There are a very few internet platforms hosted by talented interviewers and interlocutors who give their guests an hour to discuss international relations and the present East-West crisis in and around Ukraine.  Nima R. Alkhorshid and his program Dialogue Works is an outstanding success in this domain. It now counts 149,000 subscribers and has brought ‘on air’ a steady stream of leading thinkers and actors in the Opposition to the Washington narrative.

For these reasons, I considered it an honor to be Mr. Alkhorshid’s guest last night and I offer to you links to the show:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mH5F0OJCn8&t=172s  or

https://yandex.ru/video/preview/14821748208299941599

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus) followed by a complete transcript

Für diejenigen mit Sitzfleisch und etwas Zeit…

Es gibt nur wenige Internetplattformen, auf denen talentierte Interviewer und Gesprächspartner ihren Gästen eine Stunde Zeit geben, um über internationale Beziehungen und die aktuelle Ost-West-Krise in und um die Ukraine zu diskutieren. Nima R. Alkhorshid und sein Programm Dialogue Works ist ein herausragender Erfolg in diesem Bereich. Sie hat inzwischen 149.000 Abonnenten und hat einen ständigen Strom von führenden Denkern und Akteuren der Opposition zum Washingtoner Narrativ auf Sendung gebracht.

Aus diesen Gründen war es mir eine Ehre, gestern Abend Gast von Herrn Alkhorshid zu sein, und ich biete Ihnen Links zu der Sendung an:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mH5F0OJCn8&t=172s  oder

https://yandex.ru/video/preview/14821748208299941599

Transcript below by a reader

Nima R Alkhorshid: 0:05
Let’s get started with the current phase of the conflict in Ukraine. Orban is trying to do his best in order to bring NATO and Russia together to have some sort of negotiations, a political settlement. And what’s your interpretation of the current phase and what’s going on right now in the European Union, considering the conflict in Ukraine?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 0:32
Well, I have been following this conflict in Ukraine from well before it became a war. And like many observers, I have been misled time and again over the last 20 years by the seeming closeness of a Russian victory, which, and by predictions as a matter of weeks before the end is in sight, only to discover that this was changed completely by a new escalation and new direction to the war that has been propelled by the West. So that Russia has responded, the nature of the war has changed, and the timing of its conclusion has moved like the horizon. And that has been, that’s been the case. You have the Washington narrative, which is a pure propaganda narrative that is partly assisted by Kiev. Then you have the opposition or alternative media, of which I am a participant. And all too much of that has been cheerleading for Russia by people who very often know nothing about Russia and care still less about Russia, but see in this conflict a way of expressing their hatred for the United States and for its global abuse of power.

2:09
I understand their repugnance at the way the United States conducts itself across the world, but I am a specialist in Russian affairs, and I cannot link arms with people who don’t give a damn about Russia, people who speak about the conflict as if this is a walk in the rose garden, and the only victims are Ukrainians. No, there are victims who are Russians, and there are– but the numbers change, the estimates of how many losses there have been on the Ukrainian side have varied over time. Some people say it’s 500,000. Whether that is a number of killed only or it’s killed and mutilated or taken out of battle, out of combat because of their war injuries, nobody has a firm idea.

3:05
Then you have Mr. Putin, who acknowledged maybe three, four weeks ago that the kill ratio or the elimination from the battlefield is five to one in Russia’s favor. But assuming that 300,000 have been killed or taken off the battlefield, there’s still 60,000 Russians dead, 60,000 widows and orphans. It is a very painful experience for both sides, even if it’s much greater loss for the Ukrainians. So, the people who are very often talking, commenting about this conflict, ignore this fact. They only look at the harm caused to Ukraine, how close it is to being annihilated, or whatever terms are dramatic and emotive that they use.

So it is a very good thing, a very good thing, without any qualification, that a person like Orban has immediately seized upon the opportunities that he sensed was there for him in days after taking the role of the rotating presidency of the European Council. I take my hat off to him. I’ve listened to his interview with Welt Woche, which was amazing. I know something about Hungary. I visited many times on business going back to the late 1980s, early 1990s. I’ve had business associates there, some of whom I stayed in contact with, even though they loathed Orbán because they were all pro-Soros types in Hungary.

4:49
Nonetheless, I had a feeling for Hungary and I know the man is not without his detractors and without some reasons for that. But there are no pure heroes in life. And I take my cue from who is doing the most good. And as of today, Mr. Orbán is doing a remarkable job, an intelligent job, of seeking peace, of showing up European bureaucrats for being just that, sterile individuals, hateful people– and by that I mean particularly the top leaders like Charles Michel at the Council, or of course von der Leyen at the Commission, or Borrell at the Commission.

5:44
For these people to have reproached Orbán or his initiative is despicable. But I don’t think that I have to add adjectives to descriptions of these people. I think it speaks for itself. And I think that it has to be mentioned as well, that Orbán is not only doing this shuttle diplomacy and going to the ends of the earth– having been in Beijing yesterday, today, and probably on his way to Washington today or tomorrow for the NATO summit.

6:21
Not only that. He and his close associates have been organizing within Europe a new block of patriots that is attracting some very important partners, and which have a chance of giving a voice to the resistance to the clique around van der Leyen, who want to shut everyone up and want to dominate and monopolize power in Brussels and European institutions. He has brought in, most recently, yesterday or day before yesterday, Wilder’s group in the ruling coalition in the Netherlands. He has the support even of the Czechs. The Czech Republic is a special case because of the division between executive and parliament over relations with Russia. Nevertheless, he has brought in parties in the Czech Republic. He certainly has the backing of Fico in Slovakia. And you begin to see– and he’s reaching out to Meloni.

7:36
You begin to see the shape, the contours of a group within the European Parliament that can put a stick in the mechanism that is leading us all on the path to Armageddon. For that, I have to salute the sagacity, not just the courage and the energy of Mr. Orbán.

Alkhorshid:
If you remember, before this conflict started, they were all demonizing Putin, they were [demonizing] Russia. And it all started with this concept in the West. Why do they really hate Russia? What’s the reason behind this type of behavior on the part of the Western countries?

8:22
Well, the information war against Russia began with a vengeance in 2008, following Vladimir Putin’s astonishing speech at the Munich Security Conference. And then you saw the American delegation at that conference was left speechless. They never could have imagined that they would be denounced for their bullying, for their brutal conduct of international affairs as they were directly and to their faces by Putin at that conference. Washington was speechless, had nothing to say for a month or two until it found its footing and began a massive campaign against Putin.

There were publications in “Foreign Affairs”, there were denunciations of him. You had Yulia Tymoshenko coming out with an article there, which was intended to be a vicious attack on Putin. And that’s where it started. And it’s been accelerating ever since. So– but I take 2008 as a starting point. Of course, this developed within the States. In 2012, you have the first transfer of this media hatred and vengeance into actions with the passage of the Magnitsky Act that was so promoted by William Browder, a full-time Russia hater, who enjoyed a lot of support in Congress.

And that was a start, so 2012, it was two years before the whole Crimea adventure, that there was a pretext for really vicious sanctions to be taken up by Europe as well. In 2012, the United States began it. And surrounding this, you don’t just have these sanctions in isolation, they have to be supported by further information warfare. And then you have 2014, you know, let’s say the takeover of Crimea, its reunification with Russia, which provided the context for yet another great escalation, widening and deepening the information war and the economic war waged against Russia. That took us more or less to where we are today.

10:57
Why do they hate it? Because Russia has had the least to lose among all the potential adversaries of the United States on the global stage. You have China, but China’s economy has been until Mr. Trump began using his axe, his hatchet, against the tree of Chinese-United States economic bonds. Until the Trump campaign against China, China was doing very well in the States and globally as the world’s factory. And China has so much to lose by saying its mind about the nature of American hegemony and economic domination, and parasitism or rent-collecting, as some people call it, globally.

12:01
But China didn’t dare act on these convictions. There are other countries who were similarly comprehending of what America is doing and how it was dangerous for the world, but again, and they held their silence. By a combination of factors, Russia had very few economic bonds with the States. Oh, of course, we know that it has been a supplier of luxury goods and a supplier of uranium, enriched uranium, and at times of hydrocarbons, like xxxxx xxxx, petroleum products, which the United States was in one part of the country or another in need of.

12:43
But in general, the level of US-Russian trade has been very, very low. This goes back a long way in history. It didn’t just happen yesterday. Because the two economies simply have little need of one another. Unlike the Europeans with Russia, which for them, Russia was a great source of raw materials. This is insulting to say out loud, but it didn’t stop the French from saying that out loud that they looked upon Russia as strictly a source of necessary and cheap raw materials.

Then other countries had their own interests in Russia, in its arms, and having a diversity of arms suppliers not to be totally dependent on the United States. But generally speaking, the US-Russia trade was very low, and America and Russia both had very little to lose in economic terms by going at one another’s throats. So when Russia had enough of this denigration that it was receiving at the hands of the United States, of this condescending and scornful rejection of Dmitry Medvedev’s suggestion of revising the security architecture of Europe to bring Russia in from the cold, going back to 2008, rejected out of hand by the United States and also by Germany.

14:18
Russia then decided to say what it really thinks and to proceed with this alienation from the United States, which is proceeding today in front of our eyes in much more important material ways, not just information warfare. So, Russia has been the single biggest obstacle to the American unipolar world. And going back three, four, five years when the States were still speaking very disparagingly and insultingly about Russia’s economy, going back to McCain and Russia being just a gas station parading as a nation. And Obama saying very much the same thing and adding insult to injury by pointing out that Russia was really just a regional power.

15:21
This is a phrase which didn’t just come out of the air. This is a phrase that goes back to 1997 and Brzezinski’s “Grand Chessboard”, the notion that Russia is just a European state. It’s another country that fits in a little box in Europe and is out of the way and doesn’t cause any nuisance. And when Russia did present itself and its claims for security on the stage, the Americans dismissed it as being just a troublemaker that is on its way down.

And I’d like to point out, without intending to detract from the expertise or importance of some of our major scholars like John Mearsheimer, this notion of Russia as a country on its way down was widely held by some of our senior academicians who otherwise are quite reasonable and informative and useful experts. When it came to Russia, they weren’t saying anything more insightful than you’ve had from the worst propagandists in Washington. Power in the world, even by the realist school, was being defined in terms of GNP, and that was equated to be the same as military power. And since Russia only accounts or counted, well, still accounts for 3% of global GNP, the notion that it could be a major player on the international stage and a major power, a superpower was considered to be laughable as recently as three or four years ago.

17:18
The Special Military Operation has changed that. Three or four years ago, we heard about the United States as being the world’s leading military power, and the second and fast-rising power is China. You don’t hear much about China as the fast-rising power, except if they’re talking about how many naval vessels it has compared to the United States. In overall military strength, there are no fools who are saying that any more, that Russia is just a laggard and that China’s number two. Most anybody who has his head turned on, screwed on right is saying the facts. The facts are that Russia is the world’s second most powerful military force in the world. And in some areas, it’s the first most powerful. And certainly in a traditional ground warfare, artillery production and implementation availability, nobody has any doubts today that Russia is the world’s biggest power.

18:24
So, this is where the military operation in Ukraine has changed the American and global perception. It’s not a strange thing to say or discover to say that countries looking for allies or for partners look to winners, and they don’t want to be associated with losers. And I think that we see, we saw a week ago, at the Astana meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, that the central Asian countries are solidly with Russia, and of course with China. China is the economic power, has much more to offer them economically; but for military security issues, there’s no question that they are solidly allied with Russia.

Mr. Turkayev, the remarkable president of Kazakhstan, who is a fluent speaker of Russian, a fluent speaker of Mongolian, it’s not that bad. He’s just the president. He’s not an academician. And he was wobbling this way and that way when the American diplomats came through his region. He’s not wobbling any more. Mr. Blinken can pass through and they’ll treat him to tea, but he is not making any progress in hopes of winning the minds and hearts of Kazakhs. The same is true of David Cameron’s swing through this area less than a month ago. He came back with nothing.

20:19
And why did this happen? I have not a moment’s hesitation in saying: because these countries perceived that Russia is the winner in the contest against NATO. Countries like to be with winners.

Alkhorshid:
How far is the West willing to risk Ukraine and the future of Ukraine in order to inflate suffering on Russia?

Doctorow:
Well, I’m a very big admirer of Jacques Baudin, the Swiss military analyst, whose view of the war is very much the terms that you just phrased it. The West has no interest in the fate of Ukraine. Its only interest is in using Ukraine as a tool to weaken Russia. What the objectives are of weakening Russia, well, different analysts have different views. Some will say that it is to lessen the attractiveness of Russia to China, to help break Russia and China apart. Perhaps that’s the reason. I think a much simpler reason is that by eliminating Russia, they prepare the way to attack and isolate China, which makes China much more vulnerable. So the reasoning here is, I think, pretty obvious.

Alkhorshid: 21:47
Can we consider the conflict in Ukraine as a watershed moment in which that the face of the world has changed. And the way that we are witnessing the events in the Middle East, in Europe, in Africa, is everything seems that it’s changing and it’s changing so fast.

Doctorow:
Well, there used to be a song about the head bone’s connected to the neck bone, the neck bone’s connected to the backbone and so on. Or as the BBC says in its promotional advertisements for BBC business news, “Everything’s connected”. Indeed, all of these things that you mentioned are not disparate. They’re all connected and certain key players or actors are involved in all of them. And Russia is one of those key players. When you speak about the changing scene in Africa, particularly French Africa, the departure or kick out of the French colonial forces, and the deconstruction of the French economic colonialism in these countries, Russia is present as a major factor, just as China is, to provide a sense that you can win the war against these former colonial powers, but you will not be economically destroyed by them.

23:12
If Russia has been able to survive and even prosper in the face of the sanctions from hell that Victoria Nuland and her fellow conspirators devised in the State Department, then these countries also, if they have friends, friends like Russia and China, have a very good opportunity to get out from under the heel of their former colonial masters. That’s for Africa.

23:44
For the Middle East, the fact that the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia were brought into BRICS forming a Middle Eastern core nations that have joined an organization whose mission is to establish a parallel world order. Not to overthrow the existing world order, but in the expectation that the existing American-dominated world order will crumble when a viable alternative that is more democratic in the way it’s governed presents itself.

24:29
And that is what they’re doing as [more have joined], and that gives them a lot of confidence. A perfect example, one that I follow rather closely because I’ve been a frequent guest on Iran’s PressTV. So I paid more attention to what’s going on there than I otherwise would have. And what I see there is that there’s much greater moderation. The victory of this so-called, so-designated reformist candidate in the election a day ago in Iran is just another sign of it, but the man he’s replaced after this tragic death of Raisi in the helicopter crash was, I think, an incarnation of dignity. And dignity comes from self-confidence, and self-confidence comes from having powerful and well-meaning friends.

25:26
And those two friends, in the case of Iran, are China and Russia. What I see here as an important element in the changing world is the approach of BRICS and of Russia and China to the whole question of: what do you do with difficult states? The American view is simple. You turn them into pariah states. You cut off economic ties, you cut off diplomatic ties, you isolate them, shame them, and try regime change in order to get them to submit to your will, and to be “good and upstanding members” of the international community, in quotation marks.

26:11
The Russian and Chinese method is– in a way, it’s very close to what was used in Germany in its relations to Russia in the period of the 80s and 90s and up into the period of Merkel. This whole Ostpolitik of Germany– it goes back to Willy Brandt– had as an underlying logic or justification, or explanation in any case, to the German public and to European public, that by drawing closer, you can have more influence and moderate the behavior of the country that you are in rapprochement with.

27:00
I think that is a very good model. Of course, the United States has denounced this sort of approach. It has gone crying out to the world how it was misled by such thoughts when it gave privileged access to its market to China and allowed China to become its major supplier of so many manufactured goods. But China, to the great disappointment of the United States, didn’t become just like us. It didn’t renounce its sovereignty, didn’t kneel before the altar of the American Republic.

27:46
But I hold a different view. I think that what the Russians are now trying to do with Taliban in Afghanistan to drop all listing of the Taliban as a terrorist organization, to try to establish normal diplomatic, cultural, political, and economic ties to Afghanistan and its Taliban government. This is another instance where the policy is to normalize relations in the hope and expectation that you will moderate the behavior of the country you’re approaching, rather than the [counter-voltage] in a very severe and destructive behavior that America practices.

Alkhorshid: 28:36
When we look at Russia today, a country, when Putin came to power in 1999 and 2000, he was trying to get closer to the West, to the European Union, to the United States, but every [time] he was trying to do that, he was rejected; they were not willing to cooperate with Russia. Right now, with this conflict in Ukraine, it seems that Russia totally perceived that there is no way forward for Russia together with the United States and European Union. And they’re doing everything right now. They’re talking about BRICS right now. When we talk about BRICS everybody’s talking about China.

29:20
China is the biggest, but it seems that Russia is the backbone of BRICS right now. Because the way that they’re leading in BRICS politically and militarily they’re having good relationship with Iran, with China, with India, many of these countries don’t have– with Pakistan, and the way that they’re managing right now within BRICS is so amazing to see, and how they’re trying to do their best in order to bring all of these countries together.

Doctorow: 29:54
I think this is a very big compliment you’re making to Russian diplomacy, and I agree completely that Russian diplomacy is highly professional and very skillful in dealing with these very difficult countries and relationships that they have with one another, and not getting and caught in the middle of their disputes.

I want to add though, that the Russian diplomacy and Mr. Lavrov for all of his experiences as the doyen of major power diplomats in the world– longest serving and most professional, hardest working– they are not their own men. What they’re doing, what Lavrov does, is implement what his boss tells him to do. So, the master plan that Russian diplomacy implements is coming from the office of Vladimir Putin. I don’t mean to suggest that Putin himself is the author of everything that bears his signature, of course not. He’s remarkably hard-working and so on, but he’s not superhuman. He also has his limitations in time and space.

31:20
But what I see in Putin is unusual, and I have various ways of measuring this and justifying what I’m about to say, is that he has been not just an intellectual leader, although that didn’t come quickly. He was a follower, as you were suggesting a minute ago, by particularly early in his presidency, continuing the Iraq raprochment, the drawing closer, the hopeful expectations that we Russians and Americans can be great friends. He continued that. It took a while before he found his own position, particularly after 2008 when he had no choice but to find a new position.

32:07
But not just as an intellectual leader, but as a man-manager. I think that he has remarkable talent in this area, which nobody talks about. What you get is the usual flipant or ignorant statements about how he was a KGB operative. This is– much more important to watch his conduct is how he was a graduate of St. Petersburg Law School because he’s very legalistic- minded.

But he is a man-manager. For that, he obviously has an innate talent because he was a rank-and-file intelligence analyst in Germany. He wasn’t managing tens and tens of people. I wonder if he even had a secretary to manage. The point is that he quickly learned. And what do I find outstanding here? I don’t think I’m the only one who compares him and his 24 years in power as a Peter the Great of our age. And there’s a certain specific similarity that I want to bring up because nobody talks about it. and it bears on my stating now that he is a man-manager of extreme conpetence.

33:26
Peter the Great had around him opportunists, liars, thieves, cheats, people who were raised from rags to riches, which is– very often arrived at in a thief-like way. And he kept them on, and he promoted them to get the best out of them for Russia’s benefit. And that is exactly how Mr. Putin has conducted himself. He has been surrounded by thieves and liars. Chubais was a perfect example of it. He stole billions, if not just millions, from the Russian state, but he has kept by his side people whom he thought could make major contributions to the welfare of the country, and he has used them for Russia’s benefit, knowing for certain all of their personal drawbacks and their vices.

34:37
He kept Prigozhin on when he had proven himself less than loyal, I mean, before the mutiny, after this big public fight that he had with Putin’s senior military. It was out in public, they were being denounced by Prigozhin, and Putin kept him on and tolerated him so long as he could perform and do things that were valuable to Russia, which he did. And this is a distinguishing feature that I think has to be brought up in any discussion.

Alkhorshid: 35:25
When you look at Europe today, considering your article, your recent article, In your opinion, what’s going on in Europe? I’ve seen an interview of Marine Le Pen with CNN, with Christiane Amanpour on CNN. Christiane Amanpour was calling her a far-right candidate and she said that, no, we are not far-right, we are a center-right party. But it seems that Le Pen is totally in my opinion is totally correct when she says she’s center-right. We don’t see far right, far left right now in the European Union, because the outcome of Meloni, for example, in Italy was the same outcome as we see in Germany and other countries. [It] doesn’t seem that they have any sort of difference when it comes to their policy in Ukraine, for example. What’s your understanding of this?

Doctorow: 36:31
Well, we’ll get to the question of how these various movements or parties see Ukraine, but I’d like to come back to adjectives, which are very important because they are like these dog whistles. They are sending out messages that are instantly perceived and understood without the one blowing the whistle having to say much.

And that is misleading, seriously misleading. To speak in terms– as we open this discussion, to speak in terms of centrist right, extreme right. Extreme already is an adjective that tells you that the speaker doesn’t like these people. Who likes extremes? By definition, a normal-headed person wouldn’t. They are inaccurate. They are not telling you what’s going on, just like if you listen to particularly American politicians who are talking about identity politics or talking about inclusiveness by bringing in LGBT and Lord knows what else. This is meant to be misleading.

38:00
So let’s go to the essence of what people really are talking about. In the latter case, when I talk inclusiveness or these identity politics are intended to distract the audience from what politics are all about, always have been, and someday in the near future will revert to [be], which is about how you divide up the economic pie and who gets what from the economy. That’s what politics are supposed to be about.

And when you talk identity politics and minority politics, it’s intentionally distracting the voter on what politics are all about. But let’s go back to the extreme right, far right, whatever the adjective they put here. That’s not what her party stands for. It’s not what Orban stands for. It’s not to a lesser extent what Meloni stands for. What we’re talking about here, and particularly well-defined now in the group of patriots that Orbán is putting together, it is, first of all, less EU. And what does that mean by less EU?

