren allgemein anerkannt wird. Dies ist übrigens die zugrunde liegende Schlussfolgerung, die Wladimir Putin dazu veranlasst hat, dem westlichen Kollektiv verspätet, aber sehr deutlich seine jüngsten Drohungen zu übermitteln, und sie dazu aufzufordern, sich vorzusehen, damit Russland nicht seine größere Macht bei Atomwaffen aller Art und sogar bei konventionellen Waffen einsetzt, um alle, die das Überleben seines Landes bedrohen, alle, die in sein Land einmarschieren, wie es die Ukraine mit Hilfe der NATO in Kursk getan hat, oder die die Ukraine nutzen, um das russische Kernland anzugreifen, auszuradieren.

Gilbert Doctorow

My news today will be brief due to reduced internet access. But I believe the essence is of highest importance since it concerns a very detailed restatement of Russian thinking about deterrance that followed from U.S. and British plans to give Kiev unlimited use of their long range missiles to strike theRussian heartland

A little more than a week ago, just before British Prime Minister Starmer arrived in Washington for what was expected to be an announcement of joint approval of such use of the Storm Shadow, Vladimir Putin told journalist Pavel Zarubîn on the sidelînes of the St Petersburg Cultural Forum that Russia will consider use of British., American or other long range missiles against its territiory as changing the nature of the present proxy war into a direct Russia NATO war and will respond appropriately.

That was a vague threat. After all he did not specify what appropriately meant However it was a sufficient change of tone from Moscow for the Pentagon to have taken note and for the Starmer visit to have been emptied of content: the White House said there was no change in its policy on the prohibition on strikes inside Russia

Nonetheless as I reported immediately afterwards the Kremlin did not believe these public statements and the most authoritative talk show. The Great Game was saying that Moscow was proceeding on the assumption that Washington would give Zelensky the permission he seeks in a week or two when the furore died down.

Tonight’s Great Game has provided a lengthy video clip from Putin’s new and latest restatement of Russian nuclear doctrine which it explained in the lapidary clear terms of its own expert panelists

Underlying the new doctrine is a changed understanding of Washington’s nuclear strategy as it has evolved from global strike from the US triad to use of massive combined attack using tactical and strategic aircraft plus medium to long range cruise and hypersonic missiles based in Europe and in the Far East

The evolving situation in Ukraine fits into the new US vision of a decapitating strike on Russia that first destroys Russia’s land based nuclear force

Accordingly Russia now declares that any attack on its territory by a non nuclear state using missiles and other long range weapons such as the F-16 provided by and guided by a nuclear state (meaning the USA, Britain or France) will be considered as a joint attack by the nuclear and non nuclear state and may prompt a Russian nuclear attack on both

Note the timing of the Russian announcement: it comes just before Biden’s meeting in Washington with Zelensky and while the UN General Assembly is in session. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavriv is presently in New York and is explaining the new nuclear doctrine to all those interested, of whom there are assuredly a great many world leaders

Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Russlands überarbeitete Nukleardoktrin laut der jüngsten Rede von Wladimir Putin

Meine heutigen Neuigkeiten werden aufgrund des eingeschränkten Internetzugangs kurz ausfallen. Aber ich glaube, dass das Wesentliche von höchster Bedeutung ist, da es sich um eine sehr detaillierte Neuformulierung der russischen Denkweise über Abschreckung handelt, die auf die Pläne der USA und Großbritanniens folgte, Kiew die uneingeschränkte Nutzung ihrer Langstreckenraketen zu gestatten, um das russische Kernland anzugreifen.

Vor etwas mehr als einer Woche, kurz bevor der britische Premierminister Starmer in Washington eintraf, um die gemeinsame Genehmigung eines solchen Einsatzes der Storm Shadow bekannt zu geben, erklärte Wladimir Putin dem Journalisten Pavel Zarubin am Rande des Kulturforums in St. Petersburg, dass Russland den Einsatz britischer, amerikanischer oder anderer Langstreckenraketen gegen sein Territorium als eine Änderung der Natur des gegenwärtigen Stellvertreterkrieges in einen direkten Russland-NATO-Krieg betrachten und entsprechend reagieren werde.

