Transcript submitted by a reader
Napolitano: 0:33
Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for “Judging Freedom”. Today is Thursday, December 19th, 2024. Our dear friend Professor Gilbert Doctorow joins us now. Professor Doctorow, a pleasure. Thank you very much for your time and your thoughts to come. Was President Assad’s departure from Syria a strategic defeat for Russia?
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
Not if you listen to President Putin in his question and answer session today in Moscow, in which he addressed that very issue, what happened in Syria, and what Russia tried to achieve back in 2015, which has been widely distorted by all of our recent news in Western media. What he tried to achieve is precisely what I was saying he tried to achieve when I wrote about this a couple of days ago. It was to ensure that the Islamic State would not establish a durable enclave in Syria.
1:35
And he did that, because if you look at the map, you understand that the Middle East is rather close to the southern fringes of Russia, to the Caucasus, where it would be like an incendiary if there were these radicals based in Syria and within reach of Russia’s southern borders. So they achieved that. He said that “we did it without having boots on the ground”. The only troops that Russia had in Syria during this period, from 2015 and later, were those who were guarding its naval base and its air base on the Syrian coast, where these bases are today. That all the fighting was done by Arab units. He meant precisely– he didn’t say this precisely, but he meant– the proxy forces of Iran and the then Syrian army.
2:32
The Russians had nothing to do with the fighting. They achieved what they wanted [by their aerial bombing]. Now, in the recent months, they understood that the recent events that brought about the collapse and departure of Assad’s regime, they understood that his troops melted away. And whatever support there should have been from friendly Arab units also melted away. And so the situation was untenable.
3:03
As regards the present, Putin said that “we have contacts with everyone inside and outside Syria” and that “most everyone is asking us to keep our bases in Syria, Khmeimim for the the air base and Tartus for the naval base, and we are considering that. But all these things will depend on what arrangements we agree or don’t agree with the government in Damascus.”
Napolitano: 3:31
The government in Damascus is a successor to ISIS, which is a terrorist organization, according to the British and the Americans, which collectively have put a bounty of 10 million dollars on the head of Al-Jassani, who now appears in a Western business suit and claims he’s changed. Is it realistic for the Russians to claim that the danger of Islamic fanatics on their border has dissipated, whereas some would say it has been exacerbated?
4:06
Why shouldn’t that be the case? The Russians are virtually the only ones, well, together with the Chinese, who have established working relations with Afghanistan, a country which has had more than its share of Islamic extremism. Yes, I also watched the BBC interview in this morning’s news wrap-up, and he was very impressive. Very impressive. Quite, quite unimaginable that it’s not just putting on a business suit, it’s what’s inside his mind and what he was saying. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. The question is, does this one man have real sway, not only over his own followers, but over the others–
Napolitano:
Right, right. His followers are as maniacal as he used to be. How are Russian commentators, “The Great Game” and those other programs with which you’re so familiar, explaining the sudden summary collapse of Assad?
Doctorow:
Well, these experts, and I’m speaking now of the Orientalists, who are the most serious voices on these programs, not general political commentators, but those who are professionals, academics, and long experience in the Middle East, not as outside observers, but actually as having been there on the ground. They are saying very much the same thing that you see in the most authoritative analyses in the West on programs like yours. That this was untenable, that the Syrian state was starved for funds, and therefore, they were unable to pay salaries or living wage to their army, which made it very likely that under pressure and under fear of an attack, they would disappear. They would melt away. There’s no real difference in the understanding of how impossible it was to save Assad on the Russian observer side as what you have around you.
Napolitano: 6:19
Does the– Is the report in The Guardian of London that Russia is moving its air defense missiles from Syria to Libya, is that report credible?
Doctorow:
I’m not aware of this.
Napolitano:
Are you aware of any reports that Russia is making this move? Because that would undermine any desire to stay in Syria. They can’t stay there without air defenses.
Doctorow: 6:45
Yes. The Russians– the only news that I’ve seen in Russian media pertains to the evacuation of equipment, unnamed equipment, without any specification where it was being evacuated to. So I don’t have an answer using open sources. But I’d like to make just a little explanation here, because this comes into play. Exactly what is the value of the news, either the official news wrap-ups or of these talk shows?
This is the same value as the paper press always was for studies that we call now Kremlinology. This was using open sources. Open sources always in studying the then Soviet Union were the dominant factor in understanding what was going on. And they are, they play the same role today. Now there are many other sources, of course. And I don’t claim to have them all in my hands or to be trying to chase them all, but I am giving you on these programs what is known from open sources inside Russia.
Napolitano: 7:58
Got it. Got it. Got it. How close do you think the Kremlin believes the Ukrainian military is to collapse?
Doctorow:
They think it’s quite close to it. I can’t give you a number of days or weeks. They’re very cautious about this. But from the behavior, from the demeanor of the war correspondents in the field, of the soldiers they interview, they’re very satisfied that they are moving quickly. And now they show maps every day on the Russian news, which you don’t need a microscope to see where they’ve moved to or from.
8:39
You see genuine pincer movements. You see genuine besieging of cities like Pokrovsk. You see their readiness to change the name to its original Krasnoarmeisk, which is what it was known as before the Kiev regime put new names on places. So they are expecting a quick victory.
Napolitano: 9:05
Who killed General Kirillov?
Doctorow:
This is a very interesting question. We know precisely who, I don’t think he’s been named, but it’s a 29-year-old Uzbek citizen who has been a resident in Russia for some years. He was– the Russian television showed the restaurant, the Uzbek restaurant where he was working. He is what, you can understand that he’s what they would call a sleeper. He was recruited by Ukrainian intelligence. He said that himself when he was interviewed. I wouldn’t say interrogated, because it was really just a very open question and answer that he was not under any obvious duress.
9:52
In fact, he didn’t have a scratch on him, which is a marked distinction from what happened to the Crocus gang, the terrorists who ran amok in the Crocus entertainment center some months ago, who were missing a part of an ear and looked like they’d been pretty well worked over. He was not in that case. He was very forthcoming with why he was recruited.
10:18
But the Russians made it clear almost immediately after they were satisfied that they had nailed the man who did the job. They made it clear in the briefing that Maria Zakharova gave yesterday that that is not where the trail ends. And she said publicly that the Russians believe that the masterminds of this were the Anglo-Saxons and the chief beneficiary of this were the Anglo-Saxons.
Napolitano;
An interesting phrase, Anglo-Saxons. I mean, it could refer to anybody in the West, but probably means Great Britain.
Doctorow: 10:57
Exactly. In the State Department, they got very excited. They thought that she was pointing an accusatory finger at the US. No, no. As it was clear from her following remarks, Great Britain was the country in the West that had placed sanctions on the head of General Kirillov. Great Britain perhaps had its nose out of joint because of the very effective work he did in knocking out the false-flag operations of MI6 and of the White Helmets in Syria for the staged and photographed and filmed chemical attacks that were laid at the door of Al-Assad; and behind the Syrians, laid at the door of the Russians, which were completely phony. He was the one who debunked the whole British story of the killing of the Skripals, the poisoning of the Skripals with Novichok, he was the one who publicized exactly why this could not have been. So the Brits really were quite annoyed with the general for having exposed their deceit, their terrorist activities and the like.
12:23
But in the talk show, we’ve got a more direct nailing of the Brits. This was the day before yesterday on the evening show of Solovyov, he and his panelists were aligned in the notion that the killing of Kirillov had all the marks of an MI6 operation. And yesterday’s edition of “The Great Game”, was more specific, that the British were the only ones among Western journalists, Western press, who didn’t just ignore, failed to make a statement of regret that this tragedy had happened, but went out to celebrate it.
13:14
The passage from the editorial, the lead story, as they call it in Britain, of the “Times” of London, said specifically that the murder of the General Kirillov was justified as an act of war by the Ukrainians in their desperate situation. So that from the standpoint of the Russian elites, this was a statement linked to the knowledge that their own intelligence operatives were behind it.
Napolitano: 13:49
Great Britain is not at war with Russia, even though Storm Shadow missiles supplied by Britain, used and aimed by British technicians, have landed in Russia. And now Britain is almost celebrating the assassination of a senior Russian general who also happens to have been a scientist, a very valuable scientist to the Kremlin. What is the Kremlin likely to do? This strikes me as an insane move by Prime Minister Starmer’s government.
Doctorow:
Well, one would expect, and if you look at the kind of headlines that appear in various YouTube entries from the “Times of India” or a few other world broadcasters, you would expect the Russians would do something really drastic. And of course, Washington must be hoping for that. This is exactly the kind of provocation that Biden and company have been trying to bring about. so that they could make it impossible for Trump to proceed with peace plans.
15:02
But I don’t see anything of that sort happening. The Russians’ attention is elsewhere, and with good reason. It is not to carry out vengeance, although they certainly would like to. They enjoy saying on television how exactly one Sarmat rocket could raze the entire United Kingdom to the ground. So they enjoy that among themselves. But when you look at the action side, what they’re about to do, they have greater concerns.
What happened to the General could happen to almost any of the leading military and industrial figures in Russia. By industrial I mean military industrial, not private industrial. Private industrial, of course, these fellows look after themselves very nicely, thank you, for security. But the Russian generals, like the general Kirillov, who was killed, they live modestly. He had no security detachment.
15:54
He just had an aide, who was killed with him. The apartment house, which they showed, it’s a modest, ordinary, middle-class apartment house. It’s not something extravagant. There’s no concierge. There’s no security there. And that is a situation for many of their officers, which is puzzling, frankly. And I think there are a lot of people scratching their heads now in Moscow, what to do about this.
Napolitano: 16:20
I watched a little bit, I suspect you watched more than I did, of President Putin’s now eagerly anticipated year-end, two-, three-, sometimes four-hour press conference. I saw a clip from an NBC reporter with a British accent. I don’t know his name, but they show him a lot, and Putin always lets him ask whatever he wants, who basically put a question to President Putin. [It] was, and I’ll paraphrase it, “You just lost Syria, you haven’t yet succeeded in your Special Military Operation, and one of your chief generals was just assassinated. When you meet with President Trump, aren’t you the weaker of the two?
17:12
He responded by quoting Mark Twain, saying, “Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated.” He also of course went on to argue, and I’ll ask you about this Professor, that Russia is actually stronger economically, culturally, socially, politically and militarily today than it was three years ago when the Special Military Operation began and provoked the sanctions from the US. But I’m sure you watched more of this than the one short clip I did. Take it from there.
Doctorow: 17:43
Well, your short clip was a very good one. It comes– I watched this for two hours, which was about as long as I could take, and I felt quite satisfied that I left at the right time, because the Russians prepared this particular edition of his annual presser and direct-line conversation with the whole of Russia who sent in their questions to him.
This was prepared in a way that was much more effective and interesting for an international audience than any of the preceding events of this variety, combined press conference and public letters and emails to him. That was combined four years ago before COVID and stays that way. And they put it together in a very, very impressive manner. The most important thing I want to say is that all the trivial questions, which took a lot of the time in the past, were now taken aside and sent to the governors of the areas where the questioner lives to be solved locally without taking the time of the whole nation to hear Mr. Putin step in like the good Tsar and save somebody from the mean local officials.
19:06
So that already took away a lot of the fluffy questions. As for the serious questions, yes, Mr. Putin made the point of giving the microphone to this Kier Brennan, he has a hyphenated last name, leave it at that, Kier Brennan from NBC. Yes, he obviously is British. And his questions were already what you said complex, but that was only [the first] question that he was allowed to deliver.
But as regards Putin’s answer, it was very solid. It was very self-confident. And it was comprehensive, I’d say. Russia is doing better, and not just Russia is doing better, and that Russia is producing, this military industrial complex has ramped up and is producing more material relevant to the war of attrition that’s going on now than all of NATO and the US combined can do. But in fact, Russia is doing it effectively, efficiently, and watching its costs.
20:15
Whereas NATO, as he said, in the two years since the start of the war, the cost of each 155-millimeter artillery shell has quadrupled. As he said, the net result of the soaring costs of military production in the West is that the NATO countries would now have to put up three percent of their GDP just to stand in place, to cover their contributions to NATO’s overall expenses.
Napollitano:
They’ll never be able to afford that. That’s an extraordinary number.
Professor Doctorow, I must run. Thank you for your time. Thank you for all you did for us in 2024. Merry Christmas and happy New Year to you and your family. I hope and trust you’ll be back with us in the new year just two weeks from now.
Doctorow:
Okay, I look forward to it as well. And a Merry Christmas to you and viewers of the show and a good 2025.
Napolitano:
Thank you, my dear friend. All the best to you. Coming up later today: at one o’clock this afternoon, the former British diplomat who has a lot to say about what Professor Doctorow was just discussing, Ian Proud. At two o’clock, Colonel Larry Wilkerson. At three o’clock, Professor John Mearsheimer.
21:34
Judge Napolitano for “Judging Freedom”.
‘Judging Freedom’ edition of 19 December: “Murder in Moscow”
‘Judging Freedom’ edition of 19 December: “Murder in Moscow”
I am appreciative of the title given by the producer to today’s broadcast, as it likely assured higher than usual audience interest. And, in fact, Judge Napolitano and I did spend some time talking about the assassination of General Kirillov by an Uzbek man in the pay of Ukrainian intelligence.
The key question surrounding the murder that you see headlined on you.tube video clips posted by The Times of India and other peddlers of lurid, usually fake news is the following: what violent act of revenge may we expect from Moscow today. It is assumed that Russian revenge will be directed against London, where the MI6 is considered by the Kremlin to be the mastermind of this act of terror and its chief beneficiary. However, as I say in this interview, Russians’ concerns presently lie elsewhere: to see what they can do to prevent the repetition of such terror acts against other leading military officers, against their top scientists, who all lack much-needed security details.
Otherwise, I note with interest that in advance of our chat Judge Napolitano had managed to watch at least one very important video clip of the Putin Q&A in English translation. This showed the questions put to him by the NBC journalist Keir Brennan-Simmons, in particular his very first question on how Putin would conduct his eventual meeting with Donald Trump to find solutions to the war knowing that he was in a weakened position due to the sanctions, to the loss of Syria, to the assassination of General Kirillov.