39:14
It is a declaration of nationalism. Nationalism is by definition in the lexicon of the authoritarian left, and it is meant to be misleading. The– nationalism is said to be a cause of wars. The European adventure, the creation of the EU was supposed to be about preventing wars. And so, logically, you should be throttling, strangling nationalism. But there’s more to it than that. When you deny people their national identity, you are denying them their identity, and you’re preparing the way for fascism and for dictatorship. If people do not have an identity, religious, ethnic, otherwise, they have nothing to fall back upon. They are atomized in front of an authoritarian state. So all of these people professing liberal values, that is all completely phony and intentionally misleading.

40:41
Nationalism is one thing, but that’s not the whole story at all. Let’s take a less emotive word. A word that has been used a lot by Mr. Putin, and now is being used by other people. The word here is “sovereignty”. Mr. Orban is talking about Hungarian sovereignty. Wilders is talking about sovereignty. Even Meloni, weak reed that she is, is talking about Italian sovereignty — as opposed to globalism, which is denying national distinction, because national distinction is bad, and replacing it with this amorphous, empty designation, like Citizen, Citizeness of the French revolution. They are denying people their birthright for the sake of stealing their power.

42:00
it is all– i mean i said that politics is about economics and dividing the pie– the politics on a personal level of those who are practicing it is about power. And they are using these various word games to seize power and to hold power against the popular will and against the interests of their own people.

Alkhorshid: 42:29
Do you have any hope for the European Union, with the current situation, considering the current situation of the Union, to be a powerhouse? Everybody, I think, the European Union needs to be a powerhouse, just independent of Russia, China and the United States. Just deciding, considering their benefits. I’m talking about each and every of these countries, or even together.

Doctorow:
For it to be a powerhouse, it has to change its thinking entirely about what makes for power. The present conformist vassals of the United States who occupy the positions of power in the European Union have a mantra. And the mantra is: “Unity gives us strength”. I contest that. Unity in pursuit of delusional objectives gives you weakness. And all I see around me is weakness that thinks it is strength, because all 27 people, or countries, are saying the same thing. But 27 times “wrong” is still wrong, with just bigger letters.

43:48
And what they’re saying is dead wrong, but their understanding of so many factors in their neighborhood, starting with Russia, of course, is dead wrong. So, Europe cannot be a superpower if all of its thinking is founded on a fallacy, that Europe cannot be a superpower if it denies the civilizational values that it pretends to promote, starting with freedom of speech.

There is very little freedom of speech in Europe, much less than in the United States. And why is that? It’s not as if the United States hasn’t had its fit of McCarthyism, not just going back in the early days of the Cold War, but 10 years ago. When I was in– I was in a visiting fellow at Columbia in 2010, 2011, and what I saw around me was the aftereffect of the general paranoia that hit America after 9-11, when Americans willingly traded freedom for security.

45:09
Our journalists in newspapers like the “Financial Times” pretend to be very intellectual. They like to speak about Russians who trade “a chicken in every pot” for security and let the government do what it wishes. Well, that isn’t very true; not at all, from my experience; but that’s a separate issue. The main issue is: that’s exactly what Americans have done. They traded after 9-11 a hope for security against any say in how they’re governed. And that psychology, that is destructive of freedom, and destructive of the values that that our leaders pretend to honor in Europe.

46:08
Now, that was the case before Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump came along. I don’t like Mr. Trump particularly. I don’t like him as a personality. I don’t like his boastfulness, his arrogance, his ignorance, and whatever else. There are many things you can [cite] against him, including lying, of course. I’m more tolerant of lying, because it comes with the job. You cannot be perfectly frank and honest if you are a president. That’s a separate issue of taking us back to Machiavelli and “The Prince”.

The question is about what Mr. Trump did for all of us, wittingly, unwittingly, let’s say unwittingly. By saying what he did in the 2016 campaign, by putting in question NATO, by putting in question the value of hostility with Russia, he freed us all. I can tell you right now, I mean, take a publication that was widespread, widely subscribed to among American academics, “Johnson’s Russia List”. “Johnson’s Russia List” was, and still is, a daily digest of articles about Russia, about Ukraine, by professionals, for professionals.

47:36
In the period before Mr. Trump got his campaign going well, you could just die bored of reading it because all of the entries were by the slavish scribes and propaganda disseminators of the State Department. Nobody dared to say something different, because they didn’t want to lose their tenured positions, or they didn’t want to lose the respect of their colleagues. Mr. Trump opened his mouth and started saying things that if we ordinary mortals had said, we would have had the FBI at our door. He said it, they could not touch him; then he’s kept on saying it when he was president.

48:24
He gave us freedom, and those who say, “How horrible, he’s divided us”, what is politics about if not division? If politics is everyone singing from the same songbook, you don’t need elections. It is– you only get to the truth and you only get to good or better policies if they are questioned, if there are debates and if there is serious difference of opinion. Unfortunately, Europeans have forgotten these things, and they keep on saying how horrible it is for anyone to divide us. The Russians are trying to divide us, but they don’t tolerate any dissent or any other thinking.

49:09
When you have no dissent, you have inferior intellectual … roadmaps. You have to have dissent, you have to have differences of opinion, publicly expressed and defended, if you’re going to arrive at anything resembling workable policies and good policies, as opposed to intellectually inferior policies. Here in Europe, they just don’t get it, and they keep on clambering for unity, when what we need is division.

Alkhorshid: 49:44
You know, it seems that the conflict in Ukraine is approaching to the final stages, but at the same time we’re witnessing that the United States is forcing Europe and to move them toward China to be more aggressive toward China. And the question would be, we know that Europe was totally in line with the United States foreign policy in Russia, in sanctioning Russia, but when it comes to China, how capable is Europe to do that and how damaging that would be for Europe?

Doctorow: 50:22
Well, there won’t be much left of the European economy. The economy is limping along. You have to keep in mind that the destruction of the economy does not occur from one day to the next. It’s a slow process. Back in the 1980s, I worked for a company called ITT, International Telephone and Telegraph, which was the world’s biggest conglomerate put together by a business genius, a financial genius called Harold Geneen, and operating in all kinds of different industries.

And I knew soon after I joined, “This ship is going down.” It had new management. It didn’t under… And it was a victim of the business wisdom “horses for courses”. The business model that Mr. Geneen created did not long survive him as a viable model in a new business and interest environment. Interest is a key word. It’s always a major factor in viability of businesses.

Well, that kind of issue is what we see today. Here in Europe, the economy is sinking, but not in the way that you can see, “Ah, there are people that are going to drown tomorrow.” No, but it’s heading in that direction. When I walk down the street here in Brussels, the major commercial street, elegant, center of elegance, since its creation in the turn of the 20th century, there are so many shops that are vacant. When I hear the Belgian authorities say we have 2 percent inflation– yeah, maybe year on year, but we have like 40 percent inflation going back two years.

52:27
When you go to a restaurant and you see prices that are 40 percent higher than they were the last time you looked, I don’t want to hear about two percent inflation. It’s nonsense. And so it is about the state of the economy here. You just have to keep your eyes open. They tell you much more valuable things than what you can read in “Le soir” or “Echos de la Bourse” about the state of the economy. You see those empty shops, it tells you the real state of the economy, not good.

52:58
And in Germany, it’s a lot worse. Here in Belgium, we have a lot of protections put in place to prevent popular disturbances, namely inflation adjustments to shut up the labor unions and to counteract the worst effects of inflation. They’re much less practiced in Germany. Although Mr. Scholz tries various times to take the pain out of the soaring energy costs to households, in general, the protection of the German consumer is less solid there. The state of the German economy is deteriorating sharply. The biggest export industries are the worst hit, ever since the start of this economic war with Russia.

53:51
I have in mind particularly the automobile industry, where you speak to people who have friends who are working in the major German car producers. They know that this or that product line is down 30 percent, not 1 to 2 percent. So, the decline of the European economy, given that it’s so big and so rich, it takes time for the poverty and underlying weakness to become evident to everyone. But its trajectory is clear. Europe is in serious decline. And the people who are in charge, like Mr. Scholz, he doesn’t, he’s not capable of seeing, appreciating, let alone responding to these facts that are obvious to anybody who has a bit of sense in finance and business.

Alkhorshid: 54:50
Just to wrap up this session, do you see a future for European Union together with Russia when this conflict comes to an end and everybody want to know what would be the new face of Europe, what would be the future of Europe without Russia. Is that possible in your opinion?

Doctorow: 55:11
Well, how this war ends and how the European elites survive this will determine the outcome that you are asking me about. If NATO crumbles, if it faces the fact that it has not lived up to the reason of its foundation, which was to keep Russia down and out, and it turns out that Russia is resurgent, far more powerful, far more rational, and much better led than the NATO member countries, and these people are chased out, then what can come about is, as you say, a reconciliation, an acceptance of basic economic facts of life, which is that Russia is the best and most accessible source of critical materials for the European economy, and then logic will prevail, economic logic.

56:13
But if the present elites manage to hold on to their vestiges of power, and deny power to those who have better understood the situation and are better prepared to find a way out of the crisis, then I’m afraid Europe will not rise to the challenge and extricate itself from the present downward course that I have just described a moment ago.

As happens from time to time, it was an early morning WhatsApp invitation from a global broadcaster requesting interview time to discuss that 75^th anniversary summit opening today in Washington that prompted me to put on my thinking cap and make an effort to get my mind around this given event and offer an analysis that, hopefully, has added value and stands out among the myriad commentators that mainstream news purveyors will be publishing today.

The WION interview is posted on the internet here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaepcAih3kA

In what follows below, I build on the points set out in the video.

First, I was called upon to confirm the obvious: that the Ukraine war will be the leading subject for discussion among the assembled NATO leaders. This is so because it is the glue that holds the Alliance together today and gives it justificatory purpose. The expected presence of the self-proclaimed, presently unelected president of Ukraine Zelensky at the gathering is a token of the prominence that will be given to the Ukrainian question. However, this does not mean that there will be any date set by the Alliance for Ukraine’s being admitted. That eventuality is pushed back with the horizon as time marches on, the reason being that there is no unanimity among Alliance members on the point, and unanimity is an absolute requirement.

The mood in Washington is unlikely to be celebratory for several reasons, beginning with the political travails of several key members and due to the latest activities to defang NATO by one member, Hungary.

The host of the Summit, President Joe Biden, is presently fighting for his political life after his dismal performance in a televised debate with Donald Trump brought disarray to the Democratic party, where many party stalwarts and business financiers are openly calling for him to gracefully withdraw from the race to make room for an energetic candidate of a younger generation. Accordingly, other Alliance members are left to brood over the possibility of an electoral defeat for the Democrats in November, with the accession of Donald Trump to the White House likely spelling withdrawal of American military and financial support that are critical to the organization’s survival.

Meanwhile, France, another heavy-weight in the Alliance is now without a government due to self-inflicted wounds administered by President Macron in an opportunistic and short-sighted effort to keep from power his sworn enemy, Marine Le Pen by rigging the candidate lists across France during the week between rounds of balloting so as to present only the strongest candidate from among the New Popular Front (United Left) and his own centrist party. He achieved his objective: Le Pen’s National Rally party picked up only one third of the seats and not the anticipated absolute majority that would have assured France of a viable government of ‘cohabitation.’  Instead, with the seats allocated among three mutually incompatible blocs, France is now returned to the instability and weakness of its Fourth Republic. The country will be in no position to lend strong assistance to NATO in its Ukrainian adventure and all else.

As if that were not enough to dampen spirits, the energetic, very brave and apparently effective efforts of Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban to shake up the EU and NATO these past several days indicate that Uniparty rule in Europe under the aegis of Washington’s ventriloquist dummies Ursula von der Leyen and Jens Stoltenberg may be coming to an end.

Within a day of taking over the six-month rotating Presidency of the European Council, Orban flew to Kiev to discuss with Volodymir Zelensky prospects for a ceasefire and opening of peace negotiations, followed by a similar mission to Moscow where he was received on short notice by President Vladimir for two and a half hours of talks.  Orban’s trip was denounced by von der Leyen as a betrayal amounting to appeasement of Russian aggression. He was denounced by Charles Michel of the European Council for acting without mandate from the EU.  However, Orban responded that he was not acting in the name of the EU but in the name of humanity, to spare us all further escalation of the conflict in the direction of Armageddon, where it is now headed absent any effort by the West to enter into direct diplomacy with Moscow. He successfully publicized in meetings with journalists that peace will never be achieved by bureaucrats, meaning the entire flock of unelected EU officials busy preening their own feathers; it will come about thanks to politicians opening up communications channels between the warring parties.

What has received little or no attention in mainstream is that in parallel with diplomatic travels that yesterday took him to Beijing, Orban’s Hungarian team has been busy building a new bloc of like-minded deputies to the EU Parliament who are taking their seats in Brussels as we speak. So far, to my knowledge, he has signed up MEPs from 12 countries under the name Patriots for Europe, and they will constitute the third largest bloc in the Parliament. This group will oppose the status quo domination of European politics by the Center Left-Center Right coalition of the European People’s Party and the Socialists and Democrats party.  The rallying cry of the Patriots for Europe is less Europe, meaning less intrusive EU Institutions, legislation, regulation and debt financing. They are calling for restoration of national sovereignty, stricter control of the borders to keep out illegals, and other causes that have broad popular backing but have been opposed, suppressed or marginalized by the EU powers that be these last five years.  None of this bodes well for NATO, of which nearly all EU Member States are participants.

Finally, I was privileged to be given the opportunity on WION to discuss the latest news from Kiev about a missile strike, allegedly by the Russians, that yesterday destroyed a children’s cancer hospital in the capital with loss of life among medical staff and patients.

As I noted, responsibility for this brutal act must be laid at the door of Mr. Zelensky, and not Mr. Putin. It fits perfectly into the pattern of false flag events that have been choreographed by intelligence operatives from Great Britain and the United States in a number of countries over the past decade, with particular attention now to Ukraine.

Very conveniently for Mr. Zelensky this disaster occurred the day before today’s opening ceremonies for the 75^th anniversary of NATO in Washington. It provides him and other speakers at this Summit with a rallying cry against Russia’s alleged inhumanity and violation of the rules of war in the Ukraine conflict, all for the purpose of rousing the participants to approve still more munitions and money for Kiev.

Similar coincidences have marked many of the false flag events of the past.  The cold-blooded murder of civilians in Bucha occurred in March 2022 just days after Kiev disavowed its signature on a draft peace treaty with Russia at the urging of Boris Johnson. It was a convenient post fact justification for doubling down on the war against the Kremlin.

Similarly, the death of Russian Opposition leader Alexei Navalny in his prison camp occurred very conveniently the day before the opening of the 2024 Munich Security Conference to which his wife, now widow had been invited to speak.

I will stop my detailing of these false flag events here and suggest that you take a look at the WION video.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

Translation into German below (Andreas Mylaeus)

Die NATO feiert ihr 75-jähriges Bestehen heute auf einem Gipfel in Washington, D.C.

Wie so oft war es eine frühmorgendliche WhatsApp-Einladung eines internationalen Senders mit der Bitte um ein Interview zum Gipfel des 75. Jahrestages, der heute in Washington eröffnet wird, die mich dazu veranlasste, meine Denkmütze aufzusetzen und mich zu bemühen, mich mit diesem Ereignis auseinanderzusetzen und eine Analyse zu liefern, die hoffentlich einen Mehrwert hat und sich von den zahllosen Kommentaren abhebt, die die großen Nachrichtensender heute veröffentlichen werden.

Das WION-Interview ist hier im Internet zu finden:

Im Folgenden gehe ich auf die in dem Video dargelegten Punkte ein.

Zunächst wurde ich aufgefordert, das Offensichtliche zu bestätigen: Der Krieg in der Ukraine wird das wichtigste Diskussionsthema der versammelten NATO-Führer sein. Dies ist so, weil er der Kitt ist, der das Bündnis heute zusammenhält und ihm einen rechtfertigenden Zweck verleiht. Die erwartete Anwesenheit des selbsternannten, derzeit nicht gewählten ukrainischen Präsidenten Zelensky auf dem Treffen ist ein Zeichen für die Bedeutung, die der ukrainischen Frage beigemessen werden wird. Dies bedeutet jedoch nicht, dass das Bündnis einen Termin für die Aufnahme der Ukraine festsetzen wird. Diese Möglichkeit rückt mit der Zeit immer weiter in den Hintergrund, da sich die Mitglieder des Bündnisses in diesem Punkt nicht einig sind, und Einstimmigkeit ist ein absolutes Erfordernis.

Die Stimmung in Washington dürfte aus mehreren Gründen nicht gerade feierlich sein, angefangen bei den politischen Schwierigkeiten mehrerer wichtiger Mitglieder und den jüngsten Aktivitäten eines Mitglieds, nämlich Ungarns, die NATO zu schwächen.

Der Gastgeber des Gipfels, Präsident Joe Biden, kämpft derzeit um sein politisches Überleben, nachdem sein enttäuschendes Abschneiden in einer Fernsehdebatte mit Donald Trump die Demokratische Partei in Aufruhr versetzt hat, wo viele Parteigrößen und Finanziers aus der Wirtschaft offen fordern, dass er sich mit Würde aus dem Rennen zurückzieht, um Platz für einen energischen Kandidaten einer jüngeren Generation zu machen. Dementsprechend müssen andere Mitglieder des Bündnisses über die Möglichkeit einer Wahlniederlage der Demokraten im November grübeln, da der Einzug von Donald Trump ins Weiße Haus wahrscheinlich den Entzug der amerikanischen militärischen und finanziellen Unterstützung bedeuten wird, die für das Überleben der Organisation entscheidend ist.

In der Zwischenzeit ist Frankreich, ein weiteres Schwergewicht in der Allianz, nun ohne Regierung, da Präsident Macron sich selbst Wunden zugefügt hat, indem er opportunistisch und kurzsichtig versuchte, seine Erzfeindin Marine Le Pen von der Macht fernzuhalten, indem er in der Woche zwischen den Wahlgängen die Kandidatenlisten in ganz Frankreich manipulierte, um nur den stärksten Kandidaten der Neuen Volksfront (Vereinigte Linke) und seiner eigenen zentristischen Partei zu präsentieren. Er hat sein Ziel erreicht: Le Pens Partei Nationale Rallye erhielt nur ein Drittel der Sitze und nicht die erwartete absolute Mehrheit, die Frankreich eine lebensfähige Regierung des “Zusammenlebens” gesichert hätte. Stattdessen ist Frankreich mit der Verteilung der Sitze auf drei miteinander unvereinbare Blöcke in die Instabilität und Schwäche der Vierten Republik zurückgefallen. Das Land wird nicht in der Lage sein, die NATO bei ihrem ukrainischen Abenteuer und bei allem anderen tatkräftig zu unterstützen.

Als ob das nicht schon genug wäre, um die Stimmung zu trüben, deuten die energischen, sehr mutigen und offensichtlich effektiven Bemühungen des ungarischen Ministerpräsidenten Viktor Orban in den letzten Tagen, die EU und die NATO aufzurütteln, darauf hin, dass die Herrschaft der Unipartei in Europa unter der Ägide der Bauchrednerpuppen Ursula von der Leyen und Jens Stoltenberg in Washington möglicherweise zu Ende gehen wird.

Nur einen Tag nach der Übernahme der sechsmonatigen rotierenden Präsidentschaft des Europäischen Rates flog Orban nach Kiew, um mit Volodymir Zelensky die Aussichten für einen Waffenstillstand und die Aufnahme von Friedensverhandlungen zu erörtern, gefolgt von einer ähnlichen Reise nach Moskau, wo er kurzfristig von Präsident Wladimir Putin zu zweieinhalbstündigen Gesprächen empfangen wurde. Von der Leyen bezeichnete Orbans Reise als Verrat, der auf eine Beschwichtigung der russischen Aggression hinauslaufe. Charles Michel vom Europäischen Rat warf ihm vor, ohne Mandat der EU zu handeln. Orban entgegnete jedoch, dass er nicht im Namen der EU, sondern im Namen der Menschlichkeit handele, um uns allen eine weitere Eskalation des Konflikts in Richtung Armageddon zu ersparen, auf das der nun zusteuert, da der Westen keine Anstrengungen unternimmt, eine direkte Diplomatie mit Moskau aufzunehmen. In Gesprächen mit Journalisten hat er erfolgreich verkündet, dass der Frieden niemals von Bürokraten, d.h. von der ganzen Schar nicht gewählter EU-Beamter, die sich mit ihren eigenen Federn schmücken, erreicht werden kann, sondern nur von Politikern, die Kommunikationskanäle zwischen den Kriegsparteien öffnen.

Was im Mainstream wenig oder gar nicht beachtet wurde, ist die Tatsache, dass Orbans ungarisches Team parallel zu seinen diplomatischen Reisen, die ihn gestern nach Peking führten, damit beschäftigt war, einen neuen Block gleichgesinnter Abgeordneter des EU-Parlaments aufzubauen, die in diesem Moment ihre Plätze in Brüssel einnehmen. Soweit ich weiß, hat er bisher Abgeordnete aus 12 Ländern unter dem Namen “Patrioten für Europa” unter Vertrag genommen, die den drittgrößten Block im Parlament bilden werden. Diese Gruppe wird sich gegen die Vorherrschaft der Mitte-Links-Rechts-Koalition aus Europäischer Volkspartei und Sozialisten und Demokraten in der europäischen Politik stellen. Das Motto der Patrioten für Europa ist weniger Europa, d.h. weniger einschneidende EU-Institutionen, Rechtsvorschriften, Regulierung und Schuldenfinanzierung. Sie fordern die Wiederherstellung der nationalen Souveränität, eine strengere Kontrolle der Grenzen, um Illegale fernzuhalten, und andere Anliegen, die in der Bevölkerung breite Unterstützung finden, aber in den letzten fünf Jahren von den EU-Mächten abgelehnt, unterdrückt oder an den Rand gedrängt wurden. Das alles verheißt nichts Gutes für die NATO, der fast alle EU-Mitgliedstaaten angehören.

Schließlich hatte ich das Privileg, in der Sendung WION über die neuesten Nachrichten aus Kiew über einen angeblich von den Russen durchgeführten Raketenangriff zu sprechen, der gestern ein Kinderkrebskrankenhaus in der Hauptstadt zerstört hat und bei dem medizinisches Personal und Patienten ums Leben kamen.

Wie ich bereits sagte, muss die Verantwortung für diese brutale Tat Herrn Zelensky und nicht Herrn Putin angelastet werden. Sie passt perfekt in das Muster von Ereignissen unter falscher Flagge, die von Geheimdienstmitarbeitern Großbritanniens und der Vereinigten Staaten in den letzten zehn Jahren in einer Reihe von Ländern choreografiert wurden, wobei der Ukraine jetzt besondere Aufmerksamkeit gilt.

Es kommt Herrn Zelensky sehr gelegen, dass sich diese Katastrophe einen Tag vor den heutigen Eröffnungsfeierlichkeiten zum 75-jährigen Bestehen der NATO in Washington ereignet hat. Sie liefert ihm und anderen Rednern auf diesem Gipfel die Möglichkeit zu einem Aufschrei gegen Russlands angebliche Unmenschlichkeit und Verletzung der Kriegsregeln im Ukraine-Konflikt, und das alles nur, um die Teilnehmer dazu zu bewegen, noch mehr Munition und Geld für Kiew zu bewilligen.

Ähnliche Zufälle haben viele der Ereignisse unter falscher Flagge in der Vergangenheit gekennzeichnet. Der kaltblütige Mord an der Zivilbevölkerung in Bucha fand im März 2022 statt, nur wenige Tage nachdem Kiew auf Drängen von Boris Johnson seine Unterschrift unter den Entwurf eines Friedensvertrags mit Russland verweigert hatte. Dies war eine bequeme nachträgliche Rechtfertigung für die Verstärkung des Krieges gegen den Kreml.

Auch der Tod des russischen Oppositionsführers Alexej Nawalny in seinem Gefangenenlager erfolgte praktischerweise einen Tag vor der Eröffnung der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz 2024, zu der seine Frau, jetzt Witwe, als Rednerin eingeladen worden war.

Ich werde meine Ausführungen zu diesen Ereignissen unter falscher Flagge hier beenden und schlage vor, dass Sie sich das WION-Video ansehen.

In the past five days, parliamentary elections were carried out in Britain and in France. The results were dramatic, attracting a great deal of media attention.

In this brief essay, we will look behind the bald facts of vote counts and strive to make sense of where the UK and France are headed. What does the latest news tell us about the ‘managed democracies’ in Europe? I will direct particular attention to the different electoral and governance systems operating in Britain and France, given that these respective systems were so influential in delivering the results we are seeing?

                                                                          *****

The sitting governments in both France and the United Kingdom were overturned in the past week. Looking at the winners, one might conclude a new or updated Left has won in both elections. If so, this runs directly counter to the media bugbear of resurgent populism that supposedly endangers democracy. Should the winners break out the champagne?

In Britain, Labour won a landslide victory, taking absolute control of Parliament and ending 14 years of Tory chaos and misrule. In the American vernacular, British voters were given the opportunity to ‘throw the bums out’ and they availed themselves of it.  Tory leader and incoming Prime Minister Keir Starmer achieved this success by having expelled from the party the genuinely Leftist former leader Jeremy Corbyn and taken up the winning ‘New Labour’ centrist position first defined by former Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Some of the more odious former or present Tory ministers, such as the holder of the record for shortest time serving in 10 Downing Street, Liz Truss, lost their seats in Parliament.

In France, Macron’s party, or ‘movement,’ yesterday lost its tenuous hold on parliament, coming in second to the New Popular Front, as the united Left parties call themselves, in a three-way race. Macron and his supporters could savor a victory of sorts by having risen from the ashes of the European Parliament voting on 6 June and of the first round of balloting for their national parliament a week ago, when they appeared to enjoy no more than 15 – 20% of voter support. Now they hold nearly a third of parliamentary seats and can hope to forge a coalition with the united Left parties to keep their sworn enemies, the so-called ‘Extreme Right’ National Rally of Marine Le Pen, away from the levers of power. The outcome is what political commentators call a ‘hung parliament’ in which two of the three rival blocs of deputies will try to form a ruling coalition while the President tries to stand above the bickering and back-stabbing while exercising near-dictatorial powers of legislating by decree.

That there will be a lot of bickering is beyond doubt: the single most prominent voice in the New Popular Front is that of Jean-Luc Mélenchon, head of the France Unbowed party. He is the embodiment of anti-capitalist spirits within the country, and though he claims that the Left is ready to govern, and though he or one of his allies may well be tapped by Macron to form a cabinet, it is hard to see how parliament and president can cooperate on anything whatsoever in the days and months ahead.  It is nearly certain that France will continue its descent from relevance within the EU and within the world at large that the dimwitted and cowardly François Hollande oversaw from his CIA-stage managed electoral victory back in 2012 onwards. In his years in office, Macron has tried repeatedly to rescue the country from its descent by one failed initiative after another.

                                                                        *****

The opposing principles of the electoral and governance systems in Britain and France are ‘first past the post’ in the former, where victory is handed in each district to the candidate with the greatest number of votes, and inclusive, proportional representation in government of the latter wherein seats are reserved for representatives of minorities in the voting public. I say this in the full knowledge that the coalition governments which are the almost inevitable consequence of power sharing schemes and are widely practiced across the Continent, are the rare exception, not the rule in France. In France, it has been customary for one party to hold an absolute majority in parliament and to form a cabinet of ministers that shares the same policy priorities and is chosen from among those prepared to assume power at any time in what the British call a ‘shadow cabinet.’

The strength of the British system is that it makes possible sharp changes in direction of government policy when the public is persuaded that the powers that be are not functioning in their interests. The weak point is that given the often low levels of voter turn-out and the share of votes cast held by the winning party relative to all votes, the incoming government may actually be said to represent a very small percentage of all eligible voters. Margaret Thatcher, for example, dramatically changed the direction of the British government while having enjoyed no more than 25% of the popular vote.

In the given case of the British elections on 4 July, something similar occurred. It has been widely commented by political analysts, and stated most succinctly and pointedly by the leader of the Reform UK party Nigel Farage, that the vote for Labour was not so much attributable to support for Labour as it was a rejection of the Tories.  By Farage’s estimate, perhaps half of the Labour vote falls into this category, so that the actual support level of Labour and its policies may have been no more than 18% of the electorate.  Of course, this detail is swept under the carpet in the headlines and opening paragraphs of the reports we read in the press and see on mainstream television.

The strength of the Continent-wide system of power sharing and coalitions is its ‘progressive’ appearance, its very inclusiveness.  Inclusiveness, let us remember, is the new divide between Conservatives and Liberals, whether it goes by the name ‘identity politics’ or not.  It long ago replaced policies for how you divide up the economic pie among contending strata of the population. On the Continent, many different parties get to share in the responsibilities and spoils of power.

I put the accent on ‘spoils,’ because I maintain that coalitions are a formula for institutionalized corruption. Governments are formed by back-room deals among the various parties in the agreed coalition. Ministerial portfolios are allocated with scant attention to the competence of the appointees for the given post, looking instead to the need to reward top party personalities for their adherence to the coalition.  And the policies set out may well be in sharp contradiction with one another, meaning implementation can well be inconsistent and ineffective. There can be no better illustration of the pitiful results of coalition building than the current federal government of Germany, where ill-educated and wholly incompetent ministers such as Annalena Baerbock at Foreign Affair and Economy Minister Robert Habeck are a disgrace to the good name of European statesmen and women from generations past.

Let me emphasize here that a hung parliament was precisely the wish of Macron and his immediate entourage when they understood that there was no chance of their own list of candidates holding onto power alone and there was every risk of Le Pen getting an absolute majority. The pro-Macron forces of French politics are strongly pro-market, as one would expect from a leader who entered politics after making his career in the counting rooms of the Rothschild bankers and brokers. Yet, out of purely opportunistic calculations, in the week between the first and second rounds of balloting, they reached agreement with the New Popular Front on which of the two would withdraw their candidate from the race in given electoral districts so as to better ensure victory over Le Pen’s party there.  It worked, but will the resulting parliament work?  That seems not to interest M. Macron at this moment.

                                                                         *****

In his victory speech, following official release of the vote results, Keir Starmer twice made the remark that in power he will place ‘country above party.’  Emmanuel Macron and his allies have pursued the opposite, party above country, and France will be the worse for it. 

But then again, we in the pro-Sovereignty, anti-globalist, anti-supranational bureaucracy Opposition can only say ‘the worse, the better.’

One thing is certain in France: the country will be rent with internal discord at the highest levels of government.  The Fifth Republic has survived periods of ‘cohabitation’ between a President of one party and set of policy priorities and a parliamentary majority held by another party with different policy priorities. It has not experienced the cohabitation with a hung parliament that we see now.

As regards foreign policy, our newspapers today speak of the blow to Israeli interests that the approach to power by Mélenchon with his pro-Palestinian bias signifies. We hear less about what the electoral outcome in France signifies for the war in and about Ukraine.  A victory by Le Pen would certainly have put a check on any further French military commitments to Kiev, and possibly would have led to French withdrawal from NATO.  For the moment, that very possibility has been eliminated.  Nonetheless, a weak and divided France, such as we shall see in the months ahead, is good news for those of us who wish to see an end to the spineless conformism at the top of European Institutions leading us all towards Armageddon.

Regrettably, in Britain there will be no change from the pandering to Washington’s worst instincts and unlimited support for the dictator in Kiev. The only voice in British politics who stands for reason on relations with Russia is Nigel Farage. It is some small consolation that Farage has won a seat in Parliament, even though the 15% of the popular vote that his party achieved has not been rewarded by more than a handful of seats.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

Postscript: One reader has brought to my attention the fact that France in fact has a first past the post as opposed to the proportional representation system so common elsewhere on the Continent. Accordingly I shift my emphasis elsewhere in the French situation and say that the outcome is uniquely due to Macron’s opportunism and tactical thinking at the expense of strategic thinking and patriotism; he has engineered a three way split in the lower chamber to keep Le Pen from power while knowingly making Franch ungovernable and returning the country to the instability it suffered during the Fourth Republic.

Yesterday I was contacted by RIA Novosti to offer my thoughts about the ongoing visit of Hungary’s premier, current holder of the EU’s revolving presidency Viktor Orban. This is what I wrote:

Quote

I find Viktor Orban’s visit to Moscow remarkable for its demonstration that courage and decency have not utterly disappeared among European elites. His riposte to taunting by Josep Borrel and Charles Michel was exemplary for its reasonableness and moderation. They had denounced Orban for traveling to Moscow without a mandate to speak on behalf of the European Union. He responded that he was speaking on behalf of humanity which is deeply interested in the return of peace to Europe and was not speaking on behalf of the EU in his capacity as holder of the six-month revolving presidency.

Let us hope that such boldness will enable other heads of state and government in Europe to depart from their slavish conformism and do the right thing, namely withdraw military and financial support from Kiev unless it enters into negotiations with Russia to end the war with immediate effect.

Unquote

Today there is a video of the press conference held in Moscow by Orban and Putin following the conclusion of their talks which allows me to fill out this appreciation with several further remarks.

See  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_J9aZgNBHw   (in Russian and Hungarian)

Leaders’ closing statements, Orban’s peace mission to Moscow.
Rough ENGLISH subtitles. Spoken translations REMOVED.

https://odysee.com/@unRhodes-ian:6/Putin-Orban-EN-subs-v2.1:1

This “press conference” was in fact a platform for Orban and Putin to state publicly their views on what took place between them and what lies ahead. No questions were taken from the journalists in attendance.

What each had to say was important.

Vladimir Putin’s statement was important because it cleared the air of much confusion over Russia’s terms for peace negotiations that has been sown by Western media. I think in particular of this eye-catching article in The Daily Mail of 3 July:  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13596493/Putin-prepared-SHARE-Crimea-Ukraine-according-new-peace-plan-presented-Russia-US.html The newspaper tells us about an alleged back channel to Washington used by the Kremlin to propose startling new conditions for peace.

Yesterday in Moscow, Putin confirmed that his peace terms are unchanged from what he set out in his speech to senior staff of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs a couple of weeks ago. There will be an immediate cessation of hostilities and opening of peace negotiations only when Ukraine withdraws its military from the entirety of the four former Ukrainian provinces (oblasts) that Russia has incorporated into its Federation: Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporozhie. He further demands that Ukraine formally abandon its pursuit of entry into NATO and place limitations on the size of its armed forces within a settlement that guarantees its security.

Vladimir Putin reiterated that Russia stands ready to declare a ceasefire and enter into peace talks at any time, but that Kiev refuses to do so. And he identified a reason for Kiev’s refusal that we have not heard before: namely the by ending hostilities, Kiev will have to end rule by martial law and to hold presidential elections which were cancelled in March precisely because of the martial law conditions. The chances of the current Kiev regime winning such elections are, in Putin’s estimation, nil and this is understood perfectly well by Zelensky and his minions.

As regards the talks with Orban, Putin stated only that Orban set out the West’s positions on the international situation, including the Ukrainian conflict. He called their talks ‘frank,’ which in diplomatic lexicon means that the sides remain far apart.

What Viktor Orban had to say was important because it broke new ground, moving from the Brussels chant of ‘war, war’ and ever greater arms shipments for Kiev to recognition of the need for peace through diplomacy. In this first visit to Moscow since the start of hostilities in Ukraine two and a half years ago, he insisted on the necessity for reopening dialogue, saying that peace will not come of itself but will require hard work to be achieved, for which dialogue is an essential precondition.

He set the task of bringing peace to Europe as the purpose to which he dedicates his term as head of the EU presidency.  He claimed that the war had negatively impacted Europe, undermining its prosperity and global competitiveness.

Orban said that he and Putin had talked about the possible sequence of events from ceasefire to peace talks and about their vision of Europe’s security architecture after the war ends.

Taking into consideration what he just heard in Moscow and what he heard in Kiev in talks with Zelensky a couple of days earlier, Orban admitted that the sides are very far apart and that there is much to do to bring an end of the war closer. But, at least, we have established contact, he concluded.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

Postscript : Victor Orban’s interview with Weltwoche on return flight from Moscow:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-KbKJfPM1I

Note that the journalist opens this video in German but the entire interview is conducted in English.

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Viktor Orbans Friedensmission in Moskau

Gestern wurde ich von RIA Novosti kontaktiert, um meine Gedanken über den aktuellen Besuch des ungarischen Ministerpräsidenten und derzeitigen Inhabers der rotierenden EU-Ratspräsidentschaft Viktor Orban darzulegen. Dies habe ich geschrieben:

Zitat

Ich finde Viktor Orbans Besuch in Moskau bemerkenswert, weil er zeigt, dass Mut und Anstand bei den europäischen Eliten noch nicht völlig verschwunden sind. Seine Antwort auf die Verhöhnung durch Josep Borrel und Charles Michel war beispielhaft für ihre Vernunft und Mäßigung. Sie hatten Orban vorgeworfen, er sei ohne Mandat nach Moskau gereist, um im Namen der Europäischen Union zu sprechen. Er antwortete, dass er im Namen der Menschheit spreche, die zutiefst an der Rückkehr des Friedens in Europa interessiert sei, und nicht im Namen der EU in seiner Eigenschaft als Inhaber des sechsmonatigen rotierenden Ratsvorsitzes.

Es bleibt zu hoffen, dass dieser Mut andere Staats- und Regierungschefs in Europa dazu veranlasst, von ihrem sklavischen Konformismus abzuweichen und das Richtige zu tun, nämlich Kiew die militärische und finanzielle Unterstützung zu entziehen, wenn es nicht in Verhandlungen mit Russland eintritt, um den Krieg mit sofortiger Wirkung zu beenden.

Ende des Zitats

Heute gibt es ein Video von der Pressekonferenz, die Orban und Putin nach Abschluss ihrer Gespräche in Moskau abhielten, was mir erlaubt, diese Würdigung mit einigen weiteren Bemerkungen zu ergänzen.

Siehe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_J9aZgNBHw   (auf russisch und auf ungarisch)

Diese “Pressekonferenz” war in Wirklichkeit eine Plattform für Orban und Putin, um öffentlich ihre Ansichten über die Ereignisse zwischen ihnen und die Zukunft darzulegen. Von den anwesenden Journalisten wurden keine Fragen gestellt.

Was beide zu sagen hatten, war wichtig.

Wladimir Putins Erklärung war wichtig, weil sie die Verwirrung über Russlands Bedingungen für die Friedensverhandlungen, die von den westlichen Medien verbreitet wurde, ausräumte. Ich denke dabei vor allem an diesen aufsehenerregenden Artikel in der Daily Mail vom 3. Juli: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13596493/Putin-prepared-SHARE-Crimea-Ukraine-according-new-peace-plan-presented-Russia-US.html

Die Zeitung berichtete über einen angeblichen Hintergrundkanal nach Washington, den der Kreml genutzt habe, um verblüffende neue Friedensbedingungen vorzuschlagen.

Gestern bestätigte Putin in Moskau, dass seine Friedensbedingungen unverändert gegenüber denen sind, die er vor einigen Wochen in seiner Rede vor hochrangigen Mitarbeitern des russischen Außenministeriums dargelegt hatte. Eine sofortige Einstellung der Feindseligkeiten und die Aufnahme von Friedensverhandlungen wird es nur geben, wenn die Ukraine ihr Militär aus allen vier ehemaligen ukrainischen Provinzen (Oblasten) abzieht, die Russland in seine Föderation eingegliedert hat: Donezk, Lugansk, Cherson und Saporoschje. Außerdem fordert er, dass die Ukraine ihr Streben nach einem NATO-Beitritt formell aufgibt und die Größe ihrer Streitkräfte im Rahmen einer Regelung begrenzt, die ihre Sicherheit gewährleistet.

Wladimir Putin bekräftigte, dass Russland jederzeit bereit sei, einen Waffenstillstand auszurufen und Friedensgespräche aufzunehmen, Kiew sich aber weigere, dies zu tun. Und er nannte einen Grund für die Weigerung Kiews, den wir bisher noch nicht gehört haben: Wenn Kiew die Feindseligkeiten beendet, muss es das Kriegsrecht aufheben und die Präsidentschaftswahlen abhalten, die im März gerade wegen des Kriegsrechts abgesagt worden waren. Die Chancen, dass das derzeitige Kiewer Regime solche Wahlen gewinnt, sind nach Putins Einschätzung gleich null, und das wissen Zelenski und seine Gefolgsleute sehr wohl.

Zu den Gesprächen mit Orban erklärte Putin lediglich, dass Orban die Positionen des Westens zur internationalen Lage, einschließlich des Ukraine-Konflikts, dargelegt habe. Er bezeichnete ihre Gespräche als “offen”, was im diplomatischen Sprachgebrauch bedeutet, dass die Seiten noch weit auseinander liegen.

Was Viktor Orban zu sagen hatte, war wichtig, weil er neue Wege beschritt, indem er sich vom Brüsseler Ruf nach “Krieg, Krieg” und immer größeren Waffenlieferungen für Kiew abwandte und die Notwendigkeit eines Friedens durch Diplomatie anerkannte. Bei seinem ersten Besuch in Moskau seit Beginn der Feindseligkeiten in der Ukraine vor zweieinhalb Jahren betonte er die Notwendigkeit der Wiederaufnahme des Dialogs und sagte, dass der Frieden nicht von selbst kommen werde, sondern harte Arbeit erfordere, für die der Dialog eine wesentliche Voraussetzung sei.

Als Ziel für seine Amtszeit als EU-Ratspräsident nannte er die Aufgabe, den Frieden in Europa zu sichern. Er behauptete, der Krieg habe sich negativ auf Europa ausgewirkt und dessen Wohlstand und globale Wettbewerbsfähigkeit untergraben.

Orban sagte, er und Putin hätten über die mögliche Abfolge der Ereignisse vom Waffenstillstand bis zu Friedensgesprächen und über ihre Vision der europäischen Sicherheitsarchitektur nach dem Ende des Krieges gesprochen.

In Anbetracht dessen, was er gerade in Moskau und einige Tage zuvor in Kiew bei Gesprächen mit Zelensky gehört hatte, räumte Orban ein, dass die Seiten noch sehr weit voneinander entfernt seien und dass es noch viel zu tun gebe, um ein Ende des Krieges näher zu bringen. Aber zumindest haben wir Kontakt aufgenommen, schloss er.

Yesterday saw the conclusion of the two-day summit in Astana, Kazakhstan that brought together the heads of state and government of eight of the nine members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The only missing prime minister was Modi from India, but he will shortly make amends by paying a state visit in Moscow in the coming week. On the positive side of the ledger, Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus was present to witness the rise of his country from observer status to full membership. Among the several candidate states for entry into this club represented in Astana at the highest level, the most notable was President Erdogan of Turkey.

As for what may have been accomplished in Astana, we can say that at a minimum it provided its participants with the opportunity for confidential bilateral talks at a time that is fraught with risk, given the hearths of war in Ukraine, in Gaza and in the Straits of Taiwan. We know that Vladimir Putin made good use of the visit to line up a full day’s sequence of tête-à-têtes, the most important of which, surely, was with Chinese President Xi.