Das war eine vage Drohung. Er hat dabei nicht näher erläutert, was er mit „angemessen“ meinte. Dennoch war es eine ausreichende Änderung des Tons aus Moskau, sodass das Pentagon sie zur Kenntnis genommen hat und der Starmer-Besuch seines Inhalts beraubt wurde: Das Weiße Haus erklärte, dass es keine Änderung seiner Politik in Bezug auf das Verbot von Angriffen innerhalb Russlands gebe.

Wie ich jedoch unmittelbar danach berichtet habe, glaubte der Kreml und die seriöseste russische Talkshow diesen öffentlichen Äußerungen nicht. „Das Grosse Spiel“ sagte, dass Moskau davon ausgehe, dass Washington Selenskyj in ein oder zwei Wochen, wenn sich der Wirbel gelegt habe, die von ihm gewünschte Erlaubnis erteilen werde.

Die heutige Ausgabe von „Das Grosse Spiel“ hat einen langen Videoclip von Putins neuer und kürzlicher Neuformulierung der russischen Nukleardoktrin bereitgestellt, die von den eigenen Experten in lapidarer Deutlichkeit erklärt wurde.

Der neuen Doktrin liegt ein verändertes Verständnis der Nuklearstrategie Washingtons zugrunde, die sich vom globalen Erstschlag der US-Triade zur Nutzung massiver kombinierter Angriffe mit taktischen und strategischen Flugzeugen sowie Mittel- bis Langstrecken-Marschflugkörpern und Hyperschallraketen mit Stützpunkten in Europa und im Fernen Osten entwickelt hat.

Die sich entwickelnde Situation in der Ukraine passt in die neue US-Vision eines Enthauptungsschlags gegen Russland, der zunächst Russlands landgestützte Nuklearstreitkräfte zerstören soll.

Dementsprechend erklärt Russland nun, dass jeder Angriff auf sein Territorium durch einen nichtnuklearen Staat mit Raketen und anderen Langstreckenwaffen wie der F-16, die von einem Nuklearstaat (d.h. den USA, Großbritannien oder Frankreich) bereitgestellt und von diesem gesteuert werden, als gemeinsamer Angriff des Nuklear- und des Nichtnuklearstaates betrachtet wird und einen russischen Nuklearangriff auf beide auslösen könnte.

Beachten Sie den Zeitpunkt der russischen Ankündigung: Sie erfolgt kurz vor Bidens Treffen mit Selenskyj in Washington und während der Sitzung der UN-Generalversammlung. Der russische Außenminister Sergei Lawrow ist derzeit in New York und erläutert allen Interessierten die neue Nukleardoktrin, zu denen sicherlich viele führende Politiker der Welt gehören.

In his farewell event on Thursday hosted by the German Marshal Fund in Brussels, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg came as close to denouncing European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen as you can in Euro-speak before journalists whom he knew would be weighing his every word.

As The Financial Times put it, Stoltenberg made ‘blunt remarks’ as he condemned the build-up of competences, personnel and budgets for EU command structures and planned rapid response force, fearing that this will divert resources from NATO.

See “Nato chief warns EU against setting up ‘competing’ force” by Henry Foy in yesterday’s FT.

If this is what Stoltenberg is saying in public, you can well imagine that the NATO-EU fight for the lead role in Europe’s defense is running at a fever pitch behind closed doors. It is a contest that has been gathering force for a good many months now. We saw it discussed in a Politico article back in April: “Who’s the boss when it comes to defense: NATO or the EU?” by Stuart Lau and Jacopo Barigazzi.

What we are witnessing is an intertwining of personal and institutional ambitions. In this regard, it is all classic material for an opera as they were composed in the golden years of Verdi.

The personal ambition part relates to Ursula von der Leyen, whose continuing at the head of the Commission had been in some doubt earlier this year. In those circumstances, the lady had put her name in the running to replace Jens Stoltenberg at the head of NATO.

Rumors spread. The Daily Mail in the UK said at the time that she had the backing of Joe Biden. Whether that is true or not, it was not enough to win her the appointment to NATO. Instead, she pursued another term as head of the Commission and, thanks to the decent electoral results in the spring of the Center Right European People’s Party, of which her own native country Germany is the largest member, von der Leyen succeeded in holding onto her post. Not only that, but she has by general consensus of observers, consolidated her power in every way.  This is set out in some detail by The Financial Times in its article “Ursula von der Leyen, the politician tightening her grip on Brussels,” also by their Brussels-based journalist Henry Foy. He describes the delicately balanced ‘matrix’ of her cabinet, which he quotes one observer as calling ‘The Ursula Show.’

Foy’s article on von der Leyen is generally complimentary, calling out that ‘she’s the hardest working’ person in the EU institutions. He acknowledges that critics say she ‘routinely overstretches her powers and bypasses proper due process.’  But he grants her that in the spirit of  ‘you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.’ So he concludes what is supposed to be a well-rounded appreciation of von der Leyen, saying that ‘admirers, including many EU leaders, revere her ability to get things done by cutting through the byzantine layers of European bureaucracy.’ It is entirely fitting that Foy avoids calling this approach what it might otherwise be called:  authoritarian.

What is missing from this piece of seemingly balanced journalism from the FT is what we opened this essay with: von der Leyen’s ongoing duplication of NATO functions. This is self-aggrandizing as it expands her powers. It is also changing the European Union from a peace project, as it was originally conceived, into a war project. In this regard, all the instruments that von der Leyen has deployed to ensure her degree of control over the Commission that Foy describes also infuse the Commission and the EU Institutions more generally with the war agenda of the New Europe (as Donald Rumsfeld described the former Warsaw Pact countries) that is directed against Russia. Here we find the unifying mission of both EU and NATO institutions.

One of the obvious ways that von der Leyen intends to control the EU is through her closest coordination with the commissioners drawn from the Baltic States and extending into the other member states of Eastern Europe. These commissioners are all, by definition, much easier for the Commission president to dominate than are commissioners put up by the large member states like France, Italy and Germany. They have been given heavy responsibility portfolios out of all proportion to the political, economic, demographic weight of the countries they represent. This is why the utterly shallow prime minister of Estonia, which has a population of 1.3 million, was chosen by von der Leyen to head the key portfolio of foreign relations as the EU’’s spokesperson to the world.

Of course, Kaja Kallas, who herself had been a contender to succeed Stoltenberg at NATO, was and is one of the most aggressive Russophobes in the EU.  Several weeks ago, the lady said that the objective of the EU should be “to bring Russia to its knees” by inflicting a humiliating defeat on the Kremlin in its war on Ukraine. Needless to say, the other Eastern European commissioners, for example, from Lithuania, are also warriors against the supposed barbarians populating Russia.

For those of us who have been around for a while and knew the EU institutions when they were erected by men of great stature like Jacques Delors, it is painful to see how the project has been reduced to a War Project by people of much lower moral standing and vision for the future.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Europas autoritäre, nicht gewählte Herrscherin Ursula von der Leyen in einem wachsenden Streit mit der NATO-Führung

Bei seiner Abschiedsveranstaltung am Donnerstag, die vom German Marshal Fund in Brüssel ausgerichtet wurde, kam NATO-Generalsekretär Jens Stoltenberg der Verurteilung der EU-Kommissionschefin Ursula von der Leyen so nahe, wie es in der Euro-Sprache möglich ist, und zwar vor Journalisten, von denen er wusste, dass sie jedes seiner Worte abwägen würden.

Wie die Financial Times es ausdrückte, machte Stoltenberg „scharfe Bemerkungen“, als er den Aufbau von Kompetenzen, Personal und Budgets für EU-Kommandostrukturen und die geplante schnelle Eingreiftruppe verurteilte, da er befürchtete, dass dadurch Ressourcen von der NATO abgezogen werden.

Siehe “Nato chief warns EU against setting up ‘competing’ force” („Nato-Chef warnt EU vor Aufbau einer ‚konkurrierenden‘ Truppe“) von Henry Foy in der gestrigen FT.

Wenn Stoltenberg dies öffentlich sagt, kann man sich gut vorstellen, dass der Kampf zwischen NATO und EU um die Führungsrolle in der europäischen Verteidigung hinter verschlossenen Türen auf Hochtouren läuft. Es ist ein Wettbewerb, der seit vielen Monaten an Fahrt aufnimmt. Das wurde bereits im April in einem Artikel von Stuart Lau und Jacopo Barigazzi in „Politico“ diskutiert: “Who’s the boss when it comes to defense: NATO or the EU?” („Wer ist der Boss, wenn es um Verteidigung geht: die NATO oder die EU?“)

Was wir hier beobachten, ist eine Verflechtung persönlicher und institutioneller Ambitionen. In dieser Hinsicht ist das alles klassisches Material für eine Oper, wie sie in den goldenen Jahren Verdis komponiert wurden.

Der Teil mit den persönlichen Ambitionen bezieht sich auf Ursula von der Leyen, deren Verbleib an der Spitze der Kommission Anfang des Jahres in Frage stand. Unter diesen Umständen hatte die Dame ihren Namen ins Spiel gebracht, um Jens Stoltenberg an der Spitze der NATO zu ersetzen.

Gerüchte machten die Runde. Die britische Daily Mail schrieb damals, sie habe die Unterstützung von Joe Biden. Ob das stimmt oder nicht, es reichte nicht aus, um sie für den Posten bei der NATO zu gewinnen. Stattdessen strebte sie eine weitere Amtszeit als Kommissionspräsidentin an, und dank der ordentlichen Wahlergebnisse der Mitte-Rechts-Europäischen Volkspartei im Frühjahr, deren größtes Mitglied ihr Heimatland Deutschland ist, gelang es von der Leyen, ihren Posten zu behalten. Darüber hinaus hat sie nach allgemeiner Einschätzung der Beobachter ihre Macht in jeder Hinsicht gefestigt. Dies wird in dem Artikel “Ursula von der Leyen, the politician tightening her grip on Brussels” („Ursula von der Leyen, die Politikerin, die Brüssel fest im Griff hat“) von The Financial Times, der ebenfalls von dem in Brüssel ansässigen Journalisten Henry Foy verfasst wurde, ausführlich dargelegt. Er beschreibt die fein ausbalancierte „Matrix“ ihres Kabinetts, das ein Beobachter als „The Ursula Show“ bezeichnet.

Foys Artikel über von der Leyen ist im Allgemeinen lobend und hebt hervor, dass sie die Person in den EU-Institutionen ist, die am härtesten arbeitet. Er räumt ein, dass Kritiker sagen, sie überschreite routinemäßig ihre Befugnisse und umgehe ordnungsgemäße Verfahren. Aber er gesteht ihr zu, dass man nach dem Motto „Wo gehobelt wird, fallen Späne“ handeln kann. So kommt er zu dem Schluss, dass es sich um eine wohl ausgewogene Würdigung von der Leyens handeln soll, und sagt, dass „Bewunderer, darunter viele EU-Führungskräfte, ihre Fähigkeit verehren, Dinge zu erledigen, indem sie sich durch die byzantinischen Schichten der europäischen Bürokratie hindurchkämpft“. Es ist durchaus passend, dass Foy es vermeidet, diesen Ansatz als das zu bezeichnen, was er sonst sein könnte: autoritär.

Was in diesem scheinbar ausgewogenen Journalismus der FT fehlt, ist das, womit wir diesen Aufsatz eröffnet haben: von der Leyens fortgesetzte Verdoppelung der NATO-Funktionen. Dies ist selbstverherrlichend, da es ihre Befugnisse erweitert. Es verwandelt die Europäische Union auch von einem Friedensprojekt, wie es ursprünglich konzipiert war, in ein Kriegsprojekt. In dieser Hinsicht durchdringen alle Instrumente, die von der Leyen eingesetzt hat, um den von Foy beschriebenen Grad an Kontrolle über die Kommission zu gewährleisten, auch die Kommission und die EU-Institutionen im Allgemeinen mit der Kriegsagenda des Neuen Europa (wie Donald Rumsfeld die ehemaligen Länder des Warschauer Pakts bezeichnete), die sich gegen Russland richtet. Hier finden wir die vereinigende Mission sowohl der EU- als auch der NATO-Institutionen.