The fact that this video was posted so quickly reflects the effectiveness of the Russians’ organization of the press conference event this year. Their aim was clearly to grab as much international attention as possible and to ensure that Vladimir Putin’s words reach the broad public in the West.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE97FaADEb4
Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)
„Judging Freedom“-Ausgabe vom 19. Dezember: „Murder in Moscow“
Ich bin dankbar für den Titel, den der Produzent der heutigen Sendung gegeben hat, da er wahrscheinlich für ein höheres Zuschauerinteresse als sonst gesorgt hat. Und tatsächlich haben Judge Napolitano und ich einige Zeit damit verbracht, über die Ermordung von General Kirillov durch einen usbekischen Mann zu sprechen, der vom ukrainischen Geheimdienst bezahlt wurde.
Die Schlüsselfrage im Zusammenhang mit dem Mord, die Sie in den Überschriften der von The Times of India und anderen Anbietern reißerischer, in der Regel gefälschter Nachrichten geposteten YouTube-Videoclips sehen, lautet: Mit welcher gewalttätigen Racheaktion müssen wir heute aus Moskau rechnen? Es wird davon ausgegangen, dass sich die russische Rache gegen London richten wird, wo der MI6 vom Kreml als Drahtzieher dieses Terrorakts und Hauptnutznießer angesehen wird. Wie ich in diesem Interview jedoch sage, liegen die Sorgen der Russen derzeit woanders: Sie wollen sehen, was sie tun können, um die Wiederholung solcher Terrorakte gegen andere führende Militärs und gegen ihre Spitzenwissenschaftler zu verhindern, denen es an dringend benötigten Sicherheitsmaßnahmen mangelt.
Ansonsten stelle ich mit Interesse fest, dass es Judge Napolitano vor unserem Gespräch gelungen war, sich mindestens einen sehr wichtigen Videoclip der Putin-Fragerunde in englischer Übersetzung anzusehen. Darin wurden die Fragen des NBC-Journalisten Keir Brennan-Simmons an ihn gezeigt, insbesondere seine allererste Frage, wie Putin sein eventuelles Treffen mit Donald Trump führen würde, um Lösungen für den Krieg zu finden, da er sich aufgrund der Sanktionen, des Verlusts von Syrien und der Ermordung von General Kirillov in einer geschwächten Position befinde.
Die Tatsache, dass dieses Video so schnell veröffentlicht wurde, spiegelt die Effektivität der Organisation der diesjährigen Pressekonferenz durch die Russen wider. Ihr Ziel war es eindeutig, so viel internationale Aufmerksamkeit wie möglich zu erregen und sicherzustellen, dass Wladimir Putins Worte die breite Öffentlichkeit im Westen erreichen.
“Results of the year with Vladimir Putin,” an informational event which merits close attention
“Results of the year with Vladimir Putin,” an informational event which merits close attention
As I have note on these pages, Vladimir Putin’s speeches to mark one or another calendar event are a daily feature of Russian air time on state television. But there are also very special and noteworthy televised Putin-centered events. Today’s fell into that category. It was preceded by a couple of weeks of active promotion in the media to ensure the widest possible participation of the public.
In what follows I will discuss several of the key issues which Vladimir Putin addressed in response to questions from the moderators and from journalists, that is issues which are necessarily of interest to the international community and not only to the domestic audience in Russia. The event in question is the annual Q&A of the Russian President with callers from around the country and with the national and international press. These two different groups, who were formerly addressed on separate days. The public had its ‘Direct Line’ and the journalists separately were invited to an ‘Annual Press Conference.’ So it was when both events were established back in 2004. However, four years ago, given the limitations imposed by Covid, they were combined into a single event and so it remains.
The venue for the ‘Results of the Year’ is in the heart of Moscow, just steps away from Red Square and from the Kremlin in the totally renovated 18th Century building called Gostinny Dvor that once served as commercial retail premises.
Seating in the central hall was reduced to allow for aides to pass freely into rows and pass the microphone to designated questioners. Moreover, the center of the hall, in an elevated space about the size of a boxing ring, was reserved for the president and a couple of journalist-moderators seated around a table. Journalists, foreign and domestic, constituted most of those in the hall. They numbered less than a thousand but were only a tiny part of the combined exercise.
In the run-up to the event more than two million questions were sent in to the dedicated call center. One million two hundred thousand were phone calls. A little less than 500,000 were sms messages and others were videos and text messages sent via social media. These advance communications were all processed electronically using Artificial Intellect so as to be categorized by the topic interesting the caller, the location of the caller geographically and other parameters useful in prioritizing the President’s time on air.
The ’Direct Line’ events had been characterized not only by the preponderance of questions relating to domestic Russian issues but to a great many highly personal requests for Putin’s intervention to right some wrong in a given locality or some conflict with local officials. In today’s event measures had been taken in advance to reduce the number of such petty exchanges and to leave more time to issues of consequence and general interest. The particularistic questions or complaints were shunted off to be resolved by the governor’s office where the respective caller lives.
Meanwhile, by clear intent of the organizers to make the event more interesting to a global audience, questions relating to international affairs were moved to the first hour, not left for the very end as was the case in the past.
On this basis, I am able to present below some points that Vladimir Putin evidently was keen to bring to our attention, though I admit that I sat through only the first two hours of ‘Results of the Year.’ This gives me the opportunity to provide a ‘scoop’ to readers of these pages, and then to come back with follow-up if the President dealt with something of general interest to us abroad before the Q&A was terminated.
*****
One of the first questions pitched to Putin by one of the moderators was to ask if the world has gone mad. How can Russia navigate the very turbulent waters of international affairs.
His answer was that the world has not gone mad but that when the bullets are flying, as is now the case, people say it is terrible; whereas when there is a time of calm, people say it is a period of stagnation!
The answer to the question, in his view, is to look at the Russian economy, which is stable, resilient and growing very well. Last year, Russian GDP grew at 3.6%; this year it is currently 3.9% and may reach 4% at 31 December. So Russia has grown 8% over two years, while the number is 5.6% in the USA, 1% in the EU and 0% in Germany. Russia is now the largest economy in Europe and number 4 in the world. It has a record low unemployment rate of 2.3%. Growth in manufacturing this year has been 4% and it was 8% in processing industries. The negative indicator is the 9.3% inflation rate.
In answer to a later questioner complaining about price inflation in specific products, Putin revisited this issue, saying that the Central Bank is now looking into what other instruments besides the prime interest rate it can use to tame inflation. And the problem with inflation is too few goods put onto the market to satisfy the growing demand. By way of example, Russia now has become fully self-sufficient in meat production, and meat consumption is now 80kg per capita whereas a few years ago it was half that amount. Milk demand, especially for production of butter, has soared while output has not been able to keep pace. All of this is in conditions of 9% rise in real wages over the past year, which adds to demand across the board.
Surely of greater interest to Western audiences is what the Russian president had to say about the Oreshnik hypersonic missile and the other advanced strategic weapons systems that Russia has now put out into the field and has in serial production.
He explained the logic of developing the intermediate range missiles which were formally banned by an arms agreement which the Americans abrogated under Donald Trump. The range of the Oreshnik and the peculiarity of its very high rise into the atmosphere were decided upon to make the missile invulnerable to all present American means of interception. Since the missile is most vulnerable in the moments immediately following launch, it was given extended range (to 5,000 km) making it possible to locate it way beyond the attack range of any anti-missile systems in the American armory, and especially available on the American ABM bases in Poland and Romania. It reaches a height in the atmosphere before its lightening descent at Mach 10 that also exceeds several times over the capabilities of the Patriot or the still more modern American interceptors.
In what surely will be featured in Western media later today, Putin challenged the States to engage in a ‘duel of the 21st century’. Russia will name its target somewhere in Ukraine and dare the US to bring down the Oreshnik using the best interceptors in their arsenal.
Another set of questions addressed to Putin that can be of general interest in the West was with regard to reconstruction in the 4 annexed regions of the Donbas and Novaya Rossiya: does Russia have the financial and management capability to retore and grow these new territories? His answer was an emphatic yes and he pointed first to the city of Mariupol which had 450,000 inhabitants before the war and was largely destroyed in the artillery battles that preceded its conquest by Russian forces. Putin said that much attention was devoted to infrastructure, starting with rebuilding and fully modernizing roads and to reconstruction of housing. The population has been returning and now is approximately 300,000 strong. Similar investments are being made all across the new territories. And Putin assured the public that these new regions are growing their economies very quickly so that even today the tax revenues from Lugansk are almost twice what they were before the war, and they are more than 60% higher in the part of Donetsk under Russian control.
The microphone was then demonstratively handed over to the American news outlet NBC whose reporter Keir Brennnan-Simmons. Putin was making the point that Russia is treating the foreign press from ‘unfriendly countries’ with the kind of respect that no Russian journalist receives in America.
Brennan-Simmons opened with two questions, the first of which was more an accusation and mark of derision than a question proper: ‘Mr President when you meet with Donald Trump, you will be doing so from a position of weakness. You have lost soldiers. You just lost a senior general…”
Putin said first that he has heard nothing from the Trump camp about a possible meeting with him. And he challenged directly the notion that Russia’s position would be the weaker party when the meeting eventually takes place. No, said Putin, we are much stronger than we were thanks to the assertion of our sovereignty and our finding our way in self-reliance since the launch of the Special Military Operation. We are standing on our own feet economically. Our military production far exceeds the capabilities of all of NATO together. Our soldiers on the battlefield are using our own military supplies and we do all of this in a most rational and effective way. Compare that to NATO where the price of 155mm artillery shells is now four times what it was back in 2022. With this type of cost inflation, NATO member states will have to dedicated not 2% but 3% of their GDP just to stand in place. Our army today has no peer in the world. Russia has become stronger and we, as a sovereign country, are following our national interests.
As regards the journalist who ‘disappeared’ in Syria, Putin offered to put the question to al-Assad when they eventually meet. However, he asked with all due reason how one could expect to get an answer to the mother’s request given that it all happened in the midst of the Syria civil war and long ago.
Then Putin used the question as a springboard to what we all wanted to hear: what the Kremlin says about the ‘loss’ of Syria and about its bases there. As I remarked several days ago, he insisted that Russia entered the civil war in 2015 for one purpose only: to ensure that an extreme Islamist enclave could not be established there. He said Russia succeeded in that mission and did so with no boots on the ground other than those defending its naval and air base. The fighters were from the Syrian Army and from friendly Arab forces [meaning Iranian proxies]. What happened recently was the melting away of the Syrian forces in advance of the conquering troops without a fight. Iran once again turned to us for assistance with moving its troops – but unlike 2015 it was not to move Iranian forces into Syria, it was now to evacuate Iranian troops from Syria. We did so and evacuated 4,000 Iranians to our air base.
As regards Syria, Russia, he said has maintained relations with all interested parties inside and in the region. Everyone says we should keep our bases there. But whether we do or not will depend on our negotiations with the government in Damascus. We have suggested to others that we are ready to open both the naval and the air base for use by all parties wishing to bring humanitarian assistance in to Syria.
In summary, Putin said that Russia’s experience in Syria corresponds to the old remark “Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”
The NBC’s remark about the assassination of General Kirillov evoked a response from Putin that he was satisfied to see the word ‘assassination’ applied to the case, meaning the understanding that this was an act of terrorism. Why is it, Putin then asked in turn, that you journalists in the West have never uttered a word of regret over the murder by terrorist attacks of our Russian journalists?
Finally, Putin invited Brennan-Simmons to ask anything else he might want clarified now that he had the microphone. The journalist asked if Russia is ready to make compromises itself in line with its demand that Kiev make compromises to arrive at a peace.
The answer Putin gave is noteworthy: that Russia and Ukraine had demonstrated this in March-April 2022 when they initialed a peace treaty involving compromises on all sides. Regrettably the British prime minister with a peculiar hairdo then came down to Kiev and issued instructions not to complete the deal.
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024
Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)
„Ergebnisse des Jahres mit Wladimir Putin“, eine Informationsveranstaltung, die besondere Aufmerksamkeit verdient
Wie ich auf diesen Seiten angemerkt habe, sind Wladimir Putins Reden zu dem einen oder anderen Kalenderereignis ein tägliches Merkmal der russischen Sendezeit im staatlichen Fernsehen. Aber es gibt auch ganz besondere und bemerkenswerte Fernsehveranstaltungen, bei denen Putin im Mittelpunkt steht. Die heutige Veranstaltung fiel in diese Kategorie. Ihr gingen einige Wochen aktiver Medienwerbung voraus, um eine möglichst breite Beteiligung der Öffentlichkeit zu gewährleisten.
Im Folgenden werde ich auf einige der wichtigsten Themen eingehen, die Wladimir Putin als Antwort auf Fragen der Moderatoren und Journalisten angesprochen hat, d.h. Themen, die nicht nur für das russische Publikum, sondern auch für die internationale Gemeinschaft von Interesse sind. Bei der betreffenden Veranstaltung handelt es sich um die jährliche Fragestunde des russischen Präsidenten mit Anrufern aus dem ganzen Land und mit der nationalen und internationalen Presse. Diese beiden unterschiedlichen Gruppen wurden früher an verschiedenen Tagen angesprochen. Die Öffentlichkeit hatte ihren „direkten Draht“ und die Journalisten wurden separat zu einer „Jahrespressekonferenz“ eingeladen. So war es, als beide Veranstaltungen im Jahr 2004 ins Leben gerufen wurden. Vor vier Jahren wurden sie jedoch aufgrund der durch Covid auferlegten Einschränkungen zu einer einzigen Veranstaltung zusammengefasst, und so war es auch jetzt.
Der Veranstaltungsort für die „Ergebnisse des Jahres“ befindet sich im Herzen von Moskau, nur wenige Schritte vom Roten Platz und vom Kreml entfernt, in dem vollständig renovierten Gebäude Gostinny Dwor aus dem 18. Jahrhundert, das einst als Einzelhandelsgeschäft diente.