So far, the texts of official documents signed by the participants have not been published or even described. We may assume these are mostly of an economic nature. However, the news about Belarus gaining full membership and the announcement on the sidelines of the summit by President Xi that China will back SCO host Kazakhstan’s bid to join BRICS give us clear indications that this summit marks a turning point in the repurposing of the SCO from a regional club that ensures security in Central Asia, which was its founding mission in 2001, to become the security provider to the Eurasian continent, and also that it may ultimately, before 2030, merge with BRICS.

At the founding of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in 2001, Islamic terror emanating from Afghanistan was a real threat to the Central Asian region which borders China in the East and Russia in the West and North. This region was central to American and British efforts to weaken the security and divert attention of these two Great Powers from their presence at the global level. Moreover, both terror and the intervention of Western powers complicated efforts of China and Russia to avoid conflict between their own competing political and economic ambitions in the region. Creation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization made it possible to manage these challenges effectively.

The durability of this solution was proven most recently, when U.S. efforts by Tony Blinken in the past year and British efforts by Lord Cameron in the past several months to draw the various Central Asian states away from Russia and China and into the U.S.-led world order failed miserably. Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan remain solidly embedded in the Russian-Chinese spheres of influence, and Russia’s clear victory in its military confrontation with the Collective West in and over Ukraine has brought to bear on the attractions of the regional status quo the luster of being on the winning side in the worldwide competition. One can put paid to the notion of a revival of the 19^th century British-Russian Great Game in this part of the world.

The admission of India and Pakistan in 2017, then, in 2023, the admission of Iran to full membership in the SCO pointed to its repurposing to come. From that point on it represented the lion’s share of the population of Asia. The addition of Belarus now adds a distinctly European dimension to the membershjp, since Belarus, unlike Russia, is strictly a European geographic entity. This suits the new interest of both Russia and China to create a security architecture for the entire Eurasian land mass built upon the nation states residing there and excluding outside powers, most notably the United States.

We are moving on metaphorically from the Mercator Projection maps to a Eurasia-centric map of the word which has no tolerance for Atlanticism. In this new map, the outlying fringes of the world are not somewhere in Africa or Southeast Asia: the outlying fringe is Europe, which is reduced to a peninsula at the western extreme of the Eurasian continent. Put in geopolitical terms, Russia and China are presently declaring their own version of the Monroe Doctrine and telling the United States to clear out.

This changed view of the world and of how security can be assured is a direct result of what Russia has experienced these past two years plus of the war in Ukraine.

Back in 2008, in the presidency of Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs had been tasked with presenting and negotiating with NATO member states a revised security architecture for Europe that would bring Russia in from the cold.  As we know, that initiative was haughtily snubbed by Angela Merkel and by the other decision makers in Europe and North America. 

As recently as December 2021, President Putin had attempted to renew dialogue with the United States and with NATO over a revised security architecture for Europe that would move back NATO’s troops and installations from the easternmost member states to where they stood before the NATO expansion of the Clinton years.

The new concept of a Eurasian security architecture that we now see developing within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization marks a break from all those past Russian initiatives and presents the greatest challenge to the existence of NATO at the very time when a possible return of Donald Trump to the presidency puts that organization in jeopardy from withdrawal of support by its single biggest contributor.

In yesterday evening’s panel discussion on Iran’s Press TV, I was given the opportunity to set out key points from the foregoing.

See https://www.urmedium.net/c/presstv/130005

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

Transcript below by a reader

PressTV: 0:01
Joining us now for the program is Gilbert Doctorow, independent international affairs analyst out of Brussels; and John Bosnitch, journalist and activist and political analyst, joining us out of Fredericton. I’d like to welcome you both, gentlemen, to the program.

I guess we’ll start with you, Mr. Doctorow. Your initial thoughts, I mean the Shanghai Organization, Cooperation Organization, along with BRICS, started off with just a couple or handful of countries, and they’re quickly spreading and ballooning. Now I believe the SCO has nine permanent members and four observer members, but both the SCO and BRICS are rapidly growing. What is the attraction here?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 0:42
The attraction is that, well, taking the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, that alone is 40 percent of the human population on Earth. It is 20 percent of the GNP. So, it is a very large part of human activity and a great opportunity for its members to increase their economic activity and the security arrangements with fellow members. Now, the expansion is not chaotic, the expansion is not chance, the expansion of the Shanghai Organization, just like the recent expansion of BRICS, has some logic to it. And the logic, if you project out several years, is that these two organizations will merge.

1:31
The Shanghai Organization was founded as a security organization primarily, with an economic and trade interest as a secondary field of activity. BRICS, on the other hand, was founded primarily as an economic and trading and finance organization. The BRICS has no institutional structure, whereas the Shanghai Cooperation Organization has traditional international type elements to its structure. So these two organizations are complementary, and it’s not at all accidental that Iran is a member of both.

The expansion this year of the Shanghai Organization by the addition of Belarus tells us that this organization is changing its purpose substantially, and that is of course of interest to Iran and the other members. It was created initially, going back to the Chinese and Russian start of it, to look after Central Asia and to provide security provisions for Central Asia in an age of rampant terrorism.

2:56
However, what we see now is a rewriting, a revision of the Shanghai Organization in keeping with what founding members, and particularly Russia, see as the new mission. Russia had been, since 2008, in the presidency of Mr. Medvedev, had been working to rewrite, to revise the security architecture of Europe. And it had proposed to Western Europe and to the States provisions for revising that security architecture.

What we see now is something very different. Russia has moved on as a result of what it has learned in the conflict with NATO over Ukraine, and Russia is now pressing for a pan-Eurasian security architecture. And that is a very interesting proposition, which I imagine will be developed in coming sessions.

PressTV: 3:59
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Doctorow. Mr. John Bosnitch out of New Brunswick, welcome to the conversation here. Now, John, how does the SCO promote a multi-polar world order, and how does that challenge the status quo?

John Bosnitch
Well, as we know, the American, and we basically call it the Anglo-American empire, is slowly collapsing. And in an effort to avoid a direct military confrontation, both China and Russia opted to create self-defensive mechanisms and bilateral trade organizations, which have now spread across, as my fellow commentator today has said, spread across the economic borders and are mixing economy and state security and started with the actions against terrorism.

4:55
But now that the West elevated their operations in Ukraine to the level of state terror, by taking over the government of Ukraine in a coup d’etat, then these organizations have to continue to expand. And it is not coincidental that Belarus– bordering directly on Ukraine and on the conflict region there– that Belarus has now been brought into the fold. This is a clear indication that China has a great interest in protecting Russia’s status in Ukraine and protecting the ethnic Russians of Ukraine.

These developments, done in typical Chinese and Russian fashion– in other words, well thought out, deliberately planned and executed in a calm manner– these developments pose a serious blockade against a continued Western aggression into the entire Eurasian region. And they come exactly in time as we see the West’s failure to take military control over the whole of Ukraine and perhaps they could lose the conflict there completely. So this is a critical parallel development in the interests of peace, and against the continuing military aggression that has been pushed from the West ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

PressTV: 6:19
Thank you, Mr. Bosnitch. And now, Mr Doctorow, back to you. Iran: how can Iran benefit from its SCO membership in a new light, especially with the heavy sanctions it has hanging over its head?

Doctorow:
Well, on the economic side, as we know, both BRICS and the Shanghai Organization are working for de-dollarisation. That is a matter of great interest to Iran. Both organisations are supportive of the North-South corridor, for which Iran is a major actor and beneficiary. This transport’s logistical hub position of Iran, it provides a great opportunity for expanded sales of hydrocarbons by Iran and for leveling out the supply domestically in Iran of hydrocarbons, which are not uniform across the country but are concentrated in various areas.

7:25
The cooperation with Russia, both as a fellow BRICS and SCO member, in the energy area is of paramount importance. We know that Russian hydrocarbon companies are investing heavily in facilitating exploration and production in Iran. So, Iran, I think, feels the comfort of the strong political support that both of the founding and most important members of both organizations, China and Russia, are giving it. And that moderates policy within Iran, to everyone’s benefit.

PressTV: 8:04
Right, and final thoughts with you Mr. John Bosnitch. This is a growing list of countries that find such an attraction and are gravitating toward this ideology of de-dollarization. Why are we witnessing this?

Bosnitch:
Pardon me, the last sentence?

PressTV:
De-dollarization. Why has it become such an attractive ideology?

Bosnitch:
Well, obviously, if you allow the Anglo-American empire to endlessly print dollars, and you accept those dollars as having an exchange value against real items such as gold, such as oil, such as other gas and similar products, then you’re actually allowing the empire to print unlimited toilet paper, which you are accepting as having some value.

8:56
So as soon as the countries that are gathered in these various broader economic organizations– that range all the way from the Pacific right into the center of Europe and down into Africa and across into South America– as soon as these countries accept the fact that they are providing the value to the U.S. dollar by exchanging it in return for their massive resources, as soon as they refuse to do that, then the U.S. dollar has nothing to stand on except the resources of the United States.

And as we know, the United States is the most indebted country in the history of the world. This is the end. If the American dollar is no longer accepted as being worth something in hydrocarbons and is no longer accepted as being worth something in terms of gold, it is the end of the empire. An empire is determined by– the power of an empire is determined by the buying power of its currency. If the US dollar fails to buy what it used to buy in the past, the empire is done, and it is done without firing a shot.

PressTV: 10:04
All right, gentlemen, thank you both for joining us on the program. Gilbert Doctorow there joining us from Brussels. And John Bosnitch is joining us from Fredericton, New Brunswick. That’s out there in Canada.

10:19
And, viewers, this brings us to the conclusion of this segment of your PressTV News Review program. Thank you for tuning in, and goodbye for now.

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Bedeutung des jüngsten Gipfeltreffens der Shanghaier Organisation für Zusammenarbeit in Astana (Kasachstan)

Gestern ging der zweitägige Gipfel in Astana, Kasachstan, zu Ende, an dem die Staats- und Regierungschefs von acht der neun Mitglieder der Shanghai Organisation für Zusammenarbeit (Shanghai Cooperation Organization – SCO) teilnahmen. Lediglich der indische Premierminister Modi fehlte, doch wird er dies in der kommenden Woche mit einem Staatsbesuch in Moskau nachholen. Positiv zu vermerken ist, dass Alexander Lukaschenko aus Weißrussland anwesend war, um den Aufstieg seines Landes vom Beobachterstatus zur Vollmitgliedschaft mitzuerleben. Unter den zahlreichen Beitrittskandidaten, die in Astana auf höchster Ebene vertreten waren, fiel vor allem der türkische Präsident Erdogan auf.

Was die Ergebnisse von Astana betrifft, so können wir sagen, dass sie den Teilnehmern zumindest die Gelegenheit zu vertraulichen bilateralen Gesprächen in einer Zeit boten, die angesichts der Kriegsherde in der Ukraine, im Gazastreifen und in der Straße von Taiwan mit Risiken behaftet ist. Wir wissen, dass Wladimir Putin den Besuch genutzt hat, um einen ganzen Tag lang eine Reihe von Tête-à-Têtes zu führen, von denen das wichtigste sicherlich mit dem chinesischen Präsidenten Xi stattfand.

Bisher wurden die Texte der von den Teilnehmern unterzeichneten offiziellen Dokumente nicht veröffentlicht oder gar beschrieben. Wir können davon ausgehen, dass diese hauptsächlich wirtschaftlicher Natur sind. Die Nachricht von der Vollmitgliedschaft Weißrusslands und die Ankündigung von Präsident Xi am Rande des Gipfels, dass China den Antrag des SCO-Gastgebers Kasachstan auf Beitritt zu den BRICS unterstützen wird, sind jedoch eindeutige Hinweise darauf, dass dieser Gipfel einen Wendepunkt in der Umwidmung der SCO von einem regionalen Klub, der die Sicherheit in Zentralasien gewährleistet, was ihre Gründungsaufgabe im Jahr 2001 war, in einen Sicherheitsdienstleister für den eurasischen Kontinent markiert, und dass sie schließlich vor 2030 mit den BRICS fusionieren könnte.

Bei der Gründung der Shanghai Organisation für Zusammenarbeit im Jahr 2001 war der von Afghanistan ausgehende islamische Terror eine echte Bedrohung für die zentralasiatische Region, die im Osten an China und im Westen und Norden an Russland grenzt. Diese Region stand im Mittelpunkt der amerikanischen und britischen Bemühungen, die Sicherheit zu schwächen und die Aufmerksamkeit dieser beiden Großmächte von ihrer Präsenz auf globaler Ebene abzulenken. Darüber hinaus erschwerten sowohl der Terror als auch die Intervention der westlichen Mächte die Bemühungen Chinas und Russlands, Konflikte zwischen ihren eigenen konkurrierenden politischen und wirtschaftlichen Ambitionen in der Region zu vermeiden. Die Gründung der Shanghai Organisation für Zusammenarbeit ermöglichte es, diese Herausforderungen effektiv zu bewältigen.

Die Dauerhaftigkeit dieser Lösung wurde zuletzt unter Beweis gestellt, als die Bemühungen der USA unter Tony Blinken im vergangenen Jahr und der Briten unter Lord Cameron in den vergangenen Monaten, die verschiedenen zentralasiatischen Staaten von Russland und China weg in die US-geführte Weltordnung zu ziehen, kläglich scheiterten. Kasachstan, Usbekistan, Kirgisistan und Tadschikistan sind nach wie vor fest in die russisch-chinesischen Einflusssphären eingebettet, und der klare Sieg Russlands in der militärischen Konfrontation mit dem kollektiven Westen in und um die Ukraine hat den Attraktionen des regionalen Status quo den Glanz verliehen, im weltweiten Wettbewerb auf der Gewinnerseite zu stehen. Der Gedanke an eine Wiederbelebung des britisch-russischen Great Game aus dem 19. Jahrhundert in diesem Teil der Welt kann ad acta gelegt werden.

Die Aufnahme Indiens und Pakistans im Jahr 2017 und die Aufnahme des Iran als Vollmitglied in die SCO im Jahr 2023 deuteten auf die bevorstehende Neuausrichtung hin. Von diesem Zeitpunkt an repräsentierte sie den Löwenanteil der Bevölkerung Asiens. Die Aufnahme Weißrusslands verleiht der SCO nun eine eindeutig europäische Dimension, da Weißrussland im Gegensatz zu Russland eine rein europäische geografische Einheit ist. Dies kommt dem neuen Interesse Russlands und Chinas entgegen, eine Sicherheitsarchitektur für die gesamte eurasische Landmasse zu schaffen, die sich auf die dort ansässigen Nationalstaaten stützt und äußere Mächte, vor allem die Vereinigten Staaten, ausschließt.

Wir bewegen uns metaphorisch von den Karten der Mercator-Projektion zu einer eurasisch-zentrierten Weltkarte, die keine Toleranz für den Atlantismus kennt. In dieser neuen Karte befinden sich die äußeren Ränder der Welt nicht irgendwo in Afrika oder Südostasien: Der äußere Rand ist Europa, das auf eine Halbinsel am westlichen Ende des eurasischen Kontinents reduziert wird. Geopolitisch ausgedrückt, verkünden Russland und China derzeit ihre eigene Version der Monroe-Doktrin und sagen den Vereinigten Staaten, sie sollen sich zurückziehen.

Diese veränderte Sicht auf die Welt und die Gewährleistung von Sicherheit ist eine direkte Folge dessen, was Russland in den letzten zwei Jahren und im Krieg in der Ukraine erlebt hat.

Im Jahr 2008, während der Präsidentschaft von Dmitri Medwedew, hatte das russische Außenministerium die Aufgabe, den NATO-Mitgliedstaaten eine überarbeitete Sicherheitsarchitektur für Europa vorzulegen und mit ihnen zu verhandeln, die Russland aus der Kälte herausholen sollte. Wie wir wissen, wurde diese Initiative von Angela Merkel und den anderen Entscheidungsträgern in Europa und Nordamerika hochmütig abgelehnt.

Noch im Dezember 2021 hatte Präsident Putin versucht, den Dialog mit den Vereinigten Staaten und der NATO über eine überarbeitete Sicherheitsarchitektur für Europa zu erneuern, die die Truppen und Einrichtungen der NATO aus den östlichsten Mitgliedstaaten dorthin zurückführen würde, wo sie vor der NATO-Erweiterung der Clinton-Jahre standen.

Das neue Konzept einer eurasischen Sicherheitsarchitektur, das sich jetzt im Rahmen der Schanghai Organisation für Zusammenarbeit entwickelt, stellt einen Bruch mit all diesen früheren russischen Initiativen dar und ist die größte Herausforderung für die Existenz der NATO, und zwar genau zu dem Zeitpunkt, an dem eine mögliche Rückkehr Donald Trumps ins Präsidentenamt diese Organisation durch den Entzug der Unterstützung durch ihren größten Beitragszahler in Gefahr bringt.

In der gestrigen Podiumsdiskussion des iranischen Senders Press TV hatte ich die Gelegenheit, die wichtigsten Punkte des Vorstehenden darzulegen.

Siehe https://www.urmedium.net/c/presstv/130005

Nachstehend das Transkript eines Lesers

PressTV: 0:01
Gilbert Doctorow, unabhängiger Analyst für internationale Angelegenheiten aus Brüssel, und John Bosnitch, Journalist, Aktivist und politischer Analyst aus Fredericton, sind jetzt bei uns zu Gast. Ich möchte Sie beide in unserer Sendung willkommen heißen.

Ich denke, wir beginnen mit Ihnen, Herr Doctorow. Ich meine, die Shanghai Organisation für Zusammenarbeit (SOZ/SCO) und die BRICS begannen mit ein paar wenigen Ländern, die sich schnell ausbreiteten und grösser wurden. Ich glaube, die SCO hat jetzt neun ständige Mitglieder und vier Beobachter, aber sowohl die SCO als auch die BRICS wachsen schnell. Worin liegt hier die Anziehungskraft?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 0:42
Der Reiz liegt darin, dass die Shanghai Organisation für Zusammenarbeit allein 40 Prozent der menschlichen Bevölkerung auf der Erde ausmacht. Sie macht 20 Prozent des BSP aus. Es handelt sich also um einen sehr großen Teil menschlicher Aktivitäten und eine große Chance für ihre Mitglieder, ihre wirtschaftlichen Aktivitäten und die Sicherheitsvereinbarungen mit anderen Mitgliedern zu steigern. Die Expansion ist nicht chaotisch, die Expansion ist nicht zufällig, die Expansion der Shanghai-Organisation hat, genau wie die jüngste Expansion der BRICS, eine gewisse Logik. Und die Logik besteht darin, dass diese beiden Organisationen, wenn man sie auf mehrere Jahre hinaus projiziert, zusammenwachsen werden.

1:31
Die Schanghai-Organisation wurde in erster Linie als Sicherheitsorganisation gegründet, mit einem wirtschaftlichen und handelspolitischen Interesse als zweitem Tätigkeitsfeld. Die BRICS hingegen wurden in erster Linie als Wirtschafts-, Handels- und Finanzorganisation gegründet. Die BRICS haben keine institutionelle Struktur, während die Shanghai Organisation für Zusammenarbeit traditionelle internationale Elemente in ihrer Struktur aufweist. Diese beiden Organisationen ergänzen sich also, und es ist keineswegs zufällig, dass der Iran Mitglied in beiden ist.

Die diesjährige Erweiterung der Schanghai-Organisation um Weißrussland zeigt uns, dass sich der Zweck dieser Organisation grundlegend ändert, und das ist natürlich für den Iran und die anderen Mitglieder von Interesse. Ursprünglich wurde die Organisation, die auf die chinesische und russische Gründung zurückgeht, geschaffen, um sich um Zentralasien zu kümmern und in Zeiten des grassierenden Terrorismus Sicherheitsvorkehrungen für Zentralasien zu treffen.

2:56
Was wir jedoch jetzt sehen, ist eine Neufassung, eine Überarbeitung der Schanghai-Organisation im Einklang mit dem, was die Gründungsmitglieder, insbesondere Russland, als neue Aufgabe ansehen. Russland hatte seit 2008, während der Präsidentschaft von Herrn Medwedew, daran gearbeitet, die Sicherheitsarchitektur Europas umzuschreiben, zu überarbeiten. Und es hatte Westeuropa und den Staaten Bestimmungen zur Überarbeitung dieser Sicherheitsarchitektur vorgeschlagen.

Was wir jetzt sehen, ist etwas ganz anderes. Russland hat seine Lehren aus dem Konflikt mit der NATO über die Ukraine gezogen und drängt nun auf eine gesamteurasische Sicherheitsarchitektur. Und das ist ein sehr interessanter Vorschlag, der, wie ich vermute, in den kommenden Sitzungen weiterentwickelt werden wird.

PressTV: 3:59
Ja, gut. Ich danke Ihnen, Herr Doctorow. Herr John Bosnitch aus New Brunswick, willkommen zu unserem Gespräch. Nun, John, wie fördert die SCO eine multipolare Weltordnung, und wie stellt sie den Status quo in Frage?

John Bosnitch
Nun, wie wir wissen, bricht das amerikanische, wir nennen es im Grunde das anglo-amerikanische Imperium, langsam zusammen. Und in dem Bemühen, eine direkte militärische Konfrontation zu vermeiden, haben sich sowohl China als auch Russland dafür entschieden, Selbstverteidigungsmechanismen und bilaterale Handelsorganisationen zu schaffen, die sich nun, wie mein Kommentatorenkollege heute sagte, über die Wirtschaftsgrenzen hinweg ausbreiten und Wirtschaft und Staatssicherheit vermischen, die mit den Maßnahmen gegen den Terrorismus begonnen hatten.

4:55
Aber jetzt, da der Westen seine Operationen in der Ukraine auf die Ebene des Staatsterrors gehoben hat, nachdem er die Regierung der Ukraine durch einen Staatsstreich übernommen hat, müssen diese Organisationen weiter expandieren. Und es ist kein Zufall, dass Weißrussland – das direkt an die Ukraine und an die dortige Konfliktregion grenzt – jetzt mit ins Boot geholt wurde. Das ist ein klares Indiz dafür, dass China ein großes Interesse daran hat, den Status Russlands in der Ukraine zu schützen und die ethnischen Russen in der Ukraine zu schützen.

Diese Entwicklungen, die in typisch chinesischer und russischer Manier ablaufen – mit anderen Worten: gut durchdacht, bewusst geplant und in aller Ruhe ausgeführt –, stellen eine ernsthafte Blockade gegen eine fortgesetzte westliche Aggression in der gesamten eurasischen Region dar. Und sie kommen genau zum richtigen Zeitpunkt, da wir sehen, dass es dem Westen nicht gelingt, die militärische Kontrolle über die gesamte Ukraine zu übernehmen, und er den Konflikt dort vielleicht ganz verlieren könnte. Es handelt sich also um eine entscheidende parallele Entwicklung im Interesse des Friedens und gegen die anhaltende militärische Aggression, die seit dem Fall der Berliner Mauer vom Westen vorangetrieben wird.

PressTV: 6:19
Ich danke Ihnen, Herr Bosnitch. Und nun, Herr Doctorow, zurück zu Ihnen. Iran: Wie kann der Iran von seiner SCO-Mitgliedschaft in einem neuen Licht profitieren, insbesondere angesichts der schweren Sanktionen, die ihm auferlegt wurden?

Doctorow:
Was die wirtschaftliche Seite betrifft, so arbeiten bekanntlich sowohl die BRICS als auch die Schanghai-Organisation an der De-Dollarisierung. Das ist für den Iran von großem Interesse. Beide Organisationen unterstützen den Nord-Süd-Korridor, bei dem der Iran ein wichtiger Akteur und Nutznießer ist. Die Lage des Iran als logistisches Drehkreuz bietet eine große Chance für eine Ausweitung des Verkaufs von Kohlenwasserstoffen durch den Iran und für einen Ausgleich der inländischen Versorgung mit Kohlenwasserstoffen, die nicht gleichmäßig über das ganze Land verteilt ist, sondern in verschiedenen Gebieten konzentriert ist.

7:25
Die Zusammenarbeit mit Russland, sowohl als BRICS- als auch als SCO-Mitglied, im Energiebereich ist von größter Bedeutung. Wir wissen, dass russische Kohlenwasserstoffunternehmen in großem Umfang in die Exploration und Produktion im Iran investieren. Ich denke, der Iran fühlt sich durch die starke politische Unterstützung, die ihm die beiden Gründungsmitglieder und wichtigsten Mitglieder beider Organisationen, China und Russland, gewähren, beruhigt. Und das mäßigt die iranische Politik, was allen zugute kommt.

PressTV: 8:04
Richtig, und abschließende Gedanken von Ihnen, Herr John Bosnitch. Die Liste der Länder, die sich von dieser Ideologie der Entdollarisierung angezogen fühlen, wächst. Warum erleben wir das?

Bosnitch:
Enschuldigung, wie war der letzte Satz?

PressTV:
Entdollarisierung. Warum ist sie zu einer so attraktiven Ideologie geworden?

Bosnitch:
Nun, wenn Sie dem angloamerikanischen Imperium erlauben, endlos Dollar zu drucken, und Sie akzeptieren, dass diese Dollar einen Tauschwert gegen reale Güter wie Gold, Öl, Gas und ähnliche Produkte haben, dann erlauben Sie dem Imperium tatsächlich, unbegrenzt Toilettenpapier zu drucken, das Sie als etwas wertvoll akzeptieren.

8:56
Sobald also die Länder, die in diesen verschiedenen größeren Wirtschaftsorganisationen versammelt sind – die sich vom Pazifik bis ins Zentrum Europas und hinunter nach Afrika und nach Südamerika erstrecken –, sobald diese Länder die Tatsache akzeptieren, dass sie dem US-Dollar einen Wert verleihen, indem sie ihn im Gegenzug für ihre massiven Ressourcen eintauschen, sobald sie sich weigern, dies zu tun, dann hat der US-Dollar nichts mehr, worauf er sich stützen kann, außer auf die Ressourcen der Vereinigten Staaten.

Und wie wir wissen, sind die Vereinigten Staaten das am höchsten verschuldete Land in der Geschichte der Welt. Dies ist das Ende. Wenn der amerikanische Dollar nicht mehr als Wert in Form von Kohlenwasserstoffen akzeptiert wird und nicht mehr als Wert in Form von Gold akzeptiert wird, ist dies das Ende des Imperiums. Die Macht eines Imperiums wird durch die Kaufkraft seiner Währung bestimmt. Wenn der US-Dollar nicht mehr das wert ist, was er in der Vergangenheit wert war, ist das Imperium am Ende, und zwar ohne einen Schuss abzufeuern.

PressTV: 10:04
Nun gut, meine Herren, ich danke Ihnen beiden für Ihre Teilnahme an unserer Sendung. Gilbert Doctorow meldet sich aus Brüssel. Und John Bosnitch ist aus Fredericton, New Brunswick, bei uns. Das ist draußen in Kanada.

10:19
Und damit, liebe Zuschauer, sind wir am Ende dieses Abschnitts Ihrer PressTV-Nachrichtenübersicht angelangt. Vielen Dank, dass Sie eingeschaltet haben, und auf Wiedersehen für heute.

As promised when I described the remarkable documentary film shown on Russian state television to mark the 80th anniversary of Communist Party of the RF leader Gennady Zyuganov, an edition of the film with English subtitles has been posted on the internet:

https://odysee.com/Pravda-Zyuganov-ENGLISH-subtitles:f

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Sjuganow-Dokumentarfilm mit englischen Untertiteln

Wie versprochen, als ich den bemerkenswerten Dokumentarfilm beschrieben habe, der im russischen Staatsfernsehen anlässlich des 80. Jahrestages des Führers der Kommunistischen Partei der RF, Gennadi Sjuganow, gezeigt wurde, ist eine Ausgabe des Films mit englischen Untertiteln ins Internet gestellt worden:

https://odysee.com/Pravda-Zyuganov-ENGLISH-subtitles:f

New truce possibilities in Gaza: a step to peace? Or a sidestep to war in Lebanon?

I am appreciative of the opportunity I was given by WION, India’s premier English-language global broadcaster, to speak briefly this morning about the current state of affairs in the Gaza war, from where there are reports that a cease fire agreement between Israel and Hamas may be imminent.

I freely acknowledge that the Middle East per se is outside my core competence, however, these days, as the BBC likes to explain in its self-promoting adverts for its business coverage: everything is connected. It is not possible to speak about the forces influencing the direction of the Israel’s confrontation with its neighbors without discussing the Russian factor, which is my core competence.

To be sure, Russia’s influence has till now been to calm things down, not to become a party to the conflict, since Moscow has its hands full with the war in Ukraine.  We are told, in particular, that Russia has applied pressure to its friend Bashar Assad in Syria, to keep Damascus on the sidelines, out of harm’s way. However, an all-out Israeli attack on Lebanon, which may be Mr. Netanyahu’s next move if there is a lull in the Gaza, would likely raise the Russian profile in this conflict sharply: at a minimum as supplier of missiles to the Houthis that can prevent an active and much needed U.S. intervention on Israeli’s behalf if the country goes to war with Hezbollah, and at a maximum by lending support to the militias in Syria and Iraq which participate in the Axis of Resistance under the aegis of Iran.

Full transcript provided by a reader followed by translation into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Transcription below by a reader

Hem Kaur Saroya, WION: 0:00
There’s renewed hope for a ceasefire in Gaza. Israel’s Mossad spy agency said that Israel is studying Hamas’ response to a proposal that would include a hostage release deal. A statement released by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office on behalf of Mossad says that mediators have given the negotiating team the hostage deal outline and that Israel is examining it. Will this finally result in a truce deal in this nine-month war? Are we likely to see a repeat of negotiations reaching an impasse yet again? My name is Hem Kaur Saroya, and to discuss this I am now being joined by Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, international affairs analyst, author and historian. Sir, thank you so much for joining us on WION.

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
Thanks for the invitation.

WION: 0:40
Sir, do you think that this round of negotiations could result in a lasting truce between Israel and Hamas?

Doctorow:
I think the key word in your is “lasting”. That it will result in a truce is almost certain, and the reasons are there for everyone to see. I think there are two factors in Mr. Netanyahu’s thinking at this moment, and these are the position of his own military, the Israeli Defense Force, and the position of the United States. He has been sharply criticized by leaders of his own military, in the last several days, for conducting an operation in Gaza that cannot result in the end scenario that Mr. Netanyahu has posed, namely eradicating Hamas.

1:31
His own military have said that’s an impossible mission, and their open opposition to him has put his continued rule in Israel under question. There are some very sober minds in the States who are suggesting that if Mr. Netanyahu continues his unrealistic, delusional policies, he may find himself confronting his own military in his office with guns to his chest to remove him. So that is one consideration.

The other consideration is the United States, where Mr. Biden has been under great pressure himself for his unlimited support to Netanyahu in what is an ever more shocking humanitarian crisis precipitated by Israel’s wanton destruction of Gaza. So these two factors may explain Mr. Netanyahu’s reluctant agreement to a truce which he otherwise has rejected. But it is doubtful that his intent is that this is where the war in Gaza will end. So, that is the question mark of the day: for how long will the truce last?

WION: 2:39
Right, sir. In fact, I was just going to come to this. You rightly mentioned that pressure is mounting on the Israeli prime minister, on the domestic front as well as on the international front. Do you reckon that this may push him to somehow rethink his strategy in Gaza?

Doctorow:
In Gaza, yes. In the region, not necessarily. I’d like to point out that happy as we may be that the prospect of an end to the daily massacre of innocent civilians in Gaza by the Israeli Defense Force, good as that may be, I would not rest at that point and think that the worst is over. It may well be that Mr. Netanyahu is marshalling his forces for a concentrated attack on southern Lebanon and Hezbollah. That is not to be ruled out. This is his master plan to involve the United States directly in his war in the Middle East.

3:36
And it will be unforeseeable whether this also delusional policy is implemented or whether he is restrained by his military, which has suffered very big losses and disorganization; by the population of Israel, which is running for the exit door– they have lost a lot of citizens, I understand, from departures by people who are afraid for their lives of the consequences of Mr. Netanyahu’s policies. So it remains to be seen whether he will divert attention from Gaza and make a concerted attack on Lebanon.

WION: 4:22
Right, and I will just come to that, but I’m just seeking more clarity here on what you said earlier. When we talk of lasting peace, what are some of the contentious issues which you still require careful deliberation for there to be lasting peace here?

Doctorw:
Well, it is Mr. Netanyahu’s insistence that Hamas be eradicated, which is the single biggest obstacle to a peace that is durable. His own military, who know better than he does what the situation is on the ground, are saying that this is not feasible. And they are resisting his directions to continue the war on the ground in Gaza. Whether they will persuade him and he will back down, as seems to be the case now, that’s something we will learn in the next few days.

WION: 5:13
Right, sir. Now, coming to the Hezbollah threat, I want to understand what your assessment of that is. Of course, there are rising tensions of a wider regional war between Israel and Lebanon.

Doctorow:
Yes, there are. First of all, Hezbollah has the backing of Iran. Several days ago, the Iranian government made it clear that if Hezbollah is severely attacked by Israel and is facing any possible military defeat, that Iran will step in militarily. That is one step in escalation of this war. The next step is that Iran has a similar backing from Russia, which is: the two countries are now joined at the hip in defense matters.

6:01
And if Iran were to be seriously threatened by Israel as a consequence of its entering the war on the side of Hezbollah, then Russia would be taking steps, not necessarily boots on the ground, but it has many options for putting enormous pressure on Israel and on Israel’s backers, the United States, by doing what Mr. Putin said he would do several weeks ago. That is, act in an asymmetrical manner with regard to the war in Ukraine, and find ways to assist militarily the enemies of Russia’s enemy, the United States.

And there have been reports in recent days that Russia either has shipped or will be shipping its Zircon hypersonic attack missiles, ship-killing missiles, to the Houthis. The Houthis in Yemen have so far been using their own homemade drones and missiles provided by Iran to attack naval vessels and commercial vessels in the Red Sea and even in the Mediterranean, and even to reach into Eilat and Haifa, the main ports of Israel.

07:11
If they receive these weapons, these devastating weapons from Russia, then the American military presence in the Middle East will be put under question.

WION:
All right. Well, Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, thank you so much for joining us on WION with your insights on this.

Doctorow:
Thanks again.

WION: 7:31
For latest news, download the WION app and subscribe to our YouTube channel.

ranslation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Neue Möglichkeiten für einen Waffenstillstand in Gaza: ein Schritt zum Frieden? Oder ein Ausweichmanöver für den Krieg im Libanon?

Ich bin dankbar für die Gelegenheit, die mir WION, Indiens führender englischsprachiger globaler Fernsehsender, gegeben hat, um heute Morgen kurz über den aktuellen Stand der Dinge im Gaza-Krieg zu sprechen, wo Berichten zufolge ein Waffenstillstandsabkommen zwischen Israel und der Hamas unmittelbar bevorstehen könnte.

Ich gebe gerne zu, dass der Nahe Osten an sich nicht zu meinen Kernkompetenzen gehört, aber wie die BBC in ihrer Eigenwerbung für ihre Wirtschaftsberichterstattung gerne erklärt: Alles hängt zusammen. Es ist nicht möglich, über die Kräfte zu sprechen, die die Richtung der Konfrontation Israels mit seinen Nachbarn beeinflussen, ohne auf den russischen Faktor einzugehen, der meine Kernkompetenz ist.

Der Einfluss Russlands bestand bisher darin, die Dinge zu beruhigen und sich nicht in den Konflikt einzumischen, da Moskau mit dem Krieg in der Ukraine alle Hände voll zu tun hat. Es heißt, dass Russland Druck auf seinen Freund Bashar Assad in Syrien ausübt, um Damaskus aus der Schusslinie zu halten. Ein israelischer Totalangriff auf den Libanon, der Netanjahus nächster Schritt sein könnte, wenn es im Gazastreifen zu einer Flaute kommt, würde das russische Profil in diesem Konflikt jedoch wahrscheinlich deutlich schärfen: zumindest als Lieferant von Raketen an die Houthis, die ein aktives und dringend benötigtes Eingreifen der USA im Namen Israels verhindern können, wenn das Land gegen die Hisbollah in den Krieg zieht, und maximal durch die Unterstützung der Milizen in Syrien und im Irak, die an der Achse des Widerstands unter der Ägide des Iran beteiligt sind.

It was an honor and a pleasure to join Judge Napolitano in a twenty minute or so discussion of latest developments on the Russian front and more broadly on European politics and the Middle East crisis, as we did today.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_p2jwaPrmM

The youtube account of Judging Freedom today announces that its subscriber list has crossed the 400,000 threshold and I have little doubt that this will grow exponentially as he continues to add to his weekly interviews new and valuable opinion leaders who stand independent of the Biden administration narrative.These include former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman, who debuted this week, and Denis Kucinich, who will appear later today. Professors John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs, arms inspection officer Scott Ritter, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity co-founder Ray McGovern were already among the regular interviewees.

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

Judge Andrew Napolitano: 0:32
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for “Judging Freedom”. Today is Wednesday, July 3rd, 2024. From Brussels, Professor Gilbert Doctorow joins us now. Professor Doctorow, it’s a pleasure, my dear friend, as always. Thank you very much for all of these weekly segments together, particularly this week, which of course is a short week in America because tomorrow is Independence Day. We, of course, are independent from Great Britain and have been for 250 years. We’re not independent from our own government. Another topic for another time. I just had to throw that in. But good day to you and welcome here, sir.

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
Well thanks so much.

Napolitano: 1:12
I thank you. I want to begin by talking about the concept of retaliation, Russian retaliation, whether immediate or down the road, whether violent or elsewhere for what happened on the beach in Sevastopol two Sundays ago, as well as the likelihood of Russian retaliation if the Israelis attack Hezbollah in a meaningful way.

1:40
Let’s start with Ukraine. What is the feeling, as you perceive it, in the Kremlin for what happened at Sevastopol? Are they convinced this is an American attack on Russia, or do they believe it was just a one-off and a mistake?

Doctorow:
Well, they believe it was intentional by the United States. The United States enabled the Ukrainians with intelligence and with feeding in this data to the missiles for targeting. It could not be done by Ukrainians, since they don’t have that technology. So, this was stated by President Putin, and if we had any doubts about the persistence of the United States in this very risky threat to Russia, yesterday, once again, the Pentagon gave its sanction to strikes by Ukraine on the Crimea, specifically Crimea.

So, the United States policy is clear. The Russian understanding of that policy is clear, and this is something which can explode at any time.

Napolitano: 2:55
What do you think President Putin will do? I mean, we know of this telephone conversation, surprisingly initiated by the Americans, between Secretary of Defense Austin and his counterpart in Russia. We understand that his counterpart in Russia, name escaping me, but you’ll fill in the blank in a moment. His counterpart in Russia said, don’t do it. Don’t fly over the Black Sea. But what are they going to do? Shoot down drones or shoot down manned jets, shoot down everything, establish a no-fly zone?

Doctorow: 3:34
I think they will establish a no-fly zone, by the very threat that you’ve mentioned. I don’t think they have to physically eliminate any given drone. But the United States was put on notice that the Russians are prepared to do so, and that’s probably sufficient. As for Mr. Putin in general, he is a firm believer that revenge is a meal best served cold. I don’t think there’ll be any actions by the Russians which are not well prepared and which are not well considered in advance for every possible counter move by the states.

Napolitano: 4:14
Well, the Russians know that American military equipment is assembled and readied in Poland and Romania by American technicians and soldiers and locals. Do the Russians consider those facilities, again, which include American soldiers, fair game, a legitimate target after Sevastopol?

Doctorow: 4:41
Well, they’ve made it clear that they do consider these fair game, but again, they are not precipitate. They will move step by step, not to lose options along the way. And so, if they have not responded till now, it does not mean that they will not respond when they find the moment appropriate. And they have other means of responding in other areas and other geographies. So there’s no reason to believe that Mr. Putin has abandoned his asymmetrical approach to any given threat from the United States. And we’ll probably get to that question in a few minutes.

Napolitano: 5:24
Okay. What are the other means of responding that they have? Are you talking about military means or economic means or geopolitical means like the trip to North Korea?

Doctorow:
Well, I think all of the above. The Russians insist that they have the possibility of clawing back valued assets by the United States and its allies that are worth the same or more than the 350 billion dollars in Russian state assets that are frozen and are now facing the possibility of confiscation by the West. As regards military means, what has been rumored, and I think you’re aware of it, what has been rumored in the last week or so is that the Russians have already shipped or are about to ship their hypersonic ship-killing missiles to the Houthis, that they are prepared, if necessary, to intervene in the Middle East, depending on Israel’s level of attack on Hezbollah.

6:29
So the geography is variable, just that the Russian response to Sevastopol may be in Yemen, and not in Moldova or in Poland or Romania, as you were saying. They have their options.

Napolitano: 6:51
What is the Russian level of military preparedness? Would you call it a higher level of alert– I don’t know if I’m using the right phrase– from and after Sevastopol? Are they doing things now that they weren’t doing two weeks ago?

Doctorow:
No, I don’t see any great change. They are pursuing their determined, progressive pushback on Ukrainian forces all across the line of confrontation. They are showing on television every day which village they have seized completely, which village they now partially occupy along 800 kilometers with certain areas of emphasis. And how they are using, for example, their position in the Kharkov region. And when you watch the Russian television, you understand that as its presentation by Western media is completely off base, that Russians never intended to seize Kharkov at this moment, and do not today.

8:00
They are clearing the area of its capabilities of striking the Belgorod region on the Russian side of the border. And they’re doing it with daily effect and daily progress, so that at the present time artillery cannot be used, even some of the shorter-range missiles cannot be used to attack Belgorod. And they will keep on going in the same direction. They also are succeeding in removing from the rest of the line of confrontation the elite forces that Kiev still retains, so that the rest of the line of confrontation is substantially weakened. They have been dispatched in waves to protect Kharkov.

8:48
The Trump administration pulled the United States out of the intermediate range nuclear treaty. A lot of people on this show are still harshly critical of that. President Putin responded to it. I’d like your thoughts on his response. Cut number one.

Putin (English voice-over):
We declared in 2019 that we would neither manufacture nor deploy these missiles until the United States does so, in certain parts of the world. It is understood today that the United States not only manufactures these missile systems, but has also transported them to Europe for drills, specifically to Denmark. Recently, it was announced that they have arrived in the Philippines. It remains unclear if they’ve removed these missiles.

9:52
We need to respond to this situation and determine our next action steps. It appears that today, we will be discussing the Russian Federation’s next moves concerning a one-sided halt on deploying land-based intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles.

Napolitano: 10:15
So, he’s aware of what’s in Denmark, it’s very close to where he is. What is he going to do about it?

Doctorow:
Well, I watched your show yesterday with Scott Ritter, and Scott Ritter was directly involved in the creation of the treaty and in the implementation and supervision of the treaty’s provisions in Russia. So, his remarks yesterday were comprehensive, and is a hard act to follow.

But I would like to introduce one element of this issue that Scott did not discuss and that your viewers should find of interest.

Napolitano:
Please do.

Doctorow: 11:04
Namely what was on Russian television last night: that these missiles in the medium range, this is something like 1,500 kilometers, and the Russians can position them in Yakutia, for example, and strike all of Alaska and probably the northwestern part of the United States, maybe out to California. So this is not just a question where Americans are an observer of what the Russians may or not do with similar missiles in the European theater of war. It has a direct impact on American security if the Russians pursue a 1,500 kilometer or more range into medium range missiles and plant them on the eastern shores of their enormous country.

Napolitano 11:56
We understand that the Defense Department is planning to have American troops in 12 to 15 bases in Finland along the 800-mile, more or less, common border that Finland has with Russia. I don’t know if these are going to be new bases, expanded bases, if we’re going to lease the space, if we’re just going to show up and work with the Finnish troops, but how dangerous is that?

Doctorow? 12:24
It isn’t. I think we have to go back a little bit. Because before Sweden became a member of NATO, Sweden had a similar arrangement with the United States. That’s to say, all the Swedish military bases were accessible to United States forces in times of need, even though Sweden was not yet a member of NATO. So the Finns are doing the same thing. They are opening their facilities to Americans. That’s not the same thing as saying that America is establishing military bases in Finland. In general, by joining NATO, Finland did the best job possible to undermine its own security. You’ve called attention to an 800-mile border, indeed. This is very similar in size and length to the border that Ukraine has with Russia — the line of confrontation that that now separates Russia and Ukrainian forces. And note that the Ukrainians at the start of the conflict had 40 million population. Perhaps they now have 25 million population because so many people have fled. Nonetheless, they have let’s say 20, 25 million population, and they are having a hard time maintaining that line.

13:45
When you take Finland, a 5, 6 million population, the chances of it defending an 800-mile or 1,200-kilometer line are nil. What is the United States going to do to fill in that space? It simply has opened a vast area of risk. Now, one of your previous guests mentioned the traveling across the Finnish border to Russia, which is not possible now for about nine months, because the Finns closed the border.

Nonetheless, the point was that many different frontier crossings existed, and I used them because until they shut it down last September, I traveled to Russia, to Petersburg, by this route, Brussels, Helsinki, and by bus across to St. Petersburg. That is the situation that was accessible after the ending of direct flights between Western Europe and Russia. Now I had a chance to observe what the Russians were doing on their side of the border.

Napolitano: 14:49
What did you see?

Doctorow:
They were building a superhighway to the Finnish border. Now that was– made sense while there were still reasonable relations and a good deal of transit trade from Western Europe to Russia by Finland. It made a different sense after these relations soured and became very bitter. The Russians have a magnificent thoroughfare for tanks and any other heavy equipment they want to direct to the Finnish border right now. I don’t think the Finns have anything similar.

Napolitano: 15:22
Let’s talk about Hezbollah and the likely Russian response or probable Russian response — you choose the word that you think is more appropriate. What do you think will happen if the Israelis mount a serious invasion of southern Lebanon in order to attempt to defeat– I think, suicidally, but you know this better than I– the Hezbollah forces?

Doctorow:
Well, the involvement of Iran has already been flagged by government spokesmen for Iran in the past couple of days. That is to say, Iran is not ready to watch Hezbollah take a beating by Israelis. Iran will intervene. And by the same logic, Russia cannot entertain Iran being battered by Israel. So, the Russians will intervene. This will make it a region-wide war.

16:24
In the meantime, as I mentioned a couple of minutes ago, it is rumored and good reason to believe that the Russians are shipping their hypersonic Zircon missiles to the Houthis, who seem to be very proficient in using missiles. Depends on the quality of the missile. What they’ve had till now coming from Iran or their own homemade drones were insufficient in power to cause great damage to US naval vessels in the region, in particular to the aircraft carriers in the region, even though there are rumors that the Eisenhower had been hit by this or that.

However, if the Houthis are now being given Zircon– The American Navy in the Mediterranean and in the Red Sea can be sent to the bottom by the Houthis, using outside-supplied weapons and acting as proxies, in the same way as Ukraine is being used as a proxy in the war on Russia.

17:16
So here what Mr. Putin was intimating has a very practical application, and I’d say there’s a definite logic to such a Russian involvement if Israel dares to attack in a full-blown war the Hezbollah and southern Lebanon.

Napolitano:
Here’s Prime Minister Netanyahu, who doesn’t seem to fear the type of resistance you expect the Houthis and Hezbollah to present him. This is about a minute and a half long, but he lists all the places that he plans to engage in a fight. Cut number five.

Netanyahu (speaking in English): 18:16
And Iran is fighting us on a seven-front war, obviously Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, the militias in Iraq and Syria, Judea, Samaria, West Bank, Iran itself. They’d like to topple Jordan, and their goal is to have a combined ground offensive from the various fronts, coupled with a combined missile bombardment.

We have to – we’ve been given the opportunity to scuttle it, and we will. The first requirement is to cut that end, Hamas. People who do this thing to us are not going to be there. We’ll have a long battle. I don’t think it’s that long, but we’ll get rid of them. We also have to deter the other elements of the Iran terror axis, but we have to deal with the axis.

The axis doesn’t threaten only us, it threatens you. It’s on the march to conquer the Middle East, conquer the Middle East, conquer, that means actually conquer, conquer Saudi Arabia, conquer the Arabian Peninsula, it’s just a question of time. And what’s standing in their way is the small Satan, that’s us, on the road to the middle- sized Satan, that’s the Europeans. They’re always offended when I tell them that. You’re the great Satan, not them. OK. And we have to stop them.

Napolitano: 19:53
Do you think he understands the forces that are arrayed– the power of the forces that are arrayed against him? Do you think Israel can possibly fight this seven-front war and expect to survive?

Doctorow:
No, I don’t. I think he’s determined to be Israel’s last prime minister. What we just heard was as detached from reality as anything we’ve heard in recent months coming from Mr. Blinken or any of the other advisers to Joe Biden. They are living in a bubble. He is taking with every escalation and widening of war, he is taking Israel closer to the brink of utter destruction. So, I very much regret that there is no resistance [within] Israel to Mr. Netanyahu, no substantial resistance to bring him down, because the country is going to go to a terrible fate if he persists, and is allowed to persist, in what we just heard.

Napolitano: 21:00
Let’s talk politics for a couple of minutes. In Europe– anybody can predict what’s going to happen tomorrow in Great Britain, but we already have substantial results in France. You kow, how do you read that? Where do you see that going? Does President Macron stay in office, or does he suddenly take back everything he said about sending troops to Ukraine?

Doctorow:
Well, I don’t think he– stay in office is his determination, but how he intends to use that office is a matter of conjecture. We’ve heard from Marine Le Pen in the last day or so that he, that is Macron, intends to invoke essentially dictatorial powers to maintain his position above all other political elements in France. If he does that, then he may meet with a very unhappy end. I think he should replay the last days of Ceausescu.

France is not Germany. France is not the United States. France has a revolutionary past which is very much a part of the present. And what he is doing is holding out a red flag to those who remember that past. What we read in Europe is that Marine Le Pen has a very good chance of reaching that absolute majority in the French lower house in the upcoming elections. We also read that there is a major effort by the forces of Macron, by his men, and by elements in the left and what remains of the center, like the Republicans, to create a dike against, a dam against the Rassemblement National, the RN of Marine Le Pen.

22:56
However, this tactic, which worked in past elections in France, is very problematic today, considering that it’s exactly the center that has been so battered. The fallback position to keep Marine Le Pen out of power is to unite with the left. And the left is even more repugnant and dangerous for French conservatives, for French status-quo seekers, than Marine Le Pen.

Napolitano:
Ah! It’s almost like, it’s almost– can draw an analogy to Prime Minister Netanyahu. Here you have two people doing almost anything to stay in office, no matter how irrational it is or how dangerous it is to the stability of their two countries.

Doctorow:
Exactly, and the French have a term for this: it’s “va banque”, that is “go for broke”. And that’s what these two gentlemen are doing. They are looking to salvage their own reputations and what powers they can hold at the expense of their own countries. They’re putting their countries at enormous risk. That’s unjustified. In the case of Netanyahu, he has, we may assume, a majority of the population willing to play his game.

In the case of Macron, it’s not at all the case. If he has 10 or 15 percent of the French population behind him, that will be a lot. And that is not enough to hold back the tide of the coming revolution with a small r, in which the center is turned out of power, and his plans for France’s leadership of the EU are canceled.

Napolitano: 24:45
Professor Doctorow, thank you very much for your time and for your analysis, as usual. I don’t know if it’s a holiday in Europe, but of course it is here, and you’re American, so happy Independence Day. We’ll look forward to seeing you next week, my dear friend.

Doctorow:
Thanks again. And yes, we do celebrate.

Napolitano:
Oh, good. Good. All the best. Thank you.

Doctorow:
OK. Bye.

Napolitano:
Bye. Coming up later today: at 11 o’clock this morning, Professor John Mearsheimer; at noon, Congressman Dennis Kucinich; at 2 p.m., Colonel Douglas McGregor; at 3 p.m., Phil Giraldi; at 4 p.m., Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson: and at 5 p.m., the inimitable Max Blumenthal.

25:31
Judge Napolitano for “Judging Freedom”.

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Russlands nächste Schritte: die heutige Ausgabe von Judging Freedom mit Andrew Napolitano

Es war mir eine Ehre und ein Vergnügen, mit Judge Napolitano in einer etwa zwanzigminütigen Diskussion über die jüngsten Entwicklungen an der russischen Front und im weiteren Sinne über die europäische Politik und die Krise im Nahen Osten zu sprechen, wie wir es heute getan haben.

Siehe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_p2jwaPrmM

Der youtube-Account von Judging Freedom verkündet heute, dass seine Abonnentenliste die 400.000er-Schwelle überschritten hat, und ich habe wenig Zweifel daran, dass sie exponentiell wachsen wird, da er weiterhin neue und wertvolle Meinungsführer zu seinen wöchentlichen Interviews hinzufügt, die unabhängig vom Narrativ der Biden-Administration sind, darunter der ehemalige US-Botschafter in Saudi-Arabien, Chas Freeman, der diese Woche sein Debüt gab, und Denis Kucinich, der heute noch auftreten wird. Die Professoren John Mearsheimer und Jeffrey Sachs, der Waffeninspekteur Scott Ritter und der Mitbegründer von Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, Ray McGovern, gehörten bereits zu den regelmäßigen Interviewpartnern.

Paris, 1780,  A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens

Excerpt from the chapter “ Monseigneur in the city”

Military officers destitute of military knowledge; naval officers with no idea of a ship; civil officers without a notion of affairs; brazen ecclesiastics, of the worst world worldly, with sensual eyes, loose tongues, and looser lives; all totally unfit for their several callings, all lying horribly in pretending to belong to them..foisted on all public employments from which anything was to be got…

Unbelieveing  Philosophers who were remodeling the world with words, and making card-towers of Babel to scale the skies with…

The leprosy of unreality disfigured every human creature in attendance upon Monseigneur. In the outermost room were half a dozen exceptional people who had had, for a few years, some vague misgiving in them that things in general were going rather wrong.

…the comfort was, that all the company at the grand hotel of Monseigneur were perfectly dressed. If the Day of Judgment had only been ascertained to be a dress day, everybody there would have been eternally correct. Such frizzling and powdering and sticking up of hair, such delicate complexions artificially preserved and mended, such gallant swords to look at, and such delicate hour to the sense of smell, would surely keep anything going, for ever and ever.

                                                                        *****

My own conclusions in the days immediately following the Europe-wide elections of 6 June now appear to have been unduly pessimistic.

 To be sure, the emergence in the European Parliament of a significantly enlarged nationalistic, pro-sovereignty, so-called Extreme Right contingent of parliamentarians at the expense of the Greens, of the centrist Renew party of Emmanuel Macron and of the Center-Left Socialists and Democrats could be construed as a positive development.  Though the various European parties constituting the Extreme Right do not speak with one voice on the question of war and peace, many are opposed to further financial and military support to Ukraine, so that diplomacy might yet be revived to put an end to the very dangerous ongoing East-West confrontation in and over Ukraine if they found a way to put a stick in the gearbox of those running the ship of state.

However, the losses of Center Left were partly offset by the gains of the Center Right – the European People’s Party to which the German Christian Democrats and their standard bearer Ursula von der Leyen belong. A look of smug complacency returned very quickly to the face of Frau von der Leyen, and there was every reason to say, as I did, that the desire for change of European voters would be frustrated now that the same corrupt Comprador politicians who have shaped Europe’s servile performance of Washington’s diktats for the past five years and pursued economic suicide will continue to hold the reins of power. The latest forecasts for the soon to be held vote on a second term for von der Leyen suggest she will prevail. Meanwhile, the vapid, viciously anti-Russian prime minister of Estonia, Kaja Kallas has been confirmed as the EU’s new commissioner for foreign relations and defense, meaning that the powers that be intend to pursue their course on the war, whatever the home public says or does. And at the same time, the outgoing prime minister of The Netherlands, Mark Rutte, has been voted in as the next Secretary General of NATO.  To the visceral enmity for Russia of the outgoing Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Rutte adds a good measure of political sophistication and brainpower.

And yet there are now reasons to hold in abeyance our pessimism and wait upon the denouement of processes now underway that can point the course of history in an entirely different direction.

It was unforeseeable in the immediate days following 6 June that events in a couple of countries could put in question the seamless continuation of misrule that I have just outlined. These countries are France and the United States.

The real shock in France that few if any foresaw was the decision by President Emmanuel Macron to call a snap parliamentary election in the apparent hope of undoing the trouncing of his party in the EU Parliament elections of 6 June by Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National  (RN) party.  There were many attempts by political commentators in France and the world at large to understand the logic of this high-stakes political gamble, and we are unlikely to ever know because in his typical arrogant manner Macron kept his cards close to the chest and took counsel with almost no one. 

Following the first round of elections in France that just took place, there is every indication that Macron lost his bet. His own party, or ‘movement,’ came in third, after the RN and the united socialist Left parties. ‘Macronism’ is generally acknowledged among the political elites to be dead, and the questions of the day are whether Le Pen can achieve a parliamentary majority in the second round of voting soon to take place, and so take effective control of government, or whether there will be a hung parliament. In either case, Macron will be a much diminished force in French politics and his plans to send French troops to Ukraine, his plans to increase military assistance to Kiev will be overridden and negated. This is a powerful message to other European states where the ruling policy on war and peace is also effectively rejected by a majority of the population. I have in mind particularly Germany, where Chancellor Scholz’s hold on power will be sorely strained in the coming weeks.

Within this same time period, the Biden-Trump debates in the United States have changed the political calculus dramatically against the incumbent. Democrats are aghast at his performance on live television when deprived of his teleprompters and notes. His senility, a closely guarded secret of his entourage that mass media did not explore till now, has become the subject of the day.  Those many Democrats who wish to replace him with someone younger and more capable face the dilemma that recent polls indicate Trump would be even more assured of victory when running against any of the Democrats’ alternative candidates than against Biden.

It is too early, of course, to speak of an assured Trump victory. It is still less certain to say how a possible Trump victory will change U.S. policy on the war in Ukraine and on confrontation with Russia to maintain global dominance. We all know only too well that Trump puts no store in policy consistency.

                                                                               *****

I close this brief survey of the political calculations of informed Western news analysts by pointing out that exactly the same observations and calculations are featured now on Russian state television.  This is what I saw on Dmitry Kiselyov’s News of the Week wrap-up Sunday night as regards in particular developments in the U.S. electoral race. The channel’s New York bureau chief Valentin Bogdanov gave viewers an excellent, professional over view.

As regards developments in France and what may come next in the fight between Macron and Le Pen for control of government and foreign policy, yesterday’s edition of The Great Game hosted by Vyacheslav Nikonov also was right on target with objective reporting.

If relations between Russia and the West go further awry, it will not be because the Russians are flying blind.  I wish I could say the same for the ruling elites in Washington.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Es komme die Revolution! Was man sät, wird man ernten!

Paris, 1780,  “Eine Geschichte aus zwei Städten” von Charles Dickens

Auszug aus dem Kapitel “Monseigneur in der Stadt”

Militärische Offiziere ohne militärisches Wissen; Marineoffiziere ohne Ahnung von einem Schiff; zivile Offiziere ohne eine Ahnung von Angelegenheiten; unverschämte Geistliche, von der schlimmsten weltlichen Sorte, mit sinnlichen Augen, lockeren Zungen und einem noch lockereren Leben; alle völlig untauglich für ihre verschiedenen Berufe, alle lügen schrecklich, indem sie vorgeben, ihnen anzugehören… in alle öffentlichen Ämter gedrängt, von denen etwas zu bekommen war…

Ungläubige Philosophen, die die Welt mit Worten umgestalteten und Kartentürme aus Babel bauten, um damit den Himmel zu erklimmen…

Der Aussatz der Unwirklichkeit entstellte jede menschliche Kreatur, die Monseigneur sah. Im äußersten Zimmer saß ein halbes Dutzend außergewöhnlicher Menschen, die seit einigen Jahren eine vage Ahnung hatten, dass die Dinge im Allgemeinen ziemlich schief liefen.

…der Trost war, dass die ganze Gesellschaft im Grand Hotel des Monseigneur perfekt gekleidet war. Wäre der Tag des Jüngsten Gerichts ein Kleidertag, wären alle dort ewig korrekt gewesen. Solch ein Kräuseln und Pudern und Hochstecken der Haare, solch ein zarter Teint, der künstlich konserviert und ausgebessert wurde, solch galante Schwerter, die zu sehen waren, und solch eine delikate Stunde für den Geruchssinn, würde sicherlich alles in Gang halten, für immer und ewig.

                                                                        *****

Meine eigenen Schlussfolgerungen in den Tagen unmittelbar nach den europaweiten Wahlen vom 6. Juni scheinen nun übermäßig pessimistisch gewesen zu sein.

Sicherlich könnte das Auftauchen einer deutlich vergrößerten nationalistischen, für die Souveränität eintretenden, so genannten extremen Rechten im Europäischen Parlament auf Kosten der Grünen, der zentristischen Partei Renew von Emmanuel Macron und der Mitte-Links-Sozialisten und Demokraten als positive Entwicklung gewertet werden. Obwohl die verschiedenen europäischen Parteien, aus denen sich die Extreme Rechte zusammensetzt, in der Frage von Krieg und Frieden nicht mit einer Stimme sprechen, sind viele von ihnen gegen weitere finanzielle und militärische Unterstützung für die Ukraine, so dass die Diplomatie wiederbelebt werden könnte, um die sehr gefährliche anhaltende Ost-West-Konfrontation in der und um die Ukraine zu beenden, wenn sie einen Weg fänden, denjenigen, die das Staatsschiff führen, einen Strich durch die Rechnung zu machen.

Die Verluste von Mitte-Links wurden jedoch teilweise durch die Gewinne von Mitte-Rechts ausgeglichen – der Europäischen Volkspartei, zu der die deutschen Christdemokraten und ihre Spitzenkandidatin Ursula von der Leyen gehören. Der selbstgefällige Gesichtsausdruck von Frau von der Leyen kehrte sehr schnell zurück, und es gab allen Grund, wie ich, zu sagen, dass der Wunsch der europäischen Wähler nach Veränderung nun enttäuscht werden würde, da dieselben korrupten Comprador-Politiker, die Europas sklavische Erfüllung von Washingtons Diktat in den letzten fünf Jahren geprägt und wirtschaftlichen Selbstmord betrieben haben, weiterhin die Zügel der Macht in der Hand halten werden. Die jüngsten Prognosen für die bald stattfindende Abstimmung über eine zweite Amtszeit für von der Leyen deuten darauf hin, dass sie sich durchsetzen wird. In der Zwischenzeit wurde die fade, bösartig antirussische Premierministerin von Estland, Kaja Kallas, als neue EU-Kommissarin für Außenbeziehungen und Verteidigung bestätigt, was bedeutet, dass die Machthaber ihren Kriegskurs fortsetzen wollen, egal was die Öffentlichkeit im eigenen Land sagt oder tut. Gleichzeitig wurde der scheidende Ministerpräsident der Niederlande, Mark Rutte, zum nächsten NATO-Generalsekretär gewählt. Zu der intuitiven Feindseligkeit des scheidenden Generalsekretärs Jens Stoltenberg gegenüber Russland kommt bei Rutte noch ein gutes Maß an politischer Raffinesse und Intelligenz hinzu.

Und doch gibt es jetzt Gründe, unseren Pessimismus in der Schwebe zu halten und den Ausgang der laufenden Prozesse abzuwarten, die den Lauf der Geschichte in eine völlig andere Richtung lenken können.

In den unmittelbaren Tagen nach dem 6. Juni war nicht vorhersehbar, dass die Ereignisse in einigen Ländern die von mir soeben beschriebene nahtlose Fortsetzung der Misswirtschaft in Frage stellen könnten. Diese Länder sind Frankreich und die Vereinigten Staaten.

Der eigentliche Schock in Frankreich, mit dem nur wenige gerechnet haben, war die Entscheidung von Präsident Emmanuel Macron, eine vorgezogene Parlamentswahl auszurufen, in der offensichtlichen Hoffnung, die Niederlage seiner Partei bei den Wahlen zum EU-Parlament am 6. Juni durch die Partei Rassemblement National (RN) von Marine Le Pen ungeschehen zu machen. Viele politische Kommentatoren in Frankreich und in der ganzen Welt haben versucht, die Logik dieses politischen Spiels mit hohem Einsatz zu verstehen, und es ist unwahrscheinlich, dass wir es jemals erfahren werden, da Macron in seiner typischen arroganten Art die Karten auf den Tisch gelegt hat und sich mit fast niemandem beraten hat.

Nach der ersten Runde der Wahlen in Frankreich, die gerade stattgefunden hat, deutet alles darauf hin, dass Macron seine Wette verloren hat. Seine eigene Partei oder “Bewegung” wurde nach der RN und den vereinigten sozialistischen Linksparteien Dritter. Der “Macronismus” gilt unter den politischen Eliten allgemein als tot, und die Frage des Tages ist, ob Le Pen im zweiten Wahlgang, der bald stattfinden wird, eine parlamentarische Mehrheit erreichen und damit die tatsächliche Kontrolle über die Regierung übernehmen kann, oder ob es zu einem parlamentarischen Patt kommen wird. In jedem Fall wird Macron in der französischen Politik eine sehr viel geringere Rolle spielen, und seine Pläne zur Entsendung französischer Truppen in die Ukraine und zur Aufstockung der militärischen Unterstützung für Kiew werden außer Kraft gesetzt und zunichte gemacht. Dies ist eine starke Botschaft an andere europäische Staaten, in denen die herrschende Politik in Bezug auf Krieg und Frieden ebenfalls von einer Mehrheit der Bevölkerung abgelehnt wird. Ich denke dabei vor allem an Deutschland, wo der Machterhalt von Bundeskanzler Scholz in den nächsten Wochen auf eine harte Probe gestellt werden wird.

Im gleichen Zeitraum haben die Debatten zwischen Biden und Trump in den Vereinigten Staaten das politische Kalkül gegen den Amtsinhaber drastisch verändert. Die Demokraten sind entsetzt über seine Leistung im Live-Fernsehen, wenn er ohne Teleprompter und Notizen auftritt. Seine Senilität, ein streng gehütetes Geheimnis seiner Entourage, das die Massenmedien bisher nicht erforscht haben, ist zum Thema des Tages geworden. Die vielen Demokraten, die ihn durch einen jüngeren und fähigeren Kandidaten ersetzen wollen, stehen vor dem Dilemma, dass die jüngsten Umfragen darauf hindeuten, dass Trump gegen einen der alternativen Kandidaten der Demokraten noch siegessicherer wäre als gegen Biden.

Es ist natürlich zu früh, um von einem sicheren Sieg Trumps zu sprechen. Noch weniger sicher ist es, zu sagen, wie ein möglicher Sieg Trumps die Politik der USA im Krieg in der Ukraine und in der Konfrontation mit Russland zur Aufrechterhaltung der globalen Vorherrschaft verändern wird. Wir alle wissen nur zu gut, dass Trump keinen Wert auf eine konsistente Politik legt.

                                                                               *****

Ich schließe diesen kurzen Überblick über das politische Kalkül informierter westlicher Nachrichtenanalysten mit dem Hinweis darauf, dass genau dieselben Beobachtungen und Berechnungen jetzt im russischen Staatsfernsehen zu sehen sind. Das habe ich am Sonntagabend in Dmitri Kisseljows Sendung “Nachrichten der Woche” gesehen, in der es insbesondere um die Entwicklungen im US-Wahlkampf ging. Der Leiter des New Yorker Büros des Senders, Valentin Bogdanov, gab den Zuschauern einen ausgezeichneten, professionellen Überblick.

Was die Entwicklungen in Frankreich und die möglichen nächsten Schritte im Kampf zwischen Macron und Le Pen um die Kontrolle der Regierung und der Außenpolitik angeht, so war die gestrige Ausgabe von The Great Game mit Wjatscheslaw Nikonow ebenfalls sehr objektiv.

Wenn sich die Beziehungen zwischen Russland und dem Westen weiter verschlechtern, dann nicht, weil die Russen im Blindflug unterwegs sind. Ich wünschte, ich könnte dasselbe über die herrschenden Eliten in Washington sagen.

My discussion with Judge Andrew Napolitano earlier today focused on what retaliation we may expect from Russia for what the Kremlin says is America’s direct responsibility for the 23 June missile attack on  beachgoers in Sevastopol, Crimea that instantly took the lives of eight including two small children and severely injured 150. Are the United States and Russia now in a state of war, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov intimated following this attack?

We also moved on to other significant developments in U.S.-Russian relations these past few days including the indictment of former Russian Minister of Defense Shoigu and present chief of staff of the Russian armed forces General Gerasimov for destruction of civilian infrastructure in Ukraine; as well as the talks between Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin and his Russian counterpart, Minister of Defense Belousov, the first such direct contact in more than six months; and the expectation that the Biden administration is about to permit U.S. military contractors to be sent to Ukraine to participate in fighting the Russians on the ground.

As always, the time on air was challenging and hopefully will be found to be informative by viewers.

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus) followed by full transcript in English

Transcription below by a reader

Judge Andrew Napolitano: 0:32
Hi, everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for “Judging Freedom”. Today is Thursday, June 27th, 2024. Dr. Gilbert Doctorow joins us now. Professor, it’s a pleasure to have you on the show. Thank you very much for your time. Professor Doctorow, is the United States at war with Russia?

Gilbert Doctorow, Ph.D.:
No, no war has been declared, but I think that Mr. Lavrov in making his comments, which are reported but haven’t been published as such, his remarks to the American ambassador following this … disastrous events in Sevastopol. I think that he was raising the level of threat to the United States. If we were at war, Russia wouldn’t have a word to say about the confiscation of all of its assets that are now being frozen, because under the terms of a war, the United States and most of Europe would have every right to confiscate those assets. But it is heading in that direction, and we are a hair’s breadth away from it, and this is what Lavrov had in mind.

Napolitano: 1:45
Here is what Lavrov said. Chris, if you could put up that full screen. “The U.S. is responsible for this massacre,” referring to Sevastopol on the beach on Sunday, “and they will get an answer. All flight missions for American ATACMS missiles are programmed by American specialists based on their own US satellite intelligence data. Therefore, the responsibility for the deliberate missile strike against the civilian population of Sevastopol lies primarily with Washington, which supplied this weapon to Ukraine, as well as with the Kiev regime from whose territory this strike was launched. Such actions will not go unanswered.”

2:27
That’s on June 23rd, which was Sunday, the day of the attack. Is that the response to which you’re referring?

Doctorow:
Oh, yes. That’s what I’m referring to. And in the next day, there were reports that a Global Hawk drone, which is exactly the reconnaissance aircraft that Mr. Lavrov had in mind– he spoke about satellites but the more pertinent directions in the final targeting of these missiles would be coming from that reconnaissance drone– and there were reports that such a drone had disappeared from radar, with the interpretation being that the Russians had downed it … with regard to russian … talk show discussion of this very issue–

Napolitano: 3:19
Yes, yes, I was going to ask you that next.

Doctorow:
Yeah, the valid point they make is that these drones, like all other aircraft, have [trans]ponders and that this would have been turned off, not necessarily that the Global Hawk was shot down and landed in the sea, but that perhaps it was no longer recognizable. Of course, that is not the same thing as radar. So, it’s disappearing from radar is a curious thing. The Russians have said nothing. The Americans have said nothing. We may assume that the Russians will be hunting actively these reconnaissance drones, knowing that they guide attacks like the one that took place. And there is talk about their hunting similar drones that are coursing all the time in the Baltic Sea. They are a direct threat to Russian security.

Napolitano: 4:26
Is there pressure on President Putin from his right, politically, or from ex-military or ex-intelligence, or from current military or current intelligence, to respond to this in a dramatic way with violence?

Doctorow:
Well, of course there is. And some of this is aired on Mr. Solovyov’s program, which has always been rather heated from the presenter himself on down, calling for a very dramatic response. This is not in the nature of Mr. Putin, who reacts only after he has let the issue cool down a bit and found appropriate response in his understanding, but of course he’s under pressure.

Napolitano:
I mean, can you– what is the attitude of the Russian public? I can only imagine if something like that happened here on the New Jersey seashore or in Miami or in Los Angeles, the public would react here the way they did after 9-11. What is the reaction amongst the Russian public? These were children that were killed.

Doctorow: 5:49
Yes, the reaction is mixed, though. On the one hand, we have people who are hot-headed and who were responding just as you indicated. It’s time to do something to show our resolve, that we are not soft, and that this should not escalate further because of perceived weakness. On the other hand, there is a widespread fear. A widespread fear of the immediate consequences of an escalation. There’s widespread fear of what these, what these, the, the ATACMSs can do in the region of its 300-kilometer range.

We have friends who are in Crimea, they’re vacationing in a little house, a tiny house that they have on the hillside of Theodosia, and they are very nervous. They’re not responding as you’re saying, well, let’s go get them. No, nothing of the sort. They would like to live peaceful lives, and they are not looking for an escalation and for Russia to show its muscle. So the reaction on the ground is mixed.

Napolitano: 6:59
Here’s the Russian ambassador to the United Nations, speaking in calm tones but using some very strong language. Cut number 10. Kyiv regime supported by the USA carried out a heinous attack against civilians in the Russian city of Sevastopol in Crimea. Ukraine launched five US-supplied ATACMS missiles armed with cluster munitions. An American Global Hawk UAV was patrolling the airspace over the Crimean peninsula.

There will be measures in response. The Russian Federation will continue to protect its people and its national security until no threat is posed by the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev that was breeded, raised and financed by the West. So a couple of phrases. “Neo-Nazi regime in Kiev”, we’ve heard that before, “breeded, raised and financed by the West” and “cluster munitions”.

Doctorow:
Well, the key word here is cluster munitions. There’s been a lot of discussion about to and fro in the media in the West, and not only in the West, over what actually happened in Sevastopol. We know that five missiles were fired at Crimea, four of them were knocked out rather early in their flight pattern. One of them overwhelmed the Russian air defenses and got through rather far into its intended target area. And then it was knocked down by Russian air defense. And the parts of its warhead, its cluster bombs, spread out. A lot of them went into the sea, but some of them landed on the beach.

8:44
The question is not what these investigations, what was the actual target, were they Russian, were the Ukrainians going after an airfield said to be near one beach in Sevastopol, or what? What was the sense, what was the intended target that was missed because it was– the missile was partially destroyed? This is irrelevant. The real matter is that it was carrying a warhead that has no application, no logical military application for where it was headed. The cluster bomb was by nature given to Ukraine by the United States in advance of the planned counter-offensive of this past summer, as a device that is used to attack infantry.

It has a devastating effect when it is used in the field of war, and that was the intended purpose. Instead it has been redirected to terror attack. There is no sense whatsoever in sending these missiles to Sevastopol, because there are no military targets worthy of the effort. And if there were, they would require a different type of warhead: a warhead that would blow things to bits, and not blow people to bits. These small bomblets are suitable only as anti-personnel use.

Napolitano: 10:13
And, of course, they have a devastating after-effect because of their dud rate, you know, the ones that don’t explode until some child six months later picks it up and thinks it’s a baseball or a rock or a souvenir of some sort. Professor Doctorow, did the United States engage in an act of terrorism as generally defined and understood internationally with this event on the beach in Sevastopol last Sunday?

Doctorow:
Well, given the nature of the weapon used, its intended capabilities, and the direction in which it was headed, the only logical interpretation of this act was terrorism. And since the act itself was made possible, was enabled only thanks to American intelligence and experts who guided the Ukrainians… yes, the United States is directly implicated in what was a terror campaign.

Napolitano: 11:17
Surely American intelligence knew there were families on that beach, it was a Sunday, it was a religious holiday, it wasn’t just any Sunday, a holiday known for people who have access to the beach to go there. And yet they did this nevertheless, or and yet they did this knowing that, intentionally.

Doctorow:
When you are losing the war on the battlefield, and Ukraine is clearly losing the battle on the battlefield, it hasn’t had the manpower, it’s losing 2,000-plus men a day. and to try another way, a way that– a manner of dealing with the war that has been present from the very beginning, and that is to terrorize Russia’s civilian populations in the hope and expectation that they will pressure the Kremlin to get out. This has its own logic to it. The fact that it is inhumane, the fact that it is a violation of international law is clear.

At the same time, I want to draw attention to something else that has been in the news recently and bears closely on what we’re talking about. And that is the indictment of Shoigu and Gerasimov by the ICC for allegedly destroying civilian infrastructure in the conduct of the war.

Napolitano: 12:52
Let me just stop you for a second, so everyone knows where we are. Shoigu is the former Russian defense minister, now head of national security. Gerasimov is still the chief of the military. do I have that correct?

Doctorow:
Yes, you do.

Napolitano:
Okay, please proceed.

Doctorow:
There are people in the alternative media who have been saying that it’s all wrong, it’s unjust. I disagree. I think it’s totally just, but what’s missing is the whole context. Taking the acts that the Russians are doing, which are destroying civilian infrastructure, let’s be honest about it. As I said on one of my last appearances the Russians are not bunny rabbits and one of the responses–

Napolitano:
You did say that, Professor.

Doctorow: 13:40
One of the responses they have made to the occasionally devastating attacks on their own civilian populations and infrastructure, as in the Belgorod province has been to attack massively the energy infrastructure of Ukraine. Going back a year and more, when people spoke about the Russians dealing the Ukrainian population a nasty blow by leaving them in the cold in the midst of winter, that was light stuff compared to what’s been going on now in Russian attacks. The Russians then were sparing in their attacks on the Ukrainian energy infrastructure: they only attacked substations. They caused inconvenience, they interrupted supply of energy to military units and military production centers. But they didn’t really cause lasting damage.

14:45
What they have done this year is to cause lasting damage. Sixty percent or more of the generating power of Ukraine has been swept away by Russian attacks. This was made public by the “Financial Times”, which later was denounced by Kiev for betraying them. Well, betrayal or not, it’s a, the facts stand.

Napolitano:
Betraying them by revealing the truth.

Doctorow:
Exactly.

Napolitano: 15:16
There is a report– we’re going to run a little clip for you– of US contractors headed to Ukraine. This is a Q&A. Well, it’s a Q, but not an A, before General Patrick Ryder, who’s the spokesperson for the Pentagon. It’s frustrating, because he doesn’t want to answer, but his silence speaks volumes. Cut number five.

Questioner:
There’s a report out that the Biden administration is considering allowing U.S. military contractors in Ukraine to help maintain U.S.-provided weapons systems in Ukraine. Without getting into hypotheticals of what could be decided, what’s the difference between doing this and having U.S. military boots on the ground?

Ryder:
Yeah, thanks for the question, Liz. What I’d say right now is I’m not going to comment on any reports of internal discussions or proposals that may or may not be under consideration. You know, the bottom line is the president and the secretary have been clear that we’re not going to send us troops to fight in Ukraine, and that won’t change.

Napolitano:
I mean, is this just semantics, “troops”, “boots on the ground”, or American human beings armed in civilian garb on the ground?

Doctorow:
The difference will be the reaction in the States when the body bags start coming back.

Napolitano:
Good point.

Doctorow:
There’ll be very little political consequence to deaths of contractors, whereas there would be immediate coverage in the media and a great outcry if our boys are killed on the ground in Ukraine, and they will be killed. The Russians have now resorted to using three-ton glider bombs, which are devastating. And it’s easy to understand that their reconnaissance is such that they will easily identify concentrations of these American contractors and deal with them very effectively.

Napolitano: 17:19
Are the facilities in Poland and Romania, where American military equipment is assembled, loaded, maintained, and repaired largely by American troops, literally boots on the ground? Fair game for Russian attack, in light of Sevastopol.

Doctorow:
Not yet. Everything goes gradually as far as the Russians are concerned. They want to leave options for further escalation. They’re not going to jump into attacks on NATO countries until the moment comes. I think that we will see both by common agreement that the tests will be the test of how far does Russia go outside the boundaries of Ukraine?

The test will be when the F-16s are delivered. The latest scenario that Russian military experts who appear on talk shows are giving is they expect that these planes will be kept in Moldova. Why Moldova? Moldova borders on Ukraine. Moldova was part of the USSR. Moldova was a frontier of the USSR. And as such, it has hardened airports. By that I mean, they have airports with concrete hangers or underground storage for planes. So, these would be the safest possible place one would put such planes.

Secondly, the intent is a short hop, skip and jump to make it seem as though the flights are originating in Western Ukraine. The planes are launched from Moldova, they land briefly in whatever’s left of airports in Ukraine, and then they go on to attack Russian forces or Russian heartland, depending on the missile load they carry. Well, the Russians will definitely attack Moldova, not a moment’s hesitation. How they will approach attacking, as you say, Romania or Poland, that will take more consideration. There has to be something more painful that the Russians endure before they’re willing to raise the risks.

Napolitano:
Here is General Ryder again. This time he is making a statement. I’d like your opinion on it. Apparently the Russian defense minister and Secretary Austin have spoken to each other for the first time since March of ’23. Cut number four.

Ryder: 20:08
Secretary Austin also spoke by phone today with Russian Minister of Defense Andrei Belousov. During the call, the secretary emphasized the importance of maintaining lines of communication amid Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine. The last time Secretary Austin spoke to his Russian counterpart, then Russian Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu, was on March 15, 2023. A brief readout will be posted to Defense.gov.

Napolitao: 20:35
I can’t tell Tony Blinken, because he’s absolutely opposed to any communications with his counterpart.

Doctorow:
Yes, this is the saddest thing about the progression of this war. It is all on body language now. There’s almost no verbal contact between the parties to this confrontation. And the diplomacy as such doesn’t exist. It is really a sadness that Tony Blinken, who was heralded by many liberals in the States when he was appointed or nominated by Joe Biden to fill that position at State, was spoken of as a sophisticate, as a person who knows different cultures, having grown up in France in a privileged family. And that this would be such a positive change from the slovenly, aggressive Pompeo whom he would be replacing.

And sadly, all that sophistication has been utterly useless. The man is incapable of conducting normal diplomacy. His travels abroad are only to issue U.S. diktats.

Napolitano: 21:56
What is Vladimir Putin’s long-term goal?

Doctorow:
To remake Russia. And it’s well underway, but it’s a project that is in work. Russia is being remade in many ways. Economically, the Russian state has thrown away the playbook that it used from the 1990s, which were carried into the first two decades of Mr. Putin’s position as head of government and head of state. That is, the liberal economics which has been thrown out, not entirely, but largely marginalized, as Russia has gone to a war economy, which means something that the Communist Party, for example, is delighted to see, that is to say the re-centralization of decision-making, master plans and heavy financial subsidies to preferred industries, not just military industries, but industries that the government believes hold a great future for Russia as it proceeds to become the fourth biggest economy in the world.

Napolitano: 23:18
Professor Doctorow, thank you very much. Thank you for your time, as always, much appreciated. Your insight is unique and invaluable, and we appreciate all of it that you share with us.

Doctorow: 23:31
Well, thanks for having me.

Napolitano:
Of course. Remaining today at 1:30, Richard Gage, the architect who has reassembled how 9-11 happened. At 2 o’clock, Phil Giraldi, at 3:15, Colonel Douglas McGregor, at 4 o’clock, Max Blumenthal, at 5 o’clock, Professor John Mearsheimer. An interesting day.

Judge Napolitano for “Judging Freedom”.

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Die heutige Ausgabe von Judging Freedom: Russische Vergeltung

In meiner heutigen Diskussion mit Judge Andrew Napolitano ging es um die Frage, welche Vergeltungsmaßnahmen wir von Russland für den Raketenangriff auf Strandbesucher in Sewastopol auf der Krim am 23. Juni erwarten können, bei dem acht Menschen, darunter zwei kleine Kinder, ums Leben kamen und 150 Menschen schwer verletzt wurden, wie der Kreml behauptet. Befinden sich die Vereinigten Staaten und Russland nun im Kriegszustand, wie der russische Außenminister Sergej Lawrow nach diesem Angriff andeutete?

Wir haben uns auch mit anderen wichtigen Entwicklungen in den Beziehungen zwischen den USA und Russland befasst. Dazu gehören die Anklage gegen den ehemaligen russischen Verteidigungsminister Schoigu und den derzeitigen Generalstabschef der russischen Streitkräfte, General Gerassimow, wegen der Zerstörung der zivilen Infrastruktur in der Ukraine, die Gespräche zwischen dem Chef des Pentagon, Lloyd Austin, und seinem russischen Amtskollegen, Verteidigungsminister Belousow, der erste direkte Kontakt dieser Art seit mehr als sechs Monaten, sowie die Erwartung, dass die Regierung Biden die Entsendung von US-Söldnern in die Ukraine genehmigen wird, die sich an der Bekämpfung der Russen vor Ort beteiligen sollen.

Wie immer war die Zeit auf Sendung eine Herausforderung und wird hoffentlich von den Zuschauern als informativ empfunden werden.

Nachstehend Transkript eines Lesers

Judge Andrew Napolitano: 0:32
Hallo zusammen, hier ist Judge Andrew Napolitano für “Judging Freedom”. Heute ist Donnerstag, der 27. Juni 2024. Dr. Gilbert Doctorow ist jetzt bei uns. Professor, es ist ein Vergnügen, Sie in der Sendung zu haben. Vielen Dank, dass Sie sich Zeit genommen haben. Professor Doctorow, befinden sich die Vereinigten Staaten im Krieg mit Russland?

Gilbert Doctorow, Ph.D.:
Nein, es wurde kein Krieg erklärt, aber ich denke, dass Herr Lawrow mit seinen Bemerkungen, über die berichtet wird, die aber nicht als solche veröffentlicht wurden, seine Bemerkungen gegenüber dem amerikanischen Botschafter nach diesen … katastrophalen Ereignissen in Sewastopol. Ich denke, dass er die Bedrohung für die Vereinigten Staaten auf ein höheres Niveau gebracht hat. Wenn wir uns im Krieg befänden, hätte Russland kein Wort über die Beschlage all seiner Vermögenswerte zu sagen, die jetzt eingefroren werden, denn unter den Bedingungen eines Krieges hätten die Vereinigten Staaten und die meisten europäischen Länder jedes Recht, diese Vermögenswerte zu beschlagnahmen. Aber es geht in diese Richtung, und wir sind nur noch eine Haaresbreite davon entfernt, und das ist es, was Lawrow im Sinn hatte.

Napolitano: 1:45
Hier ist, was Lawrow gesagt hat. Chris, wenn Sie das auf den ganzen Bildschirm bringen könnten. “Die USA sind für dieses Massaker verantwortlich”, sagte er in Bezug auf Sewastopol am Sonntag, “und sie werden eine Antwort bekommen. Alle Flugmissionen der amerikanischen ATACMS-Raketen werden von amerikanischen Spezialisten auf der Grundlage ihrer eigenen US-Satellitenaufklärungsdaten programmiert. Daher liegt die Verantwortung für den gezielten Raketenangriff auf die Zivilbevölkerung von Sewastopol in erster Linie bei Washington, das diese Waffe an die Ukraine geliefert hat, sowie bei dem Kiewer Regime, von dessen Territorium aus dieser Angriff gestartet wurde. Solche Aktionen werden nicht unbeantwortet bleiben.”

Napolitano: 2:27
Das war am 23. Juni, also am Sonntag, dem Tag des Anschlags. Ist das die Antwort, auf die Sie sich beziehen?

Doctorow:
Oh, ja. Das ist es, worauf ich mich beziehe. Und am nächsten Tag gab es Berichte, dass eine Global-Hawk-Drohne, die genau das Aufklärungsflugzeug ist, das Herr Lawrow im Sinn hatte – er sprach von Satelliten, aber die relevanteren Richtungen bei der endgültigen Ausrichtung dieser Raketen kommen von dieser Aufklärungsdrohne – und es gab Berichte, dass eine solche Drohne vom Radar verschwunden war, wobei die Interpretation war, dass die Russen sie abgeschossen hatten … in Bezug auf die russische … Talkshow-Diskussion über genau dieses Thema-

Napolitano: 3:19
Ja, ja, das wollte ich als nächstes fragen.

Doctorow:
Ja, der berechtigte Einwand ist, dass diese Drohnen, wie alle anderen Flugzeuge auch, über Transponder verfügen und dass diese ausgeschaltet worden wären, nicht unbedingt, dass der Global Hawk abgeschossen wurde und im Meer gelandet ist, sondern dass er vielleicht nicht mehr erkennbar war. Das ist natürlich nicht das Gleiche wie Radar. Dass er vom Radar verschwunden ist, ist also eine merkwürdige Sache. Die Russen haben nichts gesagt. Die Amerikaner haben nichts gesagt. Wir können davon ausgehen, dass die Russen aktiv Jagd auf diese Aufklärungsdrohnen machen, weil sie wissen, dass sie Angriffe wie den, der stattgefunden hat, steuern. Und es ist die Rede davon, dass sie ähnliche Drohnen jagen, die ständig in der Ostsee kursieren. Sie sind eine direkte Bedrohung für die russische Sicherheit.

Napolitano: 4:26
Wird Präsident Putin von der politischen Rechten oder von Ex-Militärs oder Ex-Geheimdiensten oder von aktuellen Militärs oder aktuellen Geheimdiensten unter Druck gesetzt, darauf in dramatischer Weise mit Gewalt zu reagieren?

Doctorow:
Ja natürlich. Und einiges davon wird in der Sendung von Herrn Solovyov ausgestrahlt, die vom Moderator selbst immer recht hitzig war und eine sehr dramatische Reaktion forderte. Das liegt nicht in der Natur von Herrn Putin, der erst dann reagiert, wenn er die Angelegenheit etwas abkühlen lässt und in seinem Verständnis eine angemessene Antwort gefunden hat, aber natürlich steht er unter Druck.

Napolitano:
Ich meine, können Sie sich vorstellen, wie die russische Öffentlichkeit reagiert? Ich kann mir nur vorstellen, wenn so etwas hier an der Küste von New Jersey oder in Miami oder in Los Angeles passieren würde, würde die Öffentlichkeit hier so reagieren wie nach dem 11. September. Wie ist die Reaktion der russischen Öffentlichkeit? Es waren Kinder, die getötet wurden.

Doctorow: 5:49
Ja, die Reaktion ist allerdings gemischt. Auf der einen Seite haben wir Leute, die hitzköpfig sind und die genau so reagiert haben, wie Sie es angedeutet haben: Es ist an der Zeit, etwas zu tun, um unsere Entschlossenheit zu zeigen, dass wir nicht weich sind und dass die Situation nicht weiter eskalieren sollte, weil man uns für schwach hält. Auf der anderen Seite gibt es eine weit verbreitete Angst. Eine weit verbreitete Angst vor den unmittelbaren Folgen einer Eskalation. Es gibt eine weit verbreitete Angst davor, was diese ATACMS in der Region ihrer 300-Kilometer-Reichweite anrichten können.

Wir haben Freunde, die auf der Krim sind, sie machen Urlaub in einem kleinen Haus, einem winzigen Haus, das sie am Berghang von Theodosia haben, und sie sind sehr nervös. Sie reagieren nicht so, wie Sie sagen, na, dann holen wir sie mal. Nein, nichts dergleichen. Sie möchten ein friedliches Leben führen und sind nicht auf eine Eskalation und darauf aus, dass Russland seine Muskeln spielen lässt. Die Reaktion vor Ort ist also gemischt.

Napolitano: 6:59
Hier ist der russische Botschafter bei den Vereinten Nationen, der in ruhigem Ton, aber mit sehr deutlichen Worten spricht. Schnitt Nummer 10.

“Das von den USA unterstützte Kiewer Regime hat einen abscheulichen Angriff auf Zivilisten in der russischen Stadt Sewastopol auf der Krim verübt. Die Ukraine hat fünf von den USA gelieferte ATACMS-Raketen abgefeuert, die mit Streumunition bestückt waren. Eine amerikanische Global Hawk-Drohne patrouillierte den Luftraum über der Halbinsel Krim.

Es wird Maßnahmen als Antwort geben. Die Russische Föderation wird ihre Bevölkerung und ihre nationale Sicherheit so lange schützen, bis keine Bedrohung mehr von dem neonazistischen Regime in Kiew ausgeht, das vom Westen gezüchtet, aufgezogen und finanziert wurde.”

Also ein paar Sätze: “Neonazi-Regime in Kiew”, das haben wir schon einmal gehört, “vom Westen gezüchtet, aufgezogen und finanziert” und “Streumunition”.

Doctorow:
Nun, das Schlüsselwort hier ist Streumunition. In den Medien im Westen, und nicht nur dort, wurde viel darüber diskutiert, was in Sewastopol eigentlich passiert ist. Wir wissen, dass fünf Raketen auf die Krim abgefeuert wurden, vier davon wurden relativ früh in ihrer Flugbahn ausgeschaltet. Eine von ihnen konnte die russische Luftabwehr überwinden und gelangte ziemlich weit in das vorgesehene Zielgebiet. Und dann wurde sie von der russischen Luftabwehr abgeschossen. Die Teile des Sprengkopfes, die Streubomben, verteilten sich. Viele von ihnen stürzten ins Meer, aber einige landeten auch auf dem Strand.

8:44
Die Frage ist nicht, was diese Untersuchungen, was war das eigentliche Ziel, war es Russland? Waren die Ukrainer hinter einem Flugplatz her, der angeblich in der Nähe eines Strandes in Sewastopol liegt, oder was? Was war der Sinn, was war das beabsichtigte Ziel, das verfehlt wurde, weil es – die Rakete wurde teilweise zerstört? Das ist irrelevant. Das eigentliche Problem ist, dass die Rakete einen Sprengkopf trug, für den es keine Anwendung gibt, keine logische militärische Anwendung für den Ort, an den er geschickt wurde. Die Streubombe wurde der Ukraine von den Vereinigten Staaten im Vorfeld der geplanten Gegenoffensive im vergangenen Sommer zur Verfügung gestellt, und zwar als ein Gerät, das zum Angriff auf die Infanterie eingesetzt wird.

Sie hat eine verheerende Wirkung, wenn sie auf dem Kriegsschauplatz eingesetzt wird, und das war auch der beabsichtigte Zweck. Stattdessen wurde sie für Terrorangriffe umfunktioniert. Es hat überhaupt keinen Sinn, diese Raketen nach Sewastopol zu schicken, denn es gibt keine militärischen Ziele, die den Aufwand wert wären. Und wenn, dann bräuchte man eine andere Art von Sprengkopf: einen Sprengkopf, der Dinge in Stücke sprengt und nicht Menschen. Diese kleinen Bomblets eignen sich nur für den Einsatz gegen Personen.

Napolitano: 10:13
Und natürlich haben sie eine verheerende Nachwirkung wegen ihrer Blindgängerrate, wissen Sie, die, die nicht explodieren, bis ein Kind sie sechs Monate später aufhebt und denkt, es sei ein Baseball oder ein Stein oder ein Souvenir irgendeiner Art. Professor Doctorow, haben die Vereinigten Staaten mit dem Vorfall am Strand von Sewastopol am vergangenen Sonntag einen terroristischen Akt nach allgemeiner Definition und internationalem Verständnis verübt?

Doctorow:
Nun, angesichts der Art der verwendeten Waffe, ihrer beabsichtigten Fähigkeiten und der Richtung, in die sie gerichtet war, ist die einzige logische Interpretation dieses Akts Terrorismus. Und da die Tat selbst nur dank amerikanischer Geheimdienste und Experten, die die Ukrainer angeleitet haben, möglich war, ja, sind die Vereinigten Staaten direkt in diese Terrorkampagne verwickelt.

Napolitano: 11:17
Sicherlich wusste der amerikanische Geheimdienst, dass sich an diesem Strand Familien aufhielten, es war ein Sonntag, ein religiöser Feiertag, es war nicht irgendein Sonntag, ein Feiertag, der dafür bekannt ist, dass Menschen, die Zugang zum Strand haben, dorthin gehen. Und trotzdem haben sie es getan, oder sie haben es getan, weil sie es wussten, absichtlich.

Doctorow:
Wenn man den Krieg auf dem Schlachtfeld verliert, und die Ukraine verliert eindeutig die Schlacht auf dem Schlachtfeld, sie hat nicht die Soldaten, sie verliert 2.000 und mehr Männer pro Tag, und einen anderen Weg zu versuchen, einen Weg, eine Art, mit dem Krieg umzugehen, der von Anfang an vorhanden war, und das ist, die russische Zivilbevölkerung zu terrorisieren, in der Hoffnung und Erwartung, dass sie den Kreml unter Druck setzt. Das hat seine eigene Logik. Dass es unmenschlich ist, dass es ein Verstoß gegen das Völkerrecht ist, ist klar.

Gleichzeitig möchte ich die Aufmerksamkeit auf etwas anderes lenken, das in letzter Zeit in den Nachrichten war und mit dem, worüber wir sprechen, eng zusammenhängt. Und zwar die Anklage gegen Schoigu und Gerasimow durch den IStGH wegen der angeblichen Zerstörung ziviler Infrastruktur bei der Kriegsführung.

Napolitano: 12:52
Ich möchte Sie nur kurz unterbrechen, damit jeder weiß, worüber wir sprechen. Schoigu ist der ehemalige russische Verteidigungsminister und jetzt Chef der nationalen Sicherheit. Gerasimow ist immer noch der Chef des Militärs. Habe ich das richtig verstanden?

Doctorow:
Ja, so ist es.

Napolitano:
Okay, bitte fahren Sie fort.

Doctorow:
Es gibt Leute in den alternativen Medien, die sagen, dass das alles falsch und ungerecht ist. Ich bin da anderer Meinung. Ich denke, es ist absolut gerecht, aber was fehlt, ist der gesamte Kontext. Nehmen wir die Handlungen der Russen, die die zivile Infrastruktur zerstören, seien wir ehrlich. Wie ich bei einem meiner letzten Auftritte sagte, sind die Russen keine Kaninchen, und eine der Reaktionen…

Napolitano:
Das haben Sie gesagt, Professor.

Doctorow: 13:40
Eine der Reaktionen der Russen auf die mitunter verheerenden Angriffe auf die eigene Zivilbevölkerung und Infrastruktur, wie in der Provinz Belgorod, waren massive Angriffe auf die Energieinfrastruktur der Ukraine. Als vor mehr als einem Jahr die Rede davon war, dass die Russen der ukrainischen Bevölkerung einen schweren Schlag versetzten, indem sie sie mitten im Winter in der Kälte zurückließen, war das eine Kleinigkeit im Vergleich zu dem, was jetzt bei den russischen Angriffen passiert ist. Die Russen gingen damals mit ihren Angriffen auf die ukrainische Energieinfrastruktur sparsam um: Sie griffen nur Umspannwerke an. Sie verursachten Unannehmlichkeiten, sie unterbrachen die Energieversorgung von Militäreinheiten und militärischen Produktionszentren. Aber sie haben keinen wirklich nachhaltigen Schaden angerichtet.

14:45
Was sie in diesem Jahr getan haben, ist, bleibende Schäden zu verursachen. Sechzig Prozent oder mehr der Stromerzeugungskapazität der Ukraine wurden durch russische Angriffe vernichtet. Dies wurde von der “Financial Times” publik gemacht, die später von Kiew als Verräterin denunziert wurde. Nun, Verrat oder nicht, die Fakten liegen vor.

Napolitano:
Verrat durch Aufdeckung der Wahrheit.

Doctorow:
Exakt.

Napolitano: 15:16
Es gibt einen Bericht – wir zeigen Ihnen einen kleinen Ausschnitt – über US-Vertrags-Soldaten, die in die Ukraine gehen. Dies ist eine Frage und eine Antwort. Nun, es ist eine Frage, aber keine Antwort, vor General Patrick Ryder, dem Sprecher des Pentagon. Es ist frustrierend, weil er nicht antworten will, aber sein Schweigen spricht Bände. Schnitt Nummer fünf.

Fragestellerin:

Es gibt einen Bericht, wonach die Regierung Biden erwägt, US-Militärauftragnehmern in der Ukraine zu erlauben, bei der Wartung der von den USA bereitgestellten Waffensystemen in der Ukraine zu helfen. Was ist der Unterschied zwischen einem solchen Vorgehen und der Entsendung von US-Militärkräften in die Ukraine, ohne dass wir uns auf hypothetische Überlegungen einlassen wollen?

Ryder:

Ja, danke für die Frage, Liz. Was ich jetzt sagen würde, ist, dass ich mich nicht zu Berichten über interne Diskussionen oder Vorschläge äußern werde, die in Erwägung gezogen werden könnten oder auch nicht. Unterm Strich haben der Präsident und der Außenminister deutlich gemacht, dass wir keine Truppen in die Ukraine schicken werden, und das wird sich auch nicht ändern.

Napolitano:
Ich meine, ist das nur Semantik, “Truppen”, “Bodentruppen” oder amerikanische Menschen in Zivilkleidung auf dem Boden?

Doctorow:
Der Unterschied wird die Reaktion in den USA sein, wenn die Leichensäcke wieder auftauchen.

Napolitano:
Guter Punkt.

Doctorow:
Der Tod von Söldnern wird kaum politische Folgen haben, wohingegen es sofortige Berichterstattung in den Medien und einen großen Aufschrei geben würde, wenn unsere Jungs vor Ort in der Ukraine getötet werden, und das werden sie auch. Die Russen sind inzwischen dazu übergegangen, Drei-Tonnen-Gleitbomben einzusetzen, die verheerend sind. Und es ist leicht zu verstehen, dass ihre Aufklärung so gut ist, dass sie leicht Konzentrationen dieser amerikanischen Auftrags-Soldaten erkennen und sehr effektiv gegen sie vorgehen werden.

Napolitano: 17:19
Sind die Einrichtungen in Polen und Rumänien, in denen amerikanische Militärausrüstung zusammengebaut, verladen, gewartet und größtenteils von amerikanischen Truppen repariert wird, buchstäblich “boots on the ground” [Bodentruppen]? In Anbetracht von Sewastopol sind sie Freiwild für russische Angriffe.

Doctorow:
Noch nicht. Für die Russen geht alles schrittweise. Sie wollen sich Optionen für eine weitere Eskalation offen halten. Sie werden sich nicht zu Angriffen auf NATO-Länder hinreißen lassen, bis der richtige Zeitpunkt gekommen ist. Ich denke, dass wir beide übereinstimmend feststellen werden, dass der Test darin bestehen wird, wie weit Russland über die Grenzen der Ukraine hinausgehen wird.

Der Test wird stattfinden, wenn die F-16 geliefert werden. Das neueste Szenario, das russische Militärexperten in Talkshows vorstellen, geht davon aus, dass diese Flugzeuge in Moldawien bleiben werden. Warum Moldawien? Moldawien grenzt an die Ukraine. Moldawien war Teil der UdSSR. Moldawien war eine Grenze der UdSSR. Und als solches hat es gehärtete Flughäfen. Das heißt, sie haben Flughäfen mit Betonhallen oder unterirdischen Bunkern für Flugzeuge. Das wäre also der sicherste Ort, an dem man solche Flugzeuge unterbringen könnte.

Zweitens ist die Absicht, den Anschein zu erwecken, als kämen die Flüge aus der Westukraine, nur ein kurzer Sprung. Die Flugzeuge starten von Moldawien aus, landen kurz auf den verbliebenen Flughäfen in der Ukraine und fliegen dann weiter, um die russischen Streitkräfte oder das russische Kernland anzugreifen, je nachdem, wie viele Raketen sie an Bord haben. Nun, die Russen werden Moldawien auf jeden Fall angreifen, ohne zu zögern. Wie sie einen Angriff auf, wie Sie sagen, Rumänien oder Polen angehen werden, darüber muss man sich mehr Gedanken machen. Es muss schon etwas Schmerzhafteres geben, das die Russen ertragen müssten, bevor sie bereit wären, die Risiken zu erhöhen.

Napolitano:
Hier ist wieder General Ryder. Diesmal gibt er eine Erklärung ab. Ich würde gerne Ihre Meinung dazu hören. Anscheinend haben der russische Verteidigungsminister und Minister Austin zum ersten Mal seit März ’23 miteinander gesprochen. Schnitt Nummer vier.

Ryder: 20:08
Minister Austin hat heute auch mit dem russischen Verteidigungsminister Andrei Belousov telefoniert. Während des Gesprächs betonte der Minister, wie wichtig es sei, die Kommunikationslinien inmitten des laufenden Krieges Russlands gegen die Ukraine aufrechtzuerhalten. Das letzte Mal hatte Minister Austin am 15. März 2023 mit seinem russischen Amtskollegen, dem damaligen russischen Verteidigungsminister Sergej Schoigu, gesprochen. Ein kurzer Bericht wird auf Defense.gov veröffentlicht.

Napolitao: 20:35
Ich kann nicht Tony Blinken sagen, denn er ist strikt gegen jegliche Kommunikation mit seinem Amtskollegen.

Doctorow:
Ja, das ist das Traurigste an der Entwicklung dieses Krieges. Es geht jetzt nur noch um die Körpersprache. Es gibt fast keinen verbalen Kontakt zwischen den Parteien dieser Konfrontation. Und die Diplomatie als solche gibt es nicht. Es ist wirklich traurig, dass Tony Blinken, der von vielen Liberalen in den USA begrüßt wurde, als er von Joe Biden für diesen Posten im Außenministerium ernannt oder nominiert wurde, als kultivierter Mensch bezeichnet wurde, als jemand, der verschiedene Kulturen kennt, weil er in Frankreich in einer privilegierten Familie aufgewachsen ist. Und dass dies eine so positive Abwechslung zu dem schlampigen, aggressiven Pompeo wäre, den er ersetzen würde.

Doch leider war all diese Raffinesse völlig nutzlos. Der Mann ist nicht in der Lage, normale Diplomatie zu betreiben. Er reist nur ins Ausland, um US-Diktate zu erlassen.

Napolitano: 21:56
Was ist das langfristige Ziel von Wladimir Putin?

Doctorow:
Russland soll neu gestaltet werden. Und das ist in vollem Gange, aber es ist ein Projekt, das noch in Arbeit ist. Russland wird in vielerlei Hinsicht neu gestaltet. In wirtschaftlicher Hinsicht hat der russische Staat die Spielregeln der 1990er Jahre über Bord geworfen, die in den ersten beiden Jahrzehnten von Putins Position als Regierungschef und Staatschef angewandt wurden. Das heißt, die liberale Wirtschaftspolitik wurde über Bord geworfen, zwar nicht ganz, aber doch weitgehend an den Rand gedrängt, da Russland zu einer Kriegswirtschaft übergegangen ist, was etwas bedeutet, was zum Beispiel die Kommunistische Partei mit Freude sieht, nämlich die Rezentralisierung der Entscheidungsfindung, Masterpläne und umfangreiche finanzielle Subventionen für bevorzugte Industrien, nicht nur für die Rüstungsindustrie, sondern für Industrien, von denen die Regierung glaubt, dass sie eine große Zukunft für Russland haben, wenn es zur viertgrößten Volkswirtschaft der Welt aufsteigt.

Napolitano: 23:18
Professor Doctorow, ich danke Ihnen sehr. Ich danke Ihnen für Ihre Zeit, die wir wie immer sehr schätzen. Ihr Einblick ist einzigartig und von unschätzbarem Wert, und wir schätzen alles, was Sie mit uns teilen.

Doctorow: 23:31
Danke für die Einladung.

Napolitano:
Ja, natürlich. Heute um 13:30 Uhr: Richard Gage, der Architekt, der die Ereignisse des 11. Septembers rekonstruiert hat. Um 14.00 Uhr Phil Giraldi, um 15.15 Uhr Colonel Douglas McGregor, um 16.00 Uhr Max Blumenthal, um 17.00 Uhr Professor John Mearsheimer. Ein interessanter Tag.

Judge Napolitano für “Judging Freedom”.