Eine der offensichtlichen Möglichkeiten, wie von der Leyen die EU kontrollieren will, ist ihre engste Zusammenarbeit mit den Kommissaren aus den baltischen Staaten, die sich auf die anderen osteuropäischen Mitgliedstaaten erstreckt. Diese Kommissare sind per definitionem für den Kommissionspräsidenten viel leichter zu dominieren als Kommissare, die von den großen Mitgliedstaaten wie Frankreich, Italien und Deutschland gestellt werden. Sie haben umfangreiche Verantwortungsbereiche erhalten, die in keinem Verhältnis zum politischen, wirtschaftlichen und demografischen Gewicht der von ihnen vertretenen Länder stehen. Deshalb wurde die völlig unbedeutende Ministerpräsidentin von Estland, einem Land mit 1,3 Millionen Einwohnern, von von der Leyen ausgewählt, um das Schlüsselressort für Außenbeziehungen als Sprecherin der EU in der Welt zu leiten.

Natürlich war und ist Kaja Kallas, die selbst als Nachfolgerin Stoltenbergs bei der NATO im Gespräch war, eine der aggressivsten Russlandhasserinnen in der EU. Vor einigen Wochen sagte die Dame, das Ziel der EU sollte es sein, „Russland in die Knie zu zwingen“, indem dem Kreml in seinem Krieg gegen die Ukraine eine demütigende Niederlage zugefügt wird. Es versteht sich von selbst, dass auch die anderen osteuropäischen Kommissare, beispielsweise aus Litauen, Krieger gegen die vermeintlichen Barbaren sind, die Russland bevölkern. Für diejenigen von uns, die schon länger dabei sind und die EU-Institutionen noch aus der Zeit kennen, als sie von Männern von großem Format wie Jacques Delors ins Leben gerufen wurden, ist es schmerzhaft zu sehen, wie das Projekt von Menschen mit viel geringerer moralischer Integrität und Zukunftsvision auf ein Kriegsprojekt reduziert wurde..

Dear readers,

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.

I look forward to your company on these pages.

G. Doctorow

P.S. – latest version of the BRICS event website: www.bricsbrussels.org

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

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.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

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.

27:42
Judge Napolitano für “Judging Freedom”.

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.

The link is here for those subscribers who have joined this community recently and would like to catch up: https://gilbertdoctorow.com/20203/28/great-post-cold-war-americanthinkers-on-international-relations/  

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 19^th 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.

1. 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.

[2] Steve Fainaru, Saad al-Izzi, ‘U.S. Security Contractors Open Fire in Baghdad,’ The Washington Post, May 27, 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/26/AR2007052601394.html

[3] T. Christian Miller, ‘Private Contractors Outnumber US Troops in Iraq,’ The Los Angeles Times,  July 4, 2007.

[4] Tim Shorrock, ‘The corporate takeover of U.S. intelligence ,’  Salon.com,  June 1, 2007. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/01/intel_contractors/

[5] Scott Shane, ‘ Government Keeps a Secret After Studying Spy Agencies ,’ The New York Times, April 26, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/26/washington/26contracting.html

[6] Shaun Waterman, ‘Analysis: Intel Spending and Contractors,’ UPI, June 27, 2007. http://www.upi.com/Security_Terrorism/Analysis/2007/06/27/analysis_intel_spending_and_contractors/3391/

[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.

Für diejenigen Abonnenten, die dieser Community erst kürzlich beigetreten sind und sich auf den neuesten Stand bringen möchten, finden Sie hier den Link: https://gilbertdoctorow.com/20203/28/great-post-cold-war-americanthinkers-on-international-relations/  

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.

[2] Steve Fainaru, Saad al-Izzi, ‘U.S. Security Contractors Open Fire in Baghdad,’ The Washington Post, May 27, 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/26/AR2007052601394.html

[3] T. Christian Miller, ‘Private Contractors Outnumber US Troops in Iraq,’ The Los Angeles Times,  July 4, 2007.

[4] Tim Shorrock, ‘The corporate takeover of U.S. intelligence ,’  Salon.com,  June 1, 2007. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/01/intel_contractors/

[5] Scott Shane, ‘ Government Keeps a Secret After Studying Spy Agencies ,’ The New York Times, April 26, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/26/washington/26contracting.html

[6] Shaun Waterman, ‘Analysis: Intel Spending and Contractors,’ UPI, June 27, 2007. http://www.upi.com/Security_Terrorism/Analysis/2007/06/27/analysis_intel_spending_and_contractors/3391/

[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.

But for now, enjoy today’s show!

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

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.

Alkhorshid: 50:33
It’s my pleasure.