Die Sitzplätze in der zentralen Halle wurden reduziert, damit die Helfer ungehindert in die Reihen gehen und das Mikrofon an die vorgesehenen Fragesteller weitergeben konnten. Darüber hinaus war die Mitte der Halle ein erhöhter Bereich von der Größe eines Boxrings für den Präsidenten und einige Journalisten-Moderatoren reserviert, die um einen Tisch saßen. Die meisten Anwesenden in der Halle waren in- und ausländische Journalisten. Ihre Zahl lag unter tausend, aber sie waren nur ein winziger Teil der gesamten Veranstaltung.
Im Vorfeld der Veranstaltung wurden mehr als zwei Millionen Fragen an das eigens eingerichtete Callcenter geschickt. Eine Million zweihunderttausend davon wurden telefonisch gestellt. Etwas weniger als 500.000 waren SMS-Nachrichten und andere waren Videos und Textnachrichten, die über soziale Medien gesendet wurden. Diese Vorab-Mitteilungen wurden alle elektronisch mit künstlicher Intelligenz verarbeitet, um sie nach dem Thema, das den Anrufer interessierte, dem geografischen Standort des Anrufers und anderen Parametern zu kategorisieren, die für die Priorisierung der Sendezeit des Präsidenten nützlich waren.
Die „Direct Line“-Veranstaltungen waren nicht nur durch die überwiegende Anzahl von Fragen zu innenpolitischen Themen Russlands gekennzeichnet, sondern auch durch eine große Anzahl sehr persönlicher Bitten um Putins Intervention, um ein Unrecht an einem bestimmten Ort oder einen Konflikt mit örtlichen Beamten zu beheben. Bei der heutigen Veranstaltung wurden im Voraus Maßnahmen ergriffen, um die Anzahl solcher belanglosen Gespräche zu reduzieren und mehr Zeit für Themen von Bedeutung und allgemeinem Interesse zu lassen. Die partikularistischen Fragen oder Beschwerden wurden an das Büro des Gouverneurs weitergeleitet, in dem der jeweilige Anrufer lebt, um dort geklärt zu werden.
Inzwischen wurden Fragen zu internationalen Angelegenheiten mit der klaren Absicht der Organisatoren, die Veranstaltung für ein globales Publikum interessanter zu gestalten, in die erste Stunde verlegt und nicht wie bisher ganz ans Ende gestellt.
Auf dieser Grundlage kann ich im Folgenden einige Punkte ansprechen, auf die Wladimir Putin uns offensichtlich aufmerksam machen wollte, obwohl ich zugeben muss, dass ich nur die ersten zwei Stunden von „Ergebnisse des Jahres“ durchgehalten habe. Dies gibt mir die Möglichkeit, den Lesern dieser Seiten eine „Exklusivmeldung“ zu liefern und dann mit einem Folgebericht zurückzukommen, falls der Präsident vor dem Ende der Fragerunde auf ein Thema eingegangen ist, das für uns im Ausland von allgemeinem Interesse ist.
*****
Eine der ersten Fragen, die Putin von einem der Moderatoren gestellt wurde, war, ob die Welt verrückt geworden sei. Wie kann Russland durch die sehr turbulenten Gewässer der internationalen Angelegenheiten navigieren?
Seine Antwort war, dass die Welt nicht verrückt geworden sei, aber dass die Menschen, wenn die Kugeln fliegen, wie es jetzt der Fall ist, sagen, es sei schrecklich; während sie in einer Zeit der Ruhe sagen, es sei eine Zeit der Stagnation!
Die Antwort auf die Frage ist seiner Meinung nach ein Blick auf die russische Wirtschaft, die stabil, widerstandsfähig und sehr wachstumsstark ist. Im vergangenen Jahr wuchs das russische BIP um 3,6 %, in diesem Jahr liegt es derzeit bei 3,9 % und könnte bis zum 31. Dezember 4 % erreichen. Russland ist also in zwei Jahren um 8 % gewachsen, während die Zahl in den USA bei 5,6 %, in der EU bei 1 % und in Deutschland bei 0 % liegt. Russland ist heute die größte Volkswirtschaft Europas und die viertgrößte der Welt. Die Arbeitslosenquote ist mit 2,3 % auf einem Rekordtief. Das Wachstum in der Produktion lag in diesem Jahr bei 4 % und im verarbeitenden Gewerbe bei 8 %. Der negative Indikator ist die Inflationsrate von 9,3 %.
Auf die Frage eines späteren Fragestellers, der sich über die Preisinflation bei bestimmten Produkten beschwerte, ging Putin erneut auf dieses Thema ein und sagte, dass die Zentralbank nun prüfe, welche anderen Instrumente neben dem Leitzins sie zur Eindämmung der Inflation einsetzen könne. Das Problem der Inflation sei, dass zu wenige Waren auf den Markt gebracht würden, um die wachsende Nachfrage zu befriedigen. Zum Beispiel ist Russland jetzt bei der Fleischproduktion völlig autark, und der Fleischkonsum liegt jetzt bei 80 kg pro Kopf, während er vor einigen Jahren noch halb so hoch war. Die Nachfrage nach Milch, insbesondere für die Butterproduktion, ist stark gestiegen, während die Produktion nicht Schritt halten konnte. All dies geschieht vor dem Hintergrund eines Anstiegs der Reallöhne um 9 % im vergangenen Jahr, was die Nachfrage in allen Bereichen erhöht.
Für das westliche Publikum ist sicherlich von größerem Interesse, was der russische Präsident über die Oreschnik-Hyperschallrakete und die anderen fortschrittlichen strategischen Waffensysteme zu sagen hatte, die Russland jetzt in den Einsatz gebracht hat und in Serie produziert.
Er erklärte die Logik hinter der Entwicklung der Mittelstreckenraketen, die früher durch ein Rüstungsabkommen, das die Amerikaner unter Donald Trump aufgekündigt haben, offiziell verboten waren. Die Reichweite der Oreschnik und die Besonderheit ihres sehr hohen Aufstiegs in die Atmosphäre wurden so gewählt, dass die Rakete für alle derzeitigen amerikanischen Abfangmittel unverwundbar ist. Da die Rakete in den Augenblicken unmittelbar nach dem Start am verwundbarsten ist, wurde ihre Reichweite auf 5.000 km erhöht, sodass sie weit außerhalb der Angriffsreichweite aller Raketenabwehrsysteme in der amerikanischen Waffenkammer, insbesondere auf den amerikanischen ABM-Stützpunkten in Polen und Rumänien vorhanden sind. Die Rakete erreicht eine Höhe in der Atmosphäre, bevor sie mit Mach 10 herabstürzt, die auch die Fähigkeiten des Patriot oder der noch moderneren amerikanischen Abfangsysteme um ein Vielfaches übersteigt.
Putin forderte die USA zu einem „Duell des 21. Jahrhunderts“ heraus, worüber die westlichen Medien sicherlich später am Tag berichten werden. Russland wird sein Ziel irgendwo in der Ukraine benennen und die USA herausfordern, die Oreschnik mit den besten Abfangsystemen in ihrem Arsenal abzuschießen.
Eine weitere Reihe von Fragen an Putin, die im Westen von allgemeinem Interesse sein könnten, betraf den Wiederaufbau in den vier annektierten Regionen Donbas und Nowaja Rossija: Verfügt Russland über die finanziellen und verwaltungstechnischen Kapazitäten, um diese neuen Gebiete wiederherzustellen und zu entwickeln? Seine Antwort war ein nachdrückliches Ja und er wies zunächst auf die Stadt Mariupol hin, die vor dem Krieg 450.000 Einwohner hatte und in den Artilleriekämpfen, die ihrer Eroberung durch russische Truppen vorausgingen, weitgehend zerstört wurde. Putin sagte, dass der Infrastruktur viel Aufmerksamkeit gewidmet wurde, angefangen beim Wiederaufbau und der vollständigen Modernisierung der Straßen bis hin zum Wiederaufbau von Wohngebäuden. Die Bevölkerung ist zurückgekehrt und zählt nun etwa 300.000 Menschen. In den neuen Gebieten werden ähnliche Investitionen getätigt. Und Putin versicherte der Öffentlichkeit, dass die Wirtschaft in diesen neuen Regionen sehr schnell wächst, sodass die Steuereinnahmen aus Lugansk bereits heute fast doppelt so hoch sind wie vor dem Krieg und in dem Teil von Donezk, der unter russischer Kontrolle steht, um mehr als 60 % höher sind.
Das Mikrofon wurde dann demonstrativ an den Reporter Keir Brennan-Simmons des amerikanischen Nachrichtensenders NBC übergeben. Putin machte deutlich, dass Russland die ausländische Presse aus „unfreundlichen Ländern“ mit einer Art Respekt behandelt, den kein russischer Journalist in Amerika erhält.
Brennan-Simmons eröffnete mit zwei Fragen, von denen die erste eher eine Anschuldigung und ein Zeichen des Spottes als eine richtige Frage war: „Herr Präsident, wenn Sie sich mit Donald Trump treffen, werden Sie dies aus einer Position der Schwäche heraus tun. Sie haben Soldaten verloren. Sie haben gerade einen hochrangigen General verloren …“
Putin sagte zunächst, dass er aus dem Trump-Lager nichts über ein mögliches Treffen mit ihm gehört habe. Und er widersprach direkt der Vorstellung, dass Russland bei einem möglichen Treffen die schwächere Partei wäre. Nein, sagte Putin, wir sind viel stärker als zuvor, dank der Durchsetzung unserer Souveränität und unserer Selbstständigkeit seit Beginn der militärischen Sonderoperation. Wir stehen wirtschaftlich auf eigenen Füßen. Unsere militärische Produktion übersteigt bei Weitem die Fähigkeiten der gesamten NATO zusammen. Unsere Soldaten auf dem Schlachtfeld verwenden unsere eigenen militärischen Vorräte, und wir tun dies alles auf höchst rationale und effektive Weise. Vergleichen Sie das mit der NATO, wo der Preis für 155-mm-Artilleriegeschosse heute viermal so hoch ist wie im Jahr 2022. Bei dieser Art von Kosteninflation müssen die NATO-Mitgliedstaaten nicht 2 %, sondern 3 % ihres BIP allein dafür aufwenden, um sich zu behaupten. Unsere Armee ist heute weltweit unübertroffen. Russland ist stärker geworden, und wir als souveränes Land verfolgen unsere nationalen Interessen.
Was den in Syrien „verschwundenen“ Journalisten betrifft, bot Putin an, die Frage bei einem eventuellen Treffen an al-Assad zu richten. Er fragte jedoch mit Recht, wie man erwarten könne, eine Antwort auf die Bitte der Mutter zu erhalten, da dies alles mitten im syrischen Bürgerkrieg und vor langer Zeit geschehen sei.
Dann nutzte Putin die Frage als Sprungbrett für das, was wir alle hören wollten: Was der Kreml über den „Verlust“ Syriens und über seine dortigen Stützpunkte sagt. Wie ich bereits vor einigen Tagen angemerkt habe, bestand er darauf, dass Russland 2015 nur aus einem einzigen Grund in den Bürgerkrieg eingetreten sei: um sicherzustellen, dass dort keine Enklave für extreme Islamisten entstehen könne. Er sagte, Russland sei bei dieser Mission erfolgreich gewesen, und zwar ohne Bodentruppen außer denen, die seinen Marine- und Luftwaffenstützpunkt verteidigten. Die Kämpfer stammten von der syrischen Armee und von befreundeten arabischen Streitkräften [d.h. iranischen Stellvertretern]. Was kürzlich geschah, war das kampflose Dahinschmelzen der syrischen Streitkräfte vor den Eroberungstruppen. Der Iran wandte sich erneut an uns, um Unterstützung beim Abzug seiner Truppen zu erhalten – aber im Gegensatz zu 2015 ging es nicht darum, iranische Truppen nach Syrien zu verlegen, sondern iranische Truppen aus Syrien zu evakuieren. Wir haben dies getan und 4.000 Iraner auf unseren Luftwaffenstützpunkt evakuiert.
Was Syrien und Russland betrifft, so unterhalte Russland Beziehungen zu allen interessierten Parteien innerhalb und außerhalb der Region. Alle sagen, wir sollten unsere Stützpunkte dort behalten. Aber ob wir das tun oder nicht, hängt von unseren Verhandlungen mit der Regierung in Damaskus ab. Wir haben anderen vorgeschlagen, dass wir bereit sind, sowohl den Marine- als auch den Luftwaffenstützpunkt für alle Parteien zu öffnen, die humanitäre Hilfe nach Syrien bringen wollen.
Zusammenfassend sagte Putin, dass Russlands Erfahrung in Syrien dem alten Sprichwort entspricht: „Berichte über meinen Tod sind stark übertrieben.“
Auf die Bemerkung von NBC über die Ermordung von General Kirillov erwiderte Putin, er sei zufrieden, dass das Wort „Ermordung“ auf den Fall angewendet werde, was bedeute, dass dies als Terrorakt verstanden werde. Warum, so fragte Putin dann seinerseits, habt ihr Journalisten im Westen nie ein Wort des Bedauerns über die Ermordung unserer russischen Journalisten durch Terroranschläge geäußert?
Schließlich lud Putin Brennan-Simmons ein, alles zu fragen, was er jetzt, da er das Mikrofon hatte, geklärt haben wollte. Der Journalist fragte, ob Russland bereit sei, selbst Kompromisse einzugehen, um seiner Forderung nach Kompromissen von Kiew nachzukommen, um einen Frieden zu erreichen.
Die Antwort, die Putin gab, ist bemerkenswert: Russland und die Ukraine hätten dies im März/April 2022 unter Beweis gestellt, als sie einen Friedensvertrag paraphierten, der Kompromisse auf allen Seiten beinhaltete. Bedauerlicherweise kam dann der britische Premierminister mit einer eigenartigen Frisur nach Kiew und gab Anweisungen, das Abkommen nicht abzuschließen.
Russia detains suspected murderer of General Kirillov
Russia detains suspected murderer of General Kirillov
Who was really behind the atrocity? And what consequences may we may expect to improve Russian domestic security? to take revenge for this act of terror?
Earlier today, Reuters reported on the arrest by Russian investigative authorities of a 29-year-old Uzbek man suspected of having carried out the assassination yesterday of Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, head of the military’s nuclear, chemical and biological defense forces. We are told that the detainee has confessed to the crime and has said he was given this project by Ukrainian intelligence, who offered him a $100,000 reward for success and a comfortable life somewhere in Western Europe.
As we knew already hours after the crime yesterday, the Ukraine’s SBU security service claimed responsibility.
So far, so good. But does the trail of responsibility for the assassination end there? Not in the view of Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other spokesmen for the country’s top leadership.
In her Briefing to journalists earlier today, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova explained why General Kirillov would have been targeted by “the Anglo-Saxons” for his many years spent exposing their egregious violations of international law by (the U.S.) operating biological laboratories in Ukraine and elsewhere that targeted specific ethnic groups including Slavs, for his exposing the false flag operations of the white helmets and other British agents in Syria who staged phony chemical attacks to lay at the door of the Assad regime and its Russian backers, for his exposing the falsehoods of the alleged Russian use of Novichok against the Skripals in Salisbury, U.K., and for exposing the use of chemical agents by Ukrainians on the battlefield in the ongoing war with Russia. She identified the ‘Anglo-Saxons’ as the ‘main beneficiaries of the Kiev regime’s terrorist activities.’ More importantly, she called the ‘Anglo-Saxons’ ‘the ones who masterminded all their activities.’
Seeing where the Russian argumentation was headed and knowing that it would be put before the United Nations Security Council on 20 December, the spokesperson for the U.S. Department of State Matthew Miller flatly denied that the U.S. had foreknowledge or played any role in the assassination of General Kirillov.
However, by ‘Anglo-Saxons’ Zakharova very likely had in mind the Brits, not the Yankees. At least that is what I conclude after listening to the discussion of the murder of Kirillov on yesterday’s Evening with Vladimir Solovyov news and analysis show. The host and panelists were of one mind that this terrorist act had all the hallmarks of the MI6 British intelligence operatives, the very same gents who were likely involved in poisoning Navalny in his distant prison camp. Cold blooded murder seems to be their stock in trade. And it was the British, after all, who had applied sanctions against General Kirillov. In this matter, as in everything else to do with the Ukraine conflict, they were the attack dogs rather than the poodles of Washington.
Otherwise, last night’s discussion of the murder on the Solovyov show was noteworthy for raising yet again the issue of ending the suspension of capital punishment in Russia precisely for cases of terrorists. This issue arose following each of the widely publicized terror attacks these past couple of years, including the Crocus entertainment center attack and the bombing murder of the journalist Darya Dugina. It was also worth paying attention to because of the attention given to the modest life style of Kirillov and other high Russian military officials, as we saw from photos of the general’s apartment building, and the absence of security details to assure their safety. It was not clear from the discussion how better protection can be provided.
The identification of the United Kingdom as the likely masterminds of the murder of General Kirillov was repeated in this afternoon’s edition of The Great Game. It was noted that while Western media generally have not issued any condemnations of this act of terror, the British stood out in their open support for such acts. The editorial in today’s London Times says it all:
The assassination of a Russian general is a legitimate act of defence by a threatened nation. Amid political flux, western governments must step up to support for Kyiv.
One panelist opined that the British elites, which The Times represents, are defending the assassination, because they know that their intelligence operatives were involved in its preparation.
The Russian public is now awaiting what further information about the Ukrainian handlers of the confessed murderer will come out during the interrogation of the suspect. In contrast to the perpetrators of the Crocus center terrorists who were bloodied and damaged goods when shown before cameras after their apprehension, the Uzbek murderer of the general seemed not to have a scratch on him. How well he fares under interrogation remains to be seen. More interesting, of course, is what actions against Kiev the Kremlin will now order in retaliation for this atrocity in a residential neighborhood of Moscow.
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024
Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)
Russland verhaftet mutmaßlichen Mörder von General Kirillov
Wer steckte wirklich hinter dieser Gräueltat? Und welche Konsequenzen können wir erwarten, um die innere Sicherheit Russlands zu verbessern? Wird es zu Racheakten für diesen Terrorakt kommen?
Reuters berichtete heute über die Verhaftung eines 29-jährigen usbekischen Mannes durch russische Ermittlungsbehörden, der verdächtigt wird, gestern Generalleutnant Igor Kirillov, den Leiter der nuklearen, chemischen und biologischen Verteidigungskräfte des Militärs, ermordet zu haben. Uns wurde mitgeteilt, dass der Festgenommene das Verbrechen gestanden und gesagt hat, dass er dieses Projekt vom ukrainischen Geheimdienst erhalten hat, der ihm eine Belohnung von 100.000 US-Dollar für den Erfolg und ein angenehmes Leben irgendwo in Westeuropa angeboten hat.
Wie wir bereits Stunden nach dem Verbrechen gestern wussten, hat der ukrainische Sicherheitsdienst SBU die Verantwortung übernommen.
So weit, so gut. Aber endet die Spur der Verantwortung für das Attentat dort? Nicht nach Ansicht des russischen Außenministeriums und anderer Sprecher der obersten Führung des Landes.
In ihrer Pressekonferenz heute Vormittag erklärte die Sprecherin des Außenministeriums, Maria Sacharowa, warum General Kirillow von den „Angelsachsen“ ins Visier genommen worden wäre: für seine jahrelange Aufdeckung ihrer ungeheuerlichen Verstöße gegen das Völkerrecht durch (von den USA betriebene) biologische Labore in der Ukraine und anderswo, die sich gegen bestimmte ethnische Gruppen, darunter Slawen, richteten, für seine Aufdeckung der Operationen unter falscher Flagge, bei der Weißhelme und andere britischer Agenten in Syrien vorgetäuschte chemische Angriffe inszeniert haben, um sie dem Assad-Regime und seinen russischen Unterstützern in die Schuhe zu schieben, für seine Aufdeckung der Lügen über den angeblichen Einsatz von Nowitschok durch Russland gegen die Skripals im britischen Salisbury und für die Aufdeckung des Einsatzes chemischer Kampfstoffe durch Ukrainer auf dem Schlachtfeld im andauernden Krieg mit Russland. Sie identifizierte die „Angelsachsen“ als die „Hauptnutznießer der terroristischen Aktivitäten des Kiewer Regimes“. Noch wichtiger war, dass sie die „Angelsachsen“ als diejenigen bezeichnete, „die all ihre Aktivitäten geplant haben“.
Als der Sprecher des US-Außenministeriums, Matthew Miller, erkannte, worauf die russische Argumentation hinauslief, und wusste, dass sie am 20. Dezember dem Sicherheitsrat der Vereinten Nationen vorgelegt werden würde, bestritt er rundheraus, dass die USA von der Ermordung von General Kirillov gewusst oder daran beteiligt gewesen seien.
Mit „Angelsachsen“ hatte Zakharova jedoch höchstwahrscheinlich die Briten und nicht die Yankees im Sinn. Zumindest komme ich zu diesem Schluss, nachdem ich mir die Diskussion über den Mord an Kirillow in der gestrigen Nachrichtensendung „Abend mit Vladimir Solovyov“ angehört habe. Der Moderator und die Diskussionsteilnehmer waren sich einig, dass dieser Terrorakt alle Merkmale der britischen Geheimdienstagenten des MI6 aufweist, genau dieselben Herren, die wahrscheinlich an der Vergiftung von Nawalny in seinem weit entfernten Gefangenenlager beteiligt waren. Kaltblütiger Mord scheint ihr Markenzeichen zu sein. Und es waren schließlich die Briten, die Sanktionen gegen General Kirillow verhängt hatten. In dieser Angelegenheit, wie auch in allen anderen Fragen im Zusammenhang mit dem Ukraine-Konflikt, waren sie eher die Kampfhunde als die Pudel Washingtons.
Ansonsten war die Diskussion über den Mord in der Solowjow-Show gestern Abend bemerkenswert, weil sie erneut die Frage aufwarf, ob die Aussetzung der Todesstrafe in Russland nicht gerade für Terroristen aufgehoben werden sollte. Diese Frage kam nach jedem der in den letzten Jahren weithin publizierten Terroranschläge auf, darunter der Angriff auf das Crocus-Unterhaltungszentrum und der Bombenanschlag auf die Journalistin Darya Dugina. Es war auch deshalb beachtenswert, weil der bescheidene Lebensstil von Kirillov und anderen hohen russischen Militärbeamten, wie wir auf Fotos des Wohnhauses des Generals sehen konnten, und das Fehlen von Sicherheitskräften, die für ihre Sicherheit sorgen, für Aufmerksamkeit sorgten. Aus der Diskussion ging nicht hervor, wie ein besserer Schutz gewährleistet werden kann.
Die Identifizierung des Vereinigten Königreichs als wahrscheinliche Drahtzieher des Mordes an General Kirillov wurde in der heutigen Nachmittagsausgabe von Das große Spiel wiederholt. Es wurde angemerkt, dass westliche Medien diesen Terrorakt im Allgemeinen nicht verurteilt haben, die Briten jedoch durch ihre offene Unterstützung für solche Taten hervorstechen. Der Leitartikel in der heutigen London Times sagt alles:
Die Ermordung eines russischen Generals ist ein legitimer Verteidigungsakt einer bedrohten Nation. Inmitten politischer Unbeständigkeit müssen westliche Regierungen Kiew stärker unterstützen.
Ein Diskussionsteilnehmer vertrat die Ansicht, dass die britischen Eliten, die The Times vertritt, das Attentat verteidigen, weil sie wissen, dass ihre Geheimdienstmitarbeiter an der Vorbereitung beteiligt waren.
Die russische Öffentlichkeit wartet nun darauf, welche weiteren Informationen über die ukrainischen Hintermänner des geständigen Mörders bei der Vernehmung des Verdächtigen bekannt werden. Im Gegensatz zu den Tätern der Terroristen des Crocus-Centers, die blutverschmiert und mit beschädigten Sachen vor den Kameras standen, nachdem sie festgenommen worden waren, schien der usbekische Mörder des Generals nicht einen Kratzer zu haben. Wie gut er sich im Verhör schlägt, bleibt abzuwarten. Interessanter ist natürlich, welche Maßnahmen der Kreml nun als Vergeltung für diese Gräueltat in einem Moskauer Wohnviertel gegen Kiew anordnen wird.
NewsX India’s ‘Focal Length’ analytic news program: Russia, Ukraine and Ceasefire
I am pleased to share with the community a 12-minute interview on the above topics that was taken by a news group called NewsX within the ITV (India) organization. Though recorded one week ago and only released today, the interview was well edited and presents in very concise manner the issues that have taken the attention of both mainstream and alternative media all this time.
Transcript submitted by a reader
Porteous: 0:07
Hello and welcome back to NewsX World. I’m Thomas Porteous and you’re watching “Focal Length”, where we get you a briefing on topics from across the world. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is changing dynamics significantly, however its fate is still uncertain. So, how does Moscow see Zelensky’s troop proposal, and could Trump offer a better peace prospect than Biden? What conditions might each side demand? And do shifts in Syria weaken Russia’s influence?
Let’s find out. Joining us is Gilbert Doctorow, who is an international relations and Russian affairs expert. He is a professional Russia watcher and actor in Russian affairs going back to 1965. He is a Magna Cum Laude graduate of Harvard College. Doctorow also served as the chairman of the Russian Booker Literary Prize in Moscow.
0:58
Thank you for joining us Gilbert Doctorow. My first question to you is: does the overthrow of Assad government in Syria indicate a weakening of Russia and Iran?
Doctorow:
It’s premature to say. There was a lot of celebration in Washington, in London, in Ankara over the overthrow of Assad, but I don’t think that those who laugh first will necessarily laugh last. The notion that the winners were Israel and Turkey and that the big losers were Iran and Russia, is very widespread in the major media that you find in the West today. However, the situation in Syria is very fluid. The ability of those who overthrew Assad to hold onto power by themselves is unrealistic.
1:56
We’re speaking about a force that’s HTS, the force that came through from Idlib down through Homs into Damascus. There are 30,000 men. A 30,000-man army cannot govern a country the size of Syria with all of the diverse ethnic and religious groups in that territory. Therefore, the forming of a government is going to be a process that takes some time, if it succeeds at all. Moreover, in the case of Russia, we’re talking about a country that is discussed only in terms of its holding onto its military [assets], the air base, Khmeimin, and the naval base in Tartus. This is only a partial side of the story.
2:50
The major story is that Russia was very active as a determining force in 2015 to 2017, holding the Assad government in place. But that’s not all they did. From 2017 to 2020 or later, they were very active on the ground, whereas their soldiers went through the countryside of Syria and held pacification talks, as a result of which many of the most radical extremists were moved with their families to Idlib, which is really the spawning ground for this latest military event. The point is that Russia has enormous experience as a pacifier and stabilizing force across the country. It has relations with opposition groups across the country. It invited and held talks with opposition leaders in Moscow during this period, 2017 to 20 or later in what was called the Astana process. That is to say Russia probably has a better feel for the future of Syria than any other country. And to say that it is a loser in this is to be misguided.
Porteous: 4:10
What do you make of Zelensky’s proposal for deployment of foreign troops in Ukraine till it is not made a part of NATO?
Doctorow;
I’m sure that these words were put in his mouth by Washington. That is exactly what Washington and London and Paris would like to hear, that they are being invited into Ukraine to be a peacekeeping group, to monitor and control any eventual ceasefire if one is signed with Russia.
But one will not be signed with Russia under the terms that have such a peacekeeping force as a premise. The Russians do not accept it, and they will not accept it. Russia’s terms for ending this war are very different.
Porteous: 4:58
Since Trump’s election there is a change in rhetoric. Zelensky has agreed to a diplomatic resolution to the war. Why is there a change in stance?
Doctorow:
To say that there’s a change in Zelensky’s stance is to choose one day over another day, because one day you hear that he wants negotiations and next day you hear that he doesn’t. In point of fact, no negotiations are possible so long as his decree [is in force] prohibiting any members of the government in Kiev to hold talks with the Russians. No talks, no negotiations. Therefore I don’t take with any seriousness his latest remarks. But watch to hear what he says tomorrow.
Porteous: 5:41
Do you think under Trump there is a better chance of negotiating peace between Russia and Ukraine than under Biden?
Doctorow:
The simple answer is no. Mr Trump seems to be as misguided and misinformed as Mr Biden was, has been for the last three years. The remarks that he has made during his visit to Paris indicate that he already is beginning to understand that solving the problem in Ukraine and Russia is not a matter of 24 hours. It may not take 24 years, but it certainly won’t take 24 hours. And he has put into his statement about his … his dedication to achieving a peace, the words “if I can”.
So he has finally seen that this is a very complicated story, and that the outlines for negotiating a truce that had been proposed, or at least are in the public domain, coming from General Kellogg, who is his nominated envoy to Ukraine and Russia, that these points in the Kellogg plan are utterly unacceptable to the Russians.
Porteous: 6:55
In hindsight, do you feel Biden’s “no dialogue” policy with Russia was a deliberate attempt to ensure that the war did not end?
Doctorow:
Oh definitely. Biden is very keen– or the collective Biden, Biden and his closest advisers who actually are taking decisions in his name, by that I mean Jake Sullivan and Tony Blinken– they are keen to see the collapse of Ukraine happen on President Trump’s watch and not on their watch. The fact that Ukraine will collapse, I think is accepted as a given by both the Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration.
Porteous: 7:38
What do you think the conditions will be put by Russia to enter into a peace deal?
Doctorow:
These conditions were stated by President Putin when he spoke to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They assemble once a year for general consultations with ambassadors, and they did that in Moscow in the middle of June. On June 13th, he addressed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and set out his terms for concluding a peace, not just a ceasefire, which is unacceptable to the Russians, but a genuine peace.
8:12
And those terms were revalidated by his press secretary just a couple of days ago. When this question came up, what can the Russians ask to establish a peace? They are first of all that the Ukrainians withdraw from the territories that Russia calls New Russia and Donbass, that is the four provinces that have been incorporated into the Russian Federation after referenda were held on them. This is Donetsk and Lugansk, and the two New Russia provinces to the southwest of them. That the Ukrainians must withdraw. Now that withdrawal means going further back than they are today, because in point of fact, Russia has not completely taken possession of these provinces.
9:09
So the Russians say, “You stop fighting, you withdraw, and the next day we will stop firing on you.” That is their first condition. But to go from the mere fact of a cessation of hostilities to a peace, the Russians are saying, let’s go back to what we agreed in March, April of 2022, when you initialed a peace treaty with us, that was then overruled by the Americans and the British when Boris Johnson came and said, “No, don’t do it. Continue fighting; we’ll help you.”
9:43
So what were the terms that were agreed in March, April of 2022? That Ukraine would be neutral, but that’s not enough. That Ukraine would not join NATO, but that’s not enough. That there will be no foreign advisors, foreign military installations, foreign trainers, foreign bases in Ukraine. Those facts are not the same as saying no NATO. So Russia wants to have a limit on the military capabilities of Ukraine in return for which Ukraine will receive security guarantees.
But security guarantees that are not issued through the presence of peacekeepers, which is where we began this discussion, peacekeepers coming from the supporters of Ukraine today. No, no, if Russia accepts any type of monitors of the peace, it will be a broader international contingent, including themselves, of course, and including the Chinese. So, to make an example…
Porteous: 10:52
What do you think the conditions will be put by Ukraine to enter a peace deal?
Doctorow:
Well, they have put out their conditions repeatedly, and they’ve called them various things, their peace initiative, going back six months or more, when they tried to bring in as many countries as possible to present the Russians with an ultimatum to end the war. Their terms are the terms of a victor. They are pretending that Russia, who are clearly the winners on the battlefield, should give up everything at the negotiating table in return for a cessation of hostilities.
11:32
That is an inversion. It’s a complete reversal of the normal proceedings when a country that is vanquished and a country that is conquering sit down to discuss the peace.
Porteous:
Thank you, Gilbert Doctorow, for speaking to us on “Focal Length”. With that, it’s a wrap on this episode.
11:53
For more international news updates, stay tuned on NewsX World.
Transcript of ‘Dialogue Works’ edition of 17 December
Transcript of ‘Dialogue Works’ edition of 17 December
Transcript submitted by a reader
Nima R. Alkhorshid: 0:05
Hi everybody, today is Tuesday, December 17th and our friend, Dr. Gilbert Doctorow is back with us. Welcome back, Gilbert.
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
Good to be with you.
Alkhorshid:
Let’s get started, Gilbert, with what’s going on in the Middle East. In your opinion, what’s right now, what would be the Russian policy in the Middle East after this crisis, the toppling of Assad regime in the Middle East in Syria?
Doctorow:
So all the Western media have been celebrating for the last week or more the demise of Assad, his government, and which is seen as a great loss for the Russians, a black eye for Putin and so forth. That’s understandable. That’s in line with the overall propaganda. Anything that could be presented as being bad for Russia has to get first page attention of newspapers, because it takes your mind off of the disaster that’s going on day by day in Ukraine, which I assume we’ll talk about soon.
1:12
But this is dead wrong. And what has happened and the analyses that I’ve heard from some of the guests on your show and other leading interview programs have caused me to reflect a little bit about what I was saying on the Russian activities in 2015, 2017, when they, as we all know, saved the regime of Bashar al-Assad. Was that what they were doing? And have the Russians lost Syria?
Well, first of all, you can’t lose something that you don’t own. And that has to be taken as a first point. Syria was not a Russian possession to lose. If the Russians didn’t take control of Syria in some important way, then what were they doing there 2015 to 17? And couldn’t you say that the Russians’ failure to respond to Israeli air raids over Syria or to any other complications like the Americans’ continued presence in the southeast of Syria, their support for the Kurds. Russians didn’t do anything about this. What does that tell you?
2:34
It causes you to go back to first principles. What were the Russians doing there altogether? And I’d say, in light of these developments, my rereading of the Russian activity in the Syrian civil war was they were there to fight the Islamic government, the Islamic caliphate. And they were doing it not for the benefit of Bashar al-Assad. They were doing it for themselves, because let’s recollect, this movement, ISIS, was deeply ideological and had great ambitions for controlling not just the Middle East, but influence on the Russian Caucasus. So Russia was there to destroy ISIS, to protect itself from a contagious and very dangerous ideology and movement, dangerous to its control of its southern borders.
3:38
And they succeeded. America said it was doing the same thing, it was fighting ISIS, which was rubbish. The Americans were there, twiddling their thumbs much of the time, until they were challenged by the Russians to do something also. Then when the Russians smashed ISIS by their very heavy air bombardment and by coordinated action with Syrian proxies on the ground, then the Americans claimed victory over ISIS.
That was all false. The Russian presence was there, as I said, on very limited basis. And they had no formal obligations to prop up the Assad government. De facto, they offered their assistance in 2018, I understand, and Assad rejected it. He was keeping his options open.
4:33
This is something, these issues are overlooked, intentionally overlooked by those who want to simplify into black and white. The Russians have been very cautious dealing with Middle Eastern countries because of– I mean as far as North as Turkey and as far East as Iran– because these countries all have been duplicitous. They all have potentially, if given the opportunity, stabbed their allies in the back for the sake of opportunism and a quick gain.
Opportunism in the whole area has spelled one thing: the United States offering to relieve the sanctions or otherwise make life easier for one or another country that it has been bullying for decades. Iran, after the death – the murder of their president Raisi, has been a rather slippery object with the appeal, the outreach to the West, to the United States. That was one of the first activities of the incoming new head of the Iranian government. And the Russians saw that. It failed.
6:00
That is to say, they got the back-of-the-hand treatment from the States. There was the attack on Hezbollah’s chief within his visit for the inauguration. And they understood in Tehran that the West was not their friend. It had no intention of becoming their friend, and so they backed away. And again, they were very hotly pursuing Moscow for conclusion of this comprehensive cooperation agreement, which includes a big mutual defense [component].
Alkhorshid: 6:37
You mean Hamas chief?
Doctorow:
Yes, the Hamas chief, exactly. So the Russians have been cautious with Iran, and the Russians certainly were cautious with Assad. And reasonably, as I have learned from some of these latest interviews by people who know profoundly more than I did about the Syrian-Russian relations, Syrian-US relations, that the Russians even entertained replacing Assad in 2011.
This was something I wasn’t aware of, but it adds to the general background. These sides have been like two scorpions engaging one another. There was no real certainty that their interests were more than for a period of useful time and no more. So the Russians, as I said, had nothing to lose in Syria because they didn’t own it.
Now as for the bases, of course a lot of tension is there, but the Russians have reportedly removed a lot of staff they had in Damascus, military staff and others. They have concentrated their presence in Syria in these two bases, an air base and a naval base, Tartus and Khamenei.
8:02
But will they stay there? Only if it’s clear that they are welcome and secure. What is the position of the Damascus government-in-formation with respect to Russia? It’s not at all clear. The only thing that’s perfectly clear is that the EU visitors and those who are speaking for Brussels have made it clear by megaphone diplomacy that they will not deal with Damascus until and unless Damascus pushes the Russians out of Syria. So the presence of Russians in Syria is possible, but not necessarily going to be realized.
8:54
And the Russians have other options, which they must be very actively pursuing right now. Simple options, which I’ve mentioned a week ago, whether it be Iran or Algeria or Egypt. So the Russians will not be removed from the Mediterranean, that’s for sure. And there’s very little, almost no discussion on Russian state television of what is happening in Syria. Surely, it is a source of embarrassment, only because the West is doing everything possible in its mainstream propaganda to make it appear to be a Russian loss.
9:37
And of course, there are those Russians who ask reasonably, is it true, can it be that our government has been outmaneuvered and outdone by US and Israeli diplomacy and military action in Syria? And of course, Turkish. So we are waiting. Thursday, Mr. Putin makes his annual direct-call program. That is, the whole nation has the possibility of submitting questions to him either by email or by telephone messages, whatever. One million people are said to have left with the call center their questions for their president. And people are asking, “Will he allow questions about Syria to be directed to him?” and “Will he answer them?” Well, the first already tells you about the second.
10:42
He has every possibility to ensure that such embarrassing questions are not posed, but perhaps he will take it. In his very important speech yesterday, which got a lot of attention in mainstream media, the speech before the Ministry of Defense was the year-end gathering of maybe 300 senior military officers and a goodly number of important other government officials, civilian government officials, including the representatives of all the Duma parties, Communists and the Just Russia and of course the United Russia. They were all present as he gave his summary of what they’ve achieved and what lies ahead. But Syria did not have any role whatsoever in that speech.
Alkhorshid: 11:44
When you look at the bigger picture of what’s going on in Syria and how important Syria is for them or the project Belt and Road Initiative of China. And do you think that the Russians are now concerned about the North-South Corridor? Because they can do something to Russia as well. Or the relationship between Russia, Azerbaijan and Iran is that good, that they’re not concerned about it?
12:17
They all have very strong economic interests in success in that quadrant. If you’re looking at Azerbaijan as the weak link, I wouldn’t, because they are very closely aligned with Russia. Their interests do not always coincide, of course, Azerbaijan is a competitor on world markets with Russian hydrocarbons, but that does not take away from the reality of their close personal associations.
Aliyev, after all, I think he graduated from the elite foreign policy school in Moscow. In any case, he’s a fluent Russian speaker. And he may be very polite and inviting to Western visitors, but there’s no way that they could prise him away from his economic and geopolitical relationship with Russia. As for Iran, this is very important to them. It gives them serious economic importance in the region, and it facilitates better relations with India, of course, because India is the main beneficiary at the end of the pipeline, at the end of the North-South Corridor for the traffic.
13:44
So traffic that goes not just to Russia, but traffic that goes into Central Asia also. This is a multipurpose north-south route with many beneficiaries. Just like the question of relations with Erdogan, it’s inconceivable that any misunderstanding or mutual dislike that comes out of what Erdogan has done in Syria will interfere with the very deep economic shared interests that Turkey has with Russia. These are bigger than individuals.
Alkhorshid: 14:22
And we’ve learned from the president of Iran that since they took power in Iran, they were working closely with Russians in various groups in order to– this new agreement that they’re going to sign in, if I’m not mistaken, by January 25th in Russia.
And do you feel that right now, the new government in Iran, you mentioned that with the case of Ismail Hanee in Iran, the assassination, do you think, how do you find the behavior of the government in Iran? Do you think, are they getting to the point that they have to be closer to Russia, China and the East?
Doctorow:
Well, a lot– you’ll notice that this is scheduled for five days after the inauguration of Trump, and he is a central figure in the calculations that Iran must be making today. Do they want to genuinely throw their lot in with Russia and with China, of course? Or are they going to seek greater economic benefit and geopolitical benefit by an outreach and accommodation to the Americans? As things look now, there would be no reason for Tehran to expect an accommodation with Mr. Trump.
Now, that could be a misreading. because he may, as I have said elsewhere and other writings of mine, it may be that Mr. Trump has concentrated the most loudmouth and ill-mannered America-First people who are keen on wars with China and with uncoupling the axis of Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. It could be that he is genuinely sympathetic to these ideas and therefore has appointed them. Or it could be, as I think more likely, that he has gathered them all in one place so they’re under his tight control and all beholden to him, so they cannot double-cross him in public space.
16:47
And that his intention is, after a decent four or six months, to make an outreach to Iran. That cannot be dismissed. But if you are in a situation as Iran is today, you’ll be playing, taking a very risky route if you were to decline a close economic, military, and other more general cooperation with Russia, which is just before you, and to have nothing in your hands while waiting for a clarification on what Mr. Trump is actually going to do. It would be taking a very big risk that you’re caught, particularly caught at this very moment, when the protection you had from air defenses in Syria have now been completely obliterated, when there was a free flight zone over Syria for attacking US and Israeli aircraft intent on doing the kind of destruction in your country as they have done elsewhere in the Middle East in the last year.
Therefore, I don’t think that they have a big anguish over this decision. I think they will go ahead and sign up with Russia and make the best of it.
Alkhorshid: 18:18
We know how the Biden administration is obsessed with the conflict in Ukraine. In my opinion, one of the main reasons for what’s going on in Syria was the war in Ukraine, because they wanted, before leaving Washington, they wanted to inflict some sort of suffering for to Russia. And do you think that, the way that the Biden administration is continuing in their support for Ukraine, do you think that what is going on in their mind right now? Because we know that Trump even recently in his talk with the press, he said that he wants to put an end, he wants a deal in Ukraine. But after all, what’s happening right now in the mind of the Biden administration?
Doctorow: 19:11
Well, we’ve understood for some time that Biden, these last two months, now it’s down to one month, wants to ensure his legacy. And one way to do that, the legacy has not just an international affairs dimension, but I think more importantly for him personally, it’s domestic affairs. His Biden economics is a belief that he has created a much more prosperous America, even though Americans voters didn’t understand that, it didn’t resonate with them.
Nonetheless, he believes that the country is economically much stronger because of the various legislative actions that he got through Congress, the vast amount of money, debt money that he has distributed for the sake of new and coming technologies and by his pursuit of the containment on China.
20:12
Nonetheless, he is in these last weeks doing as much as possible on the international front to create, to embroil the incoming administration in foreign-affairs problems that will distract them, which will absorb their attention, and keep them away, keep Mr. Trump away during the honeymoon period of any new government, any new administration from the vast domestic reforms, changes, reversal of everything Biden did that Trump has otherwise declared in his pre-electoral messages.
So there are at least two dimensions here, two sides to what Biden is doing. One is on the face of it, yes, to so provoke the Russians that he hopes they will do something that makes it impossible for Trump to pursue a peace agreement, because the whole American society will be too riled by what the Russians have just done. And what could they do is attack a NATO asset or US asset in Europe or the Middle East as retaliation for these various missile strikes on their territory.
21:42
So he’s hoping for that, finally to break the restraint of Mr. Putin and compel him to do something irresponsible that ruins the peace initiative of Trump. And to keep Trump away from his domestic policies, because he will be busy full-time gathering support in Congress to deal with a new Russian threat.
Alkhorshid: 22:13
I think when it comes to any sort of deal, we have to consider what’s the reality of the battleground right now, and how they can negotiate on these terms that maybe, the terms that Russia would put on the table. Because Donald Trump, I don’t see he has … he’s going to get along with Zelensky’s plan, because that’s not a viable choice. What is the reality on the ground right now?
Doctorow: 22:42
Well, just to come back to your last remark before I discuss the situation on the ground The issue that appears in the last few days is that Trump perhaps has gotten the message that Ukraine, the Ukraine war is bigger than Ukraine. And the real issue that has to be addressed for the Russians to sit down at the table and negotiate is with the Americans directly over a new architecture of security in Europe. I think that message is sinking in, in the Trump camp. And if so, then definitely the Russians will be very pleased to enter negotiations. Even if the starting point, the compromises on the terms of settlement with Kiev, are not acceptable to them. But they will sit down if they are satisfied that the big issue of overall security in Europe is being recognized as worthy of discussion with Washington directly.
23:47
Now, the situation on the ground. It gets more dire every day for the Ukrainians. And the more I see Russian television reporting, and the more we listen to what Putin said yesterday, he gave numbers. He said that the Ukrainians have lost to dead and wounded 500,000 men this year. And that adds to the 500,000 they lost last year.
So when Mr. Trump is speaking about a million men dead or wounded, wounded in the sense of seriously disabled, that’s just Ukraine alone. And that’s quite dramatic. Now as to what’s going on day by day, the latest came out on Russian news yesterday is that the average, I think this was actually incorporated in Putin’s speech, that the average daily gain now is 30 square kilometers, the gain of the Russians on the front.
24:48
They also mentioned during the course of yesterday’s briefing with the Ministry of Defense that the Ukrainians’ forces on the front line, the individual units, are only 45 percent manned. That’s to say, they have experienced such losses they cannot fill their military units, not to mention the units that exist only on paper, because they’ve been totally destroyed. For that reason, the Russian advances are so significant. And if you look at the map that they put up, you see how they are closing in and creating cauldrons, as they call them, pockets, where they have entrapped significant numbers of Ukrainian forces, and how they’re advancing on Pokrovsk, which may be taken in the near future. I think it’s called Krasnoarmeisk in Russian.
25:50
And so if you look at maps, you won’t find Pokrovsk any more. It’s because the Russians are satisfied it’s under their command, and they have restored its pre-Maidan name of Krasnoarmeisk. That is important in ways that weren’t even discussed before. Not only is this a logistics hub essential to supplying Ukrainian forces with Western equipment and ammunition that’s coming in from the Lvov area.
But it also was an important center for Ukrainian metallurgy, since it was the largest, almost unique source of coking coal for smelters. So this town, which was 60,000 in number before the onset of the hostilities, is now partly occupied. They’re entering from nearby, from two, three kilometers away. They’re entering, Russian forces are entering the city. And in a matter of weeks, how much time it takes depends on how much destruction they have to do of high-rise buildings where snipers are hiding out and so forth. But they will take it. It’s clear as day. And when they do that, then the road is open.
27:18
As Mr. Trump was saying yesterday, how flat the land is there. Yes, it is flat, except for some elevations. And once they have Pokrovsk, then they will be rolling westward towards these significant towns, significant from 2014 when they were the points of resistance of the Russian-speaking Ukrainians in Donbas to the Ukrainian military forces that were attacking them at the outbreak of the civil war. And this is Slavyansk and Kramatorsk. Once they reach that, there are more than about 60 percent across what is the Donetsk region, or as it’s called, Republic.
28:11
The two main regions of Donbass are Lugansk and Donetsk. Lugansk is 98 percent held by the Russians. But Donetsk has been the tough case. It was tough in every respect. The biggest fortifications of the Ukrainians were in Donetsk. The closest they came to population centers were in Donetsk, until six, eight months ago.
They were in easy artillery range and shelling daily Donetsk city, which is the capital of the region, with loss of life and large destruction of residential neighborhoods as the evident damage. Till they were pushed back a few months ago, beyond artillery range, and now, as I say, the westward movement of the Russian forces is bringing them to the middle point– that’s east-west middle, divide in the Donetsk region– and then it’s a clean sweep from there to the Dnieper River. That is all within reach. Now, you would think, ah, of course they could do this tomorrow. Well, they can’t do this tomorrow because there are residual forces. I didn’t say they were 90 percent depleted, I said they were 45 percent.
29:34
And they do have drones, they do have mines, they have ways of making it essential that Russians do a lot of cleanup work before they bring troops in on the ground, lest they be devastated by these means of attack that the Ukrainians still have. But it’s clear which way the war is going. And the Russians are very confident, in high spirits. We also note, again, turning to the question of manpower, everybody is talking now, Washington made a great point on how the Ukrainians have to recruit, reduce the mobilization age to 18 from 25 and bring up their numbers because we’ve given them so many supplies, but they don’t have the soldiers.
30:27
Well, the Russians, again came out in yesterday’s briefing that Putin and Belousov, the Minister of Defense, delivered to the assembled generals and political leaders in Moscow, that the Russians recruited, kontraktniki as they call them, these are their signup volunteer soldiers who are paid, they’re paid rather handsomely upon signing a contract for six months service on the front lines.
They’re paid between 8,000 and 10,000 euros. They sign up, and then they receive a rather handsome monthly salary for the time that they’re actually at the front. Last year it was 300,000. Now as we’re in mid-December, it will be 400,000 this year. 400,000 people have signed up.
31:24
They were not mobilized. They weren’t in a war with the draft administrators as goes on in Ukraine, they came in voluntarily either as patriots and also some people, let’s be honest about it, were motivated by the very handsome compensation this offered for those who sign up as kontraktniki. For them, personally, for their families, the benefits of being a volunteer soldier in the Russian Army fighting in the special military operation on Ukrainian territory includes a lot of benefits for the family, for the children. The children are assured scholarships to the best universities or higher educational institutions in the country. The families are given highly subsidized mortgage loans for housing.
32:28
There are a lot of benefits that come with this, as well as a lot of pride, because the Putin government is promising that those who fight, those who show their valor in the field of battle, will become the elite of the new Russia. They will be held, he is holding out to them positions of importance in the local administrations across the country, and of course in the military if they choose to pursue a military career.
And if, as one of these heroes of Russia told Putin in their direct one-to-one conversation when the awards were given out, that “I don’t feel prepared for this type of honor, because I really wasn’t properly educated.” And Putin told him, “Well, we’ll educate you. We’ll ensure that you have what it takes, and we will give you experience in local administration, so that you can be given and properly deserve a position of authority for the whole future, for your future career.”
33:41
So this encouragement, this intention to restore to the Russian military the social position that they had in the 19th century, when every provincial noble family, whether poor or otherwise, the mothers all were hoping that their daughters would marry an officer, that type of status of patriotic young men will be rewarded with elite status in the new Russia, the post-Putin Russia.
Alkhorshid: 34:23
If you were to mention the main terms for any sort of negotiations right now for Russians, what would that be? And because in my opinion, right now, what’s going on right now in Russia with the terrorist attack, with the recent terrorist attack in which General Kerillov with his aide were killed. Is terrorism a concern for Russia coming from Ukraine?
Doctorow: 34:53
Well, it has been for a long time. Remember this Crocus Entertainment Center, which was very important to public consciousness because it was carried out by central Asian hirelings of Ukraine and turned a lot of attention of Russian society to
“What are all these central Asians doing in our midst? Are they really trustworthy?” So the notion of the connection between– and of course there are a series of other high visibility assassinations. The Daria Dugina, the daughter of this philosopher, politician, political thinker in Moscow who was a journalist and who was blown up. These are in public mind. Ukraine is closely linked, associated in Russian consciousness with terrorism.
35:54
The incursion into Kursk region was initially described as an act of terror. Its tactical or even strategic dimension was not seen at once by the Russians. And by the Russians, I mean by the Kremlin, And it was described as a terror act. So this falls in line, what we just learned about today falls in line with this side. Perhaps it’s the only successful, in quotation marks, activity of the Zelensky grouping, gang. Certainly they are not succeeding well on the battlefield.
36:45
But these things go hand in hand. Generally speaking, terrorism is an act of the losers, an act of those who do not have the wherewithal to conduct a proper military campaign.
Alkhorshid:
How do you see, do you think that what has happened in Georgia would make Russians happy, the Russian government happy or there’s still a lot of work to be done in Georgia? They’re still having some sort of concerns in Georgia.
Doctorow:
Well, the Georgian case is interesting, because it shows that Maidan is not something that can be transplanted easily, even if all the elements are there down to the tiny details like distributing cookies in the street, to those who were striking against the government.
The outstanding feature of what’s happened, or what is happening in Georgia, is the resolute-ness, the competence, the clear-mindedness of the Georgia Dream government, prime minister. This was not to be expected. And let us remember that the whole affair is an internal Georgian matter in which Russians are an interested party, but not an active party. The question is, will Georgia have any semblance of sovereignty, or does it just become another proxy warrior against Russia, following instructions from Brussels and Brussels following instructions from Washington? That is the issue.
38:30
The notion that the Georgia Dream Party wants to be a Russian ally, a Russian subject, is total nonsense. This disposition of the party is to become part of the EU community. Lord knows why they want to join the losing side, but that’s their business. The point is that their public position is to join the EU. But they will not join the EU under the terms of the present EU diktat, which is that they undo their law on foreign agents, which– some European countries have similar. Of course, It all started in the States in the 1920s.
39:17
And those laws are still on the books in the States. The issue of foreign agents is well, very clear. It’s the means by which George Soros and the pro-Democracy agencies, NGOs are able to subvert governments. And the Georgian government, the Georgia Dream Party was insisting that it will not allow subversion, that it will expose all channels of funding for sedition, and that they will not withdraw the law for the sake of furthering their admission to the EU. So the EU is acting with a fist and destroying its chances of influence over a government that is at heart sympathetic to the EU, but not sympathetic to being treated like slaves.
Alkhorshid: 40:21
In my opinion, the day that the European Union decides to change its policy toward Ukraine, what they’ve been doing to Russia for more than three, for almost three years, it’s going to fire back at them because– the problems that they’re making in Ukraine is going to backfire, if they stop sending more aid and weapons to Ukraine. And right now when you look at the situation in the European Union, we have two leaders, Fico and the Hungarian president Orban, they’re willing to go after peace, go after some sort of negotiations with Russia. But in your opinion, are other European countries getting prepared for what’s coming from the Trump administration and their policies?
Doctorow: 41:21
No, I think that it’s insane. They don’t know how to deal with this. Of course, you have to give them a little bit of forgiveness, because Trump has put these awful neocon people into his administration. And I don’t think this was an accident. I know we gave one reason. He’s getting to his gang, putting them all together in a room, and then he locks the door. There’s more to it, though.
He is giving himself a second life insurance policy, besides having J.D. Vance as his vice president, that’s his first life insurance policy. And this is the second one, because people really have a hard time reading: What is his intent? Has he really been deceiving us the whole time?
Us being the people who appear on your show and on similar programs in the alternative media, we have all assumed that Trump is our friend. And have we been taken for fools? That, just as we wonder about that, I think people in the EU wonder about that. Have they been fearing for no reason that Trump is going to be their enemy? He is being very American because he is creating muddy water in which everybody’s fishing.
42:57
We don’t know where he stands. We’ll find out in the next month or two. And therefore, I think the Europeans are on the wait and see. Don’t be terrified because it may not be as bad as it looks. But when they find out that it is as bad as it looks, then your question would be very appropriate. What are they going to do about it?
Alkhorshid: 43:18
Yeah. How about Romania, Gilbert? What’s your understanding on what has happened and what’s going on in Romania? And is that of importance for Russia?
Doctorow:
It’s of great importance, because it is a weather vane for the EU’s policies in general with respect to democracy within the EU and with respect to allowing the people to determine the policies of their separate governments. Is there any degree whatsoever of sovereignty in the 27 member states? That is the issue that’s of great interest to the Russians, because they would like to believe that some of these leaders in countries are open to common sense and self-interest.
44:09
And that is the case in the candidate who unexpectedly came to the fore with the single largest body of votes, even if he didn’t have a majority, and they were going to go into a runoff, the second round. Nonetheless, his ability to win out over the EU-paid and -sponsored defamation program against himself was of interest, of course, to Moscow. And then you have this judicial decision negating that first vote over alleged and unsubstantiated charges that Russian agents had corrupted the vote, has influenced the vote against the preferred candidates of Brussels.
45:07
So of course the Russians are following this closely to see what chances there are of finding some accommodation within the EU after the war ends.
Alkhorshid:
Before wrapping up, Gilbert, we had a statement from Erdogan, which we were talking about, laughing about it. He said something different. He said that there are two main, real leaders in the world, me and Putin. What I understand from this type of vision that he’s looking toward the east, he’s not looking toward the west. This comes to my mind when he’s talking this way. Do you think that after all with all that difficulties that we’re having in Syria and in the Middle East, the overall movement of Turkiye would be toward the East?
Doctorow: 46:15
Well, it’s too early to say, As I mentioned a week ago, the Russians are not going to turn their back on him. They have very big projects that interest both Turkey and Russia equally. Therefore, it would be quite foolish to forego these very difficult to negotiate agreements over the gas hub, over the atomic power plant that the Russians are building and so forth.
So they will not turn their back on him. And they are interested in what he’s going to do in Syria, what his next moves are, because it’s not at all clear what kind of relationship he will have in practice in days ahead with Israel, how happy or unhappy he is with what they have been doing to devastate any semblance of armed forces in Syria and to create the way for total chaos in the country. It is not clear how Erdogan’s conflict of interests with the United States in the Kurdish zone will be regulated now that Assad is out of the picture and the two sides are in direct confrontation over the fate of the Kurds in Syria. So the Russians will certainly be watching very closely. They don’t close any doors.
47:48
Just as I say, they’re not closing any doors on retaining or leaving their military bases in Latakia and in Tartus provinces. These are long, long games. And the parties have been present for decades and will be present for decades to come. The goal will depend on matching up interests and ambitions. Therefore, well, obviously he was saying what he was saying to ingratiate himself with Putin, although I don’t think Putin is as keen on flattery as Mr. Erdogan is.
Alkhorshid:
Thank you so much, Gilbert, for being with us today. Great pleasure, as always.
Doctorow: 48:42
Thank you, Nima. I enjoyed it.
‘Dialogue Works’ edition of 17 December: Russia’s Strategy in Syria and Ukraine
Today’s chat with host Nima Alkhorshid centered on expectations with respect to Donald Trump. His appointment of loud-mouthed Neocons to key military and foreign policy positions leaves most everyone confused.
Is his purpose to bring these hawks together in one room where he can control them and bring them to heel? Or has he truly abandoned the peace mission that was part of his pre-electoral messaging?
These questions are foremost within the alternative media. They will be decisive for the leadership in Teheran as they decide to proceed or not on their comprehensive cooperation treaty with Moscow at the end of January, including mutual defense provisions, as opposed to waiting for the Trump administration to make an outreach to them perhaps six months from now with a view to a mutually acceptable set of terms including relaxation of sanctions.
I was given the opportunity to explain why the overthrow of the Assad regime in Syria was not a loss for the Russians because you cannot lose what you never owned. As I remark, recent events have compelled me to reconsider what the Russians were doing in Syria from 2015-17 when they played a decisive role in saving the Assad government by their destruction of ISIS groupings around Syria and performance of pacification negotiations in localities throughout the country. My revised conclusion is that their action had nothing to do with saving Assad and everything to do with destroying ISIS because they saw it as a contagious ideology and movement threatening Russia’s hold on the Caucasus and its southern borders.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8PnSv_jlDc
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024
Transcript of Press TV, Iran interview on delivery of U.S. tanks to Taiwan
Transcript submitted by a reader
PressTV: 0:00
Gilbert Doctor is an independent international affairs analyst who joins us from Brussels. Welcome. So the fact that this has not happened in quite some time, this delivery of this type of equipment, the Abraham tanks, what do you think it means in terms of the timing?
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
Well, this is in keeping with what the United States is doing in Ukraine in the final days of the Biden administration. The Biden administration is preparing complications in relations with China, which will pass then to Trump, and perhaps in the hope that they will keep him so busy in international affairs, turning back the mess that they’re leaving with him, that they won’t have a chance to implement his domestic policies, which are very much against what Biden has been doing for the last four years.
0:54
This delivery of the tanks is a complication on the already-simmering hostilities between China and the United States over the visit to the US by the Taiwanese president, that just took place and which provoked China to implement the biggest military exercises around Taiwan and in the South China and East China Seas that we have seen in decades. Therefore, we can expect there will be a strong and robust Chinese response to this latest complication, this latest provocation.
PressTV: 1:38
Are we going to see a more ramped-up effort by the US when Trump comes in, in terms of what conflict is brewing, so to speak, between the US and China over that issue on Taiwan?
Doctorow:
There is a lot of conflicting interpretation, both in major media and in alternative media in the States and in Western Europe, over how Mr. Trump will conduct himself. If you listen to his words, his words are tough and indicative of a policy of prioritizing conflict with China over all other international disputes or problems the United States is involved in around the world.
2:20
However, the other side of the story is that he may have gathered under his tent all of those very aggressive anti-Chinese and anti-Russian politicians who have prominence in the States. He’s gathered them into one room, all of them reporting to him, with the intent to beat them up and to remove from the public space these very loud-mouthed critics.
PressTV: 2:51
Okay, it looks like we have lost Gilbert Doctorow. That was Gilbert Doctorow speaking to us, independent affairs analyst there.
Link to the interview: http://www.urmedium.net/c/presstv/131992
Joe Biden’s poisonous ‘gifts’ to the incoming Trump administration
Today’s breaking news in and around China was the U.S. delivery to Taiwan of a batch of advanced Abrams tanks. According to the Taiwanese defense ministry, the 38 tanks just received are from among the 109 tanks which they requested from the U.S. in 2019. These are the first new tanks to be delivered to Taiwan in 30 years.
The delivery, you note, is in Biden’s final weeks in office and it is a big provocation coming, as it does, after the major scandal in state-to-state relations caused by the visit of the Taiwanese president to the United States in the past week. The Chinese response to that outrage, which contradicts the One China policy concluded between Richard Nixon and Mao Tse-tung in the 1970s, was the largest ever deployment of its air and naval forces in the South China and East China seas for maneuvers demonstrating its power to control waterways out to the first island chain in defiance of American Pacific dominance.
Meanwhile, on the Ukrainian front, Washington is rushing to ship out vast new consignments of weapons and artillery shells to Kiev. This war materiel may have some limited impact on the ability of Ukrainian forces to resist the grinding daily advance of Russian troops westward in the Donbas. Or it may be destroyed by Russian missile attacks soon after crossing the border into Ukraine. However, its greater impact is psychological: to build Ukrainian confidence and willingness to fight to the bitter end and to provoke the Russians into escalatory retaliation that will make it impossible for Trump to proceed with plans to take the U.S. out of this war.
The common denominator of Biden’s final moves in office is to embroil the incoming Trump administration in foreign policy crises that will distract him from his stated ambition of bringing in an era of peace and will distract him from carrying out his pre-election promises of reversing U.S. domestic policy of the Biden years from top to bottom early in his tenure, when he has full control of Congress and the period of grace that each new president enjoys.
It is not a matter of concern to the outgoing Biden that what he is doing is totally irresponsible and may bring about a hot war which spins out of control. It is not a matter of concern to him that these very measures further consolidate the Russian-Chinese alliance which presents Washington with a two-front war that it cannot win. Moreover, both with respect to Russia and with respect to China, the Biden administration is precipitating a military conflict several years in advance of its own schedule for raising military preparedness to the point where it has some chance of prevailing. In both cases, the target period Washington has designated for war with one or another of these adversaries is two or three years in the future. Stupid, very stupid, as Donald would say.
In closing, I point out that the issue of the Abrams shipment to Taiwan was the subject of a brief interview I had this morning with Press TV, Iran. See http://www.urmedium.net/c/presstv/131992
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024
Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)
Joe Bidens giftige „Geschenke“ für die kommende Trump-Regierung
Die heutige Eilmeldung in und um China war die Lieferung einer Charge fortschrittlicher Abrams-Panzer aus den USA an Taiwan. Nach Angaben des taiwanesischen Verteidigungsministeriums gehören die 38 Panzer, die gerade eingetroffen sind, zu den 109 Panzern, die Taiwan 2019 bei den USA angefordert hatte. Dies sind die ersten neuen Panzer, die seit 30 Jahren an Taiwan geliefert werden.
Die Lieferung erfolgt, wie Sie wissen, in Bidens letzten Amtswochen und ist eine große Provokation, da sie nach dem großen Skandal in den Beziehungen zwischen den Staaten erfolgt, der durch den Besuch des taiwanesischen Präsidenten in den Vereinigten Staaten in der vergangenen Woche verursacht wurde. Die chinesische Reaktion auf diesen Skandal, der der in den 1970er Jahren zwischen Richard Nixon und Mao Tse-tung vereinbarten Ein-China-Politik widerspricht, war die größte jemals durchgeführte Entsendung von Luft- und Seestreitkräften in das Südchinesische und Ostchinesische Meer zu Manövern, die die Macht demonstrieren sollten, die Wasserstraßen bis zur ersten Inselkette zu kontrollieren, und damit die amerikanische Vorherrschaft im Pazifik herauszufordern.
Währenddessen beeilt sich Washington an der ukrainischen Front, riesige neue Lieferungen von Waffen und Artilleriegeschossen nach Kiew zu verschiffen. Dieses Kriegsmaterial könnte einen begrenzten Einfluss auf die Fähigkeit der ukrainischen Streitkräfte haben, dem zermürbenden täglichen Vormarsch der russischen Truppen nach Westen im Donbass zu widerstehen. Oder es könnte durch russische Raketenangriffe kurz nach dem Überqueren der Grenze zur Ukraine zerstört werden. Die größere Wirkung ist jedoch psychologischer Natur: Sie soll das ukrainische Selbstvertrauen und die Bereitschaft stärken, bis zum bitteren Ende zu kämpfen, und die Russen zu einer Eskalation der Vergeltungsmaßnahmen provozieren, die es Trump unmöglich machen würde, seine Pläne, die USA aus diesem Krieg herauszuhalten, umzusetzen.
Der gemeinsame Nenner von Bidens letzten Amtshandlungen besteht darin, die kommende Trump-Regierung in außenpolitische Krisen zu verwickeln, die ihn von seinem erklärten Ziel ablenken werden, eine Ära des Friedens einzuleiten, und ihn davon abhalten werden, seine Wahlversprechen einzulösen, die US-Innenpolitik der Biden-Jahre zu Beginn seiner Amtszeit von Grund auf umzukehren, wenn er die volle Kontrolle über den Kongress und die Schonfrist hat, die jeder neue Präsident genießt.
Es ist dem scheidenden Biden egal, dass das, was er tut, völlig unverantwortlich ist und einen heißen Krieg auslösen könnte, der außer Kontrolle gerät. Es ist ihm egal, dass genau diese Maßnahmen die russisch-chinesische Allianz weiter festigen, was Washington vor einen Zweifrontenkrieg stellt, den es nicht gewinnen kann. Darüber hinaus beschleunigt die Biden-Regierung sowohl in Bezug auf Russland als auch in Bezug auf China einen militärischen Konflikt um mehrere Jahre vor ihrem eigenen Zeitplan, um die militärische Bereitschaft so weit zu erhöhen, dass sie eine gewisse Chance hat, sich durchzusetzen. In beiden Fällen liegt der von Washington festgelegte Zielzeitraum für einen Krieg mit dem einen oder anderen dieser Gegner zwei oder drei Jahre in der Zukunft. Dumm, sehr dumm, wie Donald sagen würde.
Abschließend möchte ich darauf hinweisen, dass die Frage der Lieferung von Abrams-Panzern an Taiwan Gegenstand eines kurzen Interviews war, das ich heute Morgen mit Press TV, Iran, geführt habe. Wenn das im Internet veröffentlicht wird, werde ich den Link hier hinzufügen.
Did Viktor Orban achieve anything during his mission to Mar-al-Lago this past week?
We have all seen video images of Viktor Orban’s visit with Donald Trump on Monday, 9 December, which featured the two leaders smiling broadly and showing thumbs up to photo journalists. We know that during the same visit, Orban met with Elon Musk: and major media showed them in a friendly conversation during which Musk was carrying one of his children on his shoulders. These were all heart-warming images to Trump supporters, awful signs for dyed-in-the-wool Democrats of the prospective collaboration between what they believe to be hard right authoritarian leaders during the Trump years to come. Some reporting also carried mention of Trump’s designated national security adviser Mike Waltz as having been present for the talks.
On Wednesday, 11 December, Reuters and other U.S. media reported briefly that Orban had a one-hour telephone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin during which he evidently recounted what he learned in Mar-al-Lago and sought Putin’s agreement for a Christmas Day cease-fire and large-scale exchange of prisoners to be arranged with Kiev. We may assume that Putin gave his consent, but subsequently Vladimir Zelensky rejected Orban’s initiatives on both matters and roundly attacked the Hungarian Prime Minister for speaking to Putin at all. Some of our media did quote Orban as saying that this week was the most critical in the entire Ukraine war, meaning that the fate of the world was hanging in the balance.
On this same Wednesday, we learned that Kiev had used six ATACMS missiles in a strike against the military airfield in Taganrog, a Russian port city on the Sea of Azov.
The week closed with Russia’s massive missile and drone attack Friday, 13 December, on Ukraine’s already shattered electricity generating infrastructure, which even compelled Kiev to shut down the nuclear plants which till now had been the mainstay of residual electricity supply to the country. One half of Ukraine was now said to be totally without electricity. Nearly 100 Russian hypersonic short range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles together with a still greater number of killer drones were deployed in what Moscow called a successful mission in retaliation for Kiev’s ATACMS strike on Taganrog.
All of these reports in major Western media leave us with a great many loose ends. The interrelationship of these various developments and in particular, the impact of Viktor Orban’s peace mission to the United States, is left unanswered.
With the help of insights that I have just gathered from the remarks of panelists on the Russian talk show Vremya pokazhet (Time will Tell), I will try to tie up the loose ends and will argue that we all owe a great ‘thank you’ to Orban for his brave defiance of colleagues in the European Union, for using these closing weeks of his six-month presidency of the European Council to save us all from escalation towards nuclear catastrophe, at the upper end of ambition, and to save the lives of Russian and Ukrainian servicemen on the second holiest day in the Christian calendar, at the lower end of ambition.
*****
Readers of these pages are aware that I have been drawing most of my material on what the Kremlin is thinking from the two leading news and analysis shows on Russian state television for their home audience, Evening with Vladimir Solovyov and The Great Game hosted by Vyacheslav Nikonov. Occasionally I have also made reference to Sixty Minutes, led by Yevgeny Popov and his wife Olga Skabeyeva. The presenters of these programs may be described as highly authoritative, and I have a personal reading on them all going back to my meetings with them on air back in 2016-2017 when I had a year-long ‘day in the sun’ on Russian domestic television as a guest panelist.
At that time, they had a special interest in hearing from Russia-neutral or Russia-friendly Americans who were fluent in Russian, as opposed to their traditional fare of Russia-hating Americans fluent in Russian, of whom the most celebrated example was a certain Michael Bohm. The reason for this was clear: the Russian news editors were in a state of confusion over what the Trump presidency meant for bilateral relations and there was a hope that an improvement was coming. Of course, those hopes were dashed during 2017 and by mid-way through that year Russian talk shows reverted to inviting devil-incarnate Americans panelists whom they could beat into the ground during their shows for the amusement of their audiences. In the past two years of the Special Military Operation, relations have deteriorated so far that no foreigners of any stripe are invited onto the talk shows other than an occasional Belarus diplomat or Opposition personality from Ukraine.
What I have not been using to inform my journalism in recent months is one other important talk show on which I appeared back in 2016, the aforementioned Vremya pokazhet. It also has high ratings, though is a notch below the Solovyov, Nikonov and Popov programs. Back in 2016, it distinguished itself by scheduling shows in the mid-afternoon when the audience would consist heavily of housewives and pensioners, as opposed to prime time with its primarily working male audience. I am unsure how they position themselves in this regard today, but watching the first segment of their 12 December show, I see that they are using some of the same expert panelists as the other talk shows but are bringing a distinctive focus to the discussions that helped me to reconsider the week’s news in the way I do below.
For the Russian speakers among you, here is the link: https://rutube.ru/video/0244c2bc77020e60adde6af875ca6d22/
What I piece together from the material presented on this show is the certainty that Orban’s mission to Mar-al-Lago and his subsequent debriefing for Putin had a strong influence on the way that the Kremlin chose to retaliate for the attack on Taganrog. Clearly, as I have said in my interviews this past week, there were options on the table that were sharply escalatory, foremost among them the possibility of an attack using the Oreshnik hypersonic missile against the US missile base in Poland that was the source of great concern and loud complaints by Moscow going back seven years or more when its construction was first announced. Now, from the words of one panelist on this show, it becomes evident that another possibility which the Kremlin was considering was an Oreshnik strike on a decision-making center in Kiev, but one which no one appears to have considered from among my peers in the alternative media: namely a strike on the U.K. embassy in Kiev, which the Russians properly consider to be directing the war that Ukraine is waging. And the Russians have in hand Western precedents, starting with the U.S. ‘accidental’ bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in May, 1999 during the NATO offensive to bring down the Milosevic government.
It is clear to me that Orban was able to provide Putin with persuasive evidence from his talks with Trump, Musk and Waltz that it would be far better to show restraint, not to take the bait from the Biden administration to escalate and thereby not upset Trump’s likely plans to stop funding the war upon taking office. Accordingly, the Russians only ravaged what remains of Ukraine’s power supply and did not touch NATO assets inside or outside Ukraine.
For this, as I say, we all owe a great debt of gratitude to the Hungarian prime minister.
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024
Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)
Hat Viktor Orban bei seiner Mission in Mar-al-Lago in der vergangenen Woche etwas erreicht?
Wir alle haben die Videoaufnahmen von Viktor Orbans Besuch bei Donald Trump am Montag, dem 9. Dezember, gesehen, auf denen die beiden Staatsoberhäupter breit lächeln und den Fotojournalisten den Daumen nach oben zeigen. Wir wissen, dass Orban sich während desselben Besuchs mit Elon Musk getroffen hat: und die großen Medien zeigten sie bei einem freundlichen Gespräch, bei dem Musk eines seiner Kinder auf den Schultern trug. Für Trump-Anhänger waren dies alles herzerwärmende Bilder, für eingefleischte Demokraten waren es schreckliche Anzeichen für die mögliche Zusammenarbeit zwischen den ihrer Meinung nach rechtsextremen autoritären Führern in den kommenden Trump-Jahren. In einigen Berichten wurde auch erwähnt, dass Trumps designierter nationaler Sicherheitsberater Mike Waltz bei den Gesprächen anwesend war.
Am Mittwoch, dem 11. Dezember, berichteten Reuters und andere US-Medien kurz, dass Orban ein einstündiges Telefongespräch mit dem russischen Präsidenten Wladimir Putin geführt habe, in dem er offenbar berichtete, was er in Mar-al-Lago erfahren hatte, und Putins Zustimmung für einen Waffenstillstand am Weihnachtstag und einen groß angelegten Gefangenenaustausch mit Kiew einholte. Wir können davon ausgehen, dass Putin seine Zustimmung gegeben hat, aber anschließend lehnte Wladimir Selensky Orbans Initiativen in beiden Angelegenheiten ab und griff den ungarischen Ministerpräsidenten scharf an, weil er überhaupt mit Putin gesprochen hatte. Einige unserer Medien zitierten Orban mit den Worten, dass diese Woche die kritischste im gesamten Ukraine-Krieg sei, was bedeutet, dass das Schicksal der Welt auf dem Spiel stehe.
Am selben Mittwoch erfuhren wir, dass Kiew sechs ATACMS-Raketen in einem Angriff auf den Militärflugplatz in Taganrog, einer russischen Hafenstadt am Asowschen Meer, eingesetzt hatte.
Die Woche endete mit einem massiven Raketen- und Drohnenangriff Russlands am Freitag, dem 13. Dezember, auf die bereits stark beschädigte Stromerzeugungsinfrastruktur der Ukraine, der Kiew sogar dazu zwang, die Kernkraftwerke abzuschalten, die bisher die Hauptstütze der verbleibenden Stromversorgung des Landes gewesen waren. Die eine Hälfte der Ukraine soll nun völlig ohne Strom sein. Fast 100 russische ballistische Hyperschall-Kurzstreckenraketen und Marschflugkörper sowie eine noch größere Anzahl von Killerdrohnen wurden in einer von Moskau als erfolgreich bezeichneten Mission als Vergeltung für den ATACMS-Angriff Kiews auf Taganrog eingesetzt.
All diese Berichte in den großen westlichen Medien lassen viele Fragen offen. Die Zusammenhänge zwischen diesen verschiedenen Entwicklungen und insbesondere die Auswirkungen von Viktor Orbans Friedensmission in den Vereinigten Staaten bleiben unbeantwortet.
Mit Hilfe der Erkenntnisse, die ich gerade aus den Äußerungen der Diskussionsteilnehmer in der russischen Talkshow „Vremya pokazhet“ (Die Zeit wird es zeigen) gewonnen habe, werde ich versuchen, die losen Enden zusammenzubinden, und ich möchte argumentieren, dass wir alle Orbán ein großes „Dankeschön“ dafür schulden, dass er sich mutig gegen seine Kollegen in der Europäischen Union gestellt hat, dafür, dass er die letzten Wochen seiner sechsmonatigen Präsidentschaft des Europäischen Rates genutzt hat, um uns alle am oberen Ende der Ambitionen vor einer Eskalation in Richtung einer nuklearen Katastrophe zu bewahren, und am unteren Ende der Ambitionen, um das Leben russischer und ukrainischer Soldaten am heiligsten Tag im christlichen Kalender zu retten.
*****
Die Leser dieser Seiten wissen, dass ich den Großteil meines Materials über die Denkweise des Kremls aus den beiden führenden Nachrichten- und Analysesendungen des russischen Staatsfernsehens für ihr Heimpublikum, Abend mit Vladimir Solovyov und Das große Spiel, moderiert von Vyacheslav Nikonov, beziehe. Gelegentlich habe ich auch auf Sechzig Minuten verwiesen, das von Jewgeni Popow und seiner Frau Olga Skabeyewa geleitet wird. Die Moderatoren dieser Sendungen können als äußerst kompetent bezeichnet werden, und ich habe eine persönliche Meinung zu ihnen allen, die auf meine Treffen mit ihnen während der Sendung in den Jahren 2016-2017 zurückgeht, als ich ein Jahr lang als Gastredner im russischen Inlandfernsehen einen „Tag in der Sonne“ hatte.
Damals waren sie besonders daran interessiert, von russlandneutralen oder russlandfreundlichen Amerikanern zu hören, die fließend Russisch sprachen, im Gegensatz zu ihrem traditionellen Angebot an russlandhassenden Amerikanern, die fließend Russisch sprachen, von denen das berühmteste Beispiel ein gewisser Michael Bohm war. Der Grund dafür war klar: Die russischen Nachrichtenredakteure waren sich nicht sicher, was die Trump-Präsidentschaft für die bilateralen Beziehungen bedeutete, und es bestand die Hoffnung, dass eine Verbesserung bevorstand. Diese Hoffnungen wurden 2017 natürlich zunichte gemacht, und Mitte des Jahres kehrten die russischen Talkshows zu ihrer alten Gewohnheit zurück und luden Amerikaner ein, die den Teufel in Person verkörpern und die sie während der Shows zur Belustigung ihres Publikums in Grund und Boden stampfen konnten. In den letzten zwei Jahren der militärischen Sonderoperation haben sich die Beziehungen so weit verschlechtert, dass keine Ausländer mehr in die Talkshows eingeladen werden, außer gelegentlich belarussische Diplomaten oder Oppositionelle aus der Ukraine.
Was ich in den letzten Monaten nicht genutzt habe, um mich für meine journalistische Arbeit zu informieren, ist eine weitere wichtige Talkshow, in der ich 2016 aufgetreten bin, die bereits erwähnte „Vremya pokazhet“. Sie hat ebenfalls hohe Einschaltquoten, liegt aber eine Stufe unter den Programmen von Solowjow, Nikonow und Popow. Im Jahr 2016 zeichnete sie sich dadurch aus, dass sie ihre Sendungen am Nachmittag ausstrahlte, als das Publikum hauptsächlich aus Hausfrauen und Rentnern bestand, im Gegensatz zur Hauptsendezeit, in der hauptsächlich berufstätige Männer das Publikum ausmachten. Ich bin mir nicht sicher, wie sie sich heute in dieser Hinsicht positionieren, aber wenn ich mir den ersten Teil ihrer Sendung vom 12. Dezember ansehe, sehe ich, dass sie einige der gleichen Experten wie in den anderen Talkshows einsetzen, aber einen besonderen Schwerpunkt auf die Diskussionen legen, der mir geholfen hat, die Nachrichten der Woche auf die unten beschriebene Weise zu überdenken.
Für die russischsprachigen unter Ihnen hier der Link: https://rutube.ru/video/0244c2bc77020e60adde6af875ca6d22/
Aus dem in dieser Sendung präsentierten Material schließe ich, dass Orbans Mission in Mar-al-Lago und seine anschließende Nachbesprechung mit Putin einen starken Einfluss darauf hatten, wie der Kreml auf den Angriff auf Taganrog reagiert hat. Wie ich in meinen Interviews in der vergangenen Woche bereits sagte, lagen Optionen auf dem Tisch, die stark eskalierend waren, allen voran die Möglichkeit eines Angriffs mit der Oreschkin-Hyperschallrakete auf die US-Raketenbasis in Polen, die seit sieben Jahren oder länger, als ihr Bau erstmals angekündigt wurde, Anlass zu großer Sorge und lauten Beschwerden Moskaus gab. Nun wird aus den Worten eines Diskussionsteilnehmers in dieser Sendung deutlich, dass eine weitere Möglichkeit, die der Kreml in Betracht zog, ein Oreschkin-Angriff auf ein Entscheidungszentrum in Kiew war, aber eine, die niemand aus meinen Kollegen in den alternativen Medien in Betracht zu ziehen scheint: nämlich ein Angriff auf die britische Botschaft in Kiew, die die Russen zu Recht als ein Zentrum für die Führung des Krieges betrachten, den die Ukraine führt. Und die Russen haben Präzedenzfälle aus dem Westen in der Hand, angefangen mit der „versehentlichen“ Bombardierung der chinesischen Botschaft in Belgrad durch die USA im Mai 1999 während der NATO-Offensive zur Absetzung der Regierung Milosevic.
Mir ist klar, dass Orban Putin in seinen Gesprächen mit Trump, Musk und Waltz überzeugende Beweise dafür liefern konnte, dass es weitaus besser wäre, Zurückhaltung zu üben und nicht auf den Köder der Biden-Regierung zu beißen, zu eskalieren und damit Trumps wahrscheinliche Pläne, die Finanzierung des Krieges nach seinem Amtsantritt einzustellen, nicht zu durchkreuzen. Dementsprechend haben die Russen nur die Überreste der ukrainischen Stromversorgung verwüstet und die NATO-Einrichtungen innerhalb und außerhalb der Ukraine nicht angerührt.
Dafür sind wir, wie gesagt, dem ungarischen Ministerpräsidenten zu großem Dank verpflichtet.
Gilbert Doctorow 