“Five will get you ten!”  That old folk wisdom of gambling folk sometimes also works in reverse. Appearing on one or another of the leading alternative video platforms like ‘Judging Freedom’ which has just passed the line of 500k subscribers means that you may well get invitations also from start-ups, as I now do from time to time.

I am very pleased that I agreed to chat with and be recorded today by Michael Farris for his “Coffee and a Mike” platform on Rumble which now has a little over 7k followers. Michael has in the past several days interviewed Larry Johnson and Paul Craig Roberts. I think he is off to a good start and deserves to do well.

See

Our chat began with his asking whether the latest massive Russian strike on Ukrainian power generation and fuel infrastructure should be considered to be their retaliation for the Ukrainian missile strike two days ago on Russia’s military air field in Taganrog using 6 ATACMS missiles.  I said that was unlikely if my hunch was correct and the real objective of Kiev was to destroy a factory near the air field producing the Russian equivalent of American AWACS. Such planes are a key part of their early warning radar network that would alert Moscow to incoming missiles fired by US submarines in the Persian Gulf or Mediterranean should the US decide on a preemptive nuclear strike.

Now that I have listened to the latest news on Russian state television about what Moscow achieved by its new missile barrage, I am obliged to agree that this was indeed the awaited retaliation even if it did not entail use of the Oreshnik hypersonic missile. Instead the Russians used most other missiles including air, ground and sea-launched weapons in their arsenal to achieve truly devastating results. 

Apparently half of Ukraine is now without any electricity and the important nuclear stations which were providing Ukraine with 20% of generating capacity prior to this latest attack now also were shut down because the current from outside that they need to operate was no longer available. We also now know that Ukraine is begging Europe to send power their way insofar as their grid is linked to Europe. Moreover, apart from the actual damage to infrastructure, this Russian attack engaged approximately 100 of their missiles plus drones, demonstrating that their stocks are still very impressive and overturning suggestions emanating from Washington that Russia is running low.

My thanks to Andreas Mylaeus for the following translations.

„Judging Freedom“-Ausgabe vom 12. Dezember: Russland, Syrien und Georgien

Es war mir eine besondere Freude, heute bei „Judging Freedom“ aufzutreten, als Gastgeber Andrew Napolitano das Erreichen von 500.000 Abonnenten feierte. Die einleitenden Kommentare zu diesem Video drücken überschwängliches Lob für diese wohlverdiente Leistung im Dienst für die Öffentlichkeit aus.

In unserem Gespräch über Syrien ging es vor allem um die Frage, ob dies wirklich ein großer Rückschlag für Wladimir Putin ist, wie uns der Mainstream im Westen glauben machen will, oder ob sie diese Geschichte nur nutzen, um von der Katastrophe abzulenken, die sich Tag für Tag auf dem Schlachtfeld für die ukrainischen Streitkräfte und ihre Unterstützer aus den USA und der NATO abspielt.

Wie bereits erwähnt, ist die Lage der russischen Stützpunkte in Syrien derzeit stabil und es besteht durchaus die Möglichkeit, dass die neue Regierung in Damaskus eine autonome Provinz schafft, um die alawitische Bevölkerung dieser Ortschaft an der Küste, in der die Russen leben, vor Vergeltungsmaßnahmen für ihre Unterstützungsrolle für die Assad-Familie zu schützen. Die Zeit wird es zeigen. Unsere Medien ignorieren jedoch die anderen Optionen, die Russland durchaus offenstehen, sollte es gezwungen sein, seinen 70-jährigen Pachtvertrag für die Stützpunkte in Syrien aufzugeben. Zu diesen Optionen gehört der Iran mit seinen Seehäfen an Gewässern, die direkt in den Indischen Ozean münden. In seiner derzeitigen Lage, nachdem er unter seinen Stellvertretern der Achse des Widerstands erhebliche Verluste erlitten hat, könnte der Iran durchaus motiviert sein, der russischen Marine und Luftwaffe Stützpunkte anzubieten.

Die Russen begehren seit Jahrhunderten die warmen Gewässer des Indischen Ozeans und eine Verbindung zum Mittelmeer wäre über den Suezkanal gewährleistet. Alternativ könnten die Russen sehr wahrscheinlich ein Abkommen mit Ägypten oder Algerien schließen, um sich im westlichen Mittelmeer niederzulassen und so ihren Bedarf an Nachschub und Umrüstung von Marineschiffen ihrer Schwarzmeerflotte, die im Mittelmeer operiert, mit oder ohne Durchfahrt durch die Dardanellen, die der türkischen Kontrolle unterliegen, zu decken.

Wir haben auch ausführlich darüber diskutiert, wie die Russen auf den jüngsten Einsatz von 6 ATACMS-Raketen durch die Ukraine gegen russische Militäreinrichtungen in der Stadt Taganrog an der Küste des Asowschen Meeres reagieren könnten. Die Ukrainer sollen einen Militärflugplatz angegriffen haben, es könnte sich jedoch auch um eine Fabrik in der Nähe des Flugplatzes gehandelt haben, die das russische Äquivalent des amerikanischen AWACS herstellt, d.h. Flugzeuge mit Spezialradar, die zur Informationsbeschaffung und Frühwarnung vor anfliegenden Raketen oder Flugzeugen eingesetzt werden. Die ukrainischen ATACMS wurden entweder von den russischen Pantsyr-Luftabwehrraketen abgeschossen (2) oder von der elektronischen Kriegsausrüstung Russlands umgeleitet (4). Dementsprechend war der tatsächliche Schaden durch diesen Raketenangriff minimal. Die Bedrohung für wichtige russische Sicherheitsanlagen war jedoch real und die russische Reaktion wird entsprechend angepasst werden müssen.

Washington hat am letzten Tag erklärt, dass es von den Russen einen weiteren Angriff auf die Ukraine mit ihrer neuen Hyperschall-Oreschnik-Rakete erwartet. Es gibt jedoch Grund zu der Annahme, dass der Kreml seine Strategie überdenkt und stattdessen ein Ziel im NATO-Gebiet angreifen wird. Die neu eröffnete US-Raketenbasis in Polen scheint für diesen Zweck sehr gut geeignet zu sein. Und das würde die ansonsten unerklärliche Anweisung an russische Bürger erklären, die von Maria Sacharowa im Namen des Außenministeriums herausgegeben wurde und in der sie aufgefordert werden, nicht in die Europäische Union oder nach Nordamerika zu reisen.

Transkript der Ausgabe von „Judging Freedom“ vom 12. Dezember

Als einleitenden Kommentar zum Transkript des heutigen Chats mit Judge Andrew Napolitano muss ich meinen Standpunkt erläutern, dass eine Fabrik, die das russische Äquivalent der amerikanischen AWACS-Flugzeuge herstellt, das eigentliche Ziel des ukrainischen Angriffs auf Taganrog mit ATACMS-Raketen gewesen sein könnte. Wie bei den ukrainischen Drohnenangriffen auf russische Frühwarnradare im Süden des Landes Anfang dieses Jahres hat die Fabrik, in der russische AWACS hergestellt werden, keinerlei Wert für die ukrainischen Streitkräfte, und daher sollte man sich fragen, warum sie sie angreifen sollten. Die einfache Antwort ist, dass ein solcher Angriff nur den amerikanischen Interessen dient, die russische Verteidigung gegen einen möglichen präventiven US-Atomschlag von US-U-Booten im Mittelmeer oder im Persischen Golf zu zerstören. Aus genau diesem Grund überdenkt der Kreml derzeit möglicherweise, was er in seinem Vergeltungsschlag ins Visier nehmen sollte. Logischerweise sollte das Ziel nun ein wertvolles militärisches Objekt der USA sein, wie beispielsweise der neu eröffnete Stützpunkt in Polen.

Transkript eines Lesers

Napolitano: 0:32
Hallo zusammen. Hier ist Judge Andrew Napolitano für „Judging Freedom“. Heute ist Donnerstag, der 12. Dezember 2024. Professor Gilbert Doctorow wird gleich hier sein und mit uns über Russland, die Ukraine, Syrien und Georgien sprechen. Oh, aber zuerst das hier.

0:51
[Video: Danke, 500,000 Abonnenten]

Napolitano: 1:43
Nun, vielen Dank an alle, die uns geholfen haben, diesen Meilenstein zu erreichen. Professor Doctorow, vielen Dank auch für Ihre Beiträge zur Show, und wir hoffen, dass Sie diese fortsetzen können und willkommen bei uns. Es ist immer eine Freude, Sie um Rat fragen zu können. Ich habe viel mit Ihnen zu besprechen.

2:00
Der designierte Präsident Trump twitterte am Sonntagabend, dass Syrien gefallen sei, weil sein Wohltäter es im Stich gelassen habe, und er identifizierte den Wohltäter als Wladimir Putin. Ist an dieser Aussage etwas Wahres dran?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
Nicht wirklich. Ja, die Russen haben sich nicht sonderlich bemüht, Syrien zu retten, als klar war, dass dies eine unmögliche Mission war. Sie haben der Ukraine Priorität eingeräumt. Sie werden die Ukraine dorthin bringen, wo sie sie haben wollen, und sie werden sich von nichts ablenken lassen. Wenn sie sich nicht ernsthaft von der Invasion ihrer eigenen Provinz Kursk ablenken ließen, warum sollten sie sich dann von etwas so Entferntem ablenken lassen, das nicht zu retten war? Weil ihre eigenen Geheimdienste sie darüber informiert haben, dass das Assad-Regime von innen zusammengebrochen ist.

Napolitano: 3:00
Erwartet Russland, dass es die Truppen und das Marinepersonal sowie die Schiffe in Syrien weiterhin unterhalten kann?

Doctorow:
Nun, lassen Sie mich einfach mit dem letzten Punkt fortfahren.

Napolitano
Sicher.

Doctorow:
Ob Russland Syrien im Stich gelassen hat? In westlichen Medien, insbesondere der „New York Times“ in der heutigen Ausgabe, wird das Argument gebracht, dass Putin so enttäuscht gewesen sei und in Syrien einen so schweren Schlag erlitten habe und deshalb in der Ukraine größere Anstrengungen unternehme. Dies sind Fragen, die nichts mit dem russischen Streben nach seiner Hauptaufgabe zu tun haben. Die westliche Presse hier in Belgien, französische Zeitungen, haben seit gestern dasselbe gesagt, dass die Russen einen schweren Schlag erlitten hätten. Sie waren sehr froh, etwas zu haben, von dem sie glaubten, dass es die katastrophale Situation, die sich Tag für Tag in der Ukraine für die Vereinigten Staaten, die NATO und vor allem für Herrn Selenskyj und seine Bande, die in Kiew das Sagen haben, entwickelt, aus den Nachrichten verdrängen würde.

4:11
Lassen wir uns also nicht von der Absicht ablenken oder irreführen, die hinter all diesem Material steckt, das in die westlichen Medien gelangt. Es dient propagandistischen Zwecken und es ist – nun, um Ihre Frage direkt zu beantworten, was die Russen sagen, was sie vorhaben. Die Optionen der Russen sind ziemlich umfangreich, was zu tun ist. Zunächst einmal halten sie sich bedeckt. Sie warten ab, wie diese neue, von Rebellen geführte Regierung das Gebiet behandeln wird, in dem sie stationiert sind, nämlich das Küstengebiet der Alawiten, die Unterstützergruppe in der Heimat, der Heimatwahlkreis von Baschar al-Assad. Derzeit ist es dort sicher, obwohl die Russen vorsichtshalber ihre Schiffe mehr als acht Kilometer aufs offene Meer hinaus verlegt haben, außerhalb der Reichweite der Artillerie. Das war eine Vorsichtsmaßnahme. Und das war sehr klug.

Napolitano: 5:16
Welche Artillerie haben die Russen gefürchtet? Ich meine, wer würde es wagen, Russland dort anzugreifen? Die USA? Die IDF? Die Türken?

Doctorow:
Der Nebel des Krieges hätte es verdeckt. Es war sehr gut verschleiert, wer diese Anti-Artillerie-Raketen abgefeuert hat. Nur als Eventualität. Nun, die Israelis waren einmarschiert und hatten die Pufferzone eingenommen, Panzer in die Nähe von Damaskus gebracht, angeblich, um sich vor jeder Eventualität zu schützen.

Warum also sollten sie sich nicht vor einer Art Eventualität schützen, wenn sie doch den Wert von Assads Militär kannten?

Napolitano: 5:58
Wie nimmt eine Person eine schnippische Aussage des designierten Präsidenten wahr, wie die, die ich gerade für Sie umschrieben habe, dass Assad verloren hat, weil sein Gönner ihn im Stich gelassen hat und dieser Gönner Wladimir Putin ist? Es ist kein Zitat, aber eine angemessene Umschreibung.

Doctorow:
Nein, sie nehmen nichts von dem, was Trump sagt, ernst. Sie nehmen nichts von dem ernst, was der Kandidat der [deutschen] Christdemokraten im Wahlprozess sagt. Und er macht sehr dramatische Aussagen darüber, wie die Taurus-Raketen sofort nach Kiew geliefert werden sollten.

Die Russen konzentrieren sich auf ihr tägliches Vorgehen im Krieg und darauf, wie sie jetzt Vergeltung für den jüngsten provokativen Angriff der Vereinigten Staaten und Kiews gegen Taganrog üben können, worüber wir vermutlich noch sprechen werden. Aber lassen Sie mich einen Schritt zurücktreten, denn Sie haben mich gefragt, welche anderen Optionen es gibt. Larry Wilkerson erwähnte neulich etwas, das meine Aufmerksamkeit wirklich erregt hat. Oh ja, die Russen könnten, wenn sie vertrieben werden, wenn sie das Gefühl haben, dass sie ihren Marinestützpunkt in Tartus an der syrischen Küste aufgeben müssen, jetzt versuchen, ein Abkommen mit den Iranern zu schließen und ihren Marinestützpunkt in der Region in den Iran zu verlegen. Das ist ein sehr amüsanter Vorschlag und ich bin froh, dass er ihn gemacht hat, denn er hat den Wunsch der Russen nach einem Marinestützpunkt, nach einem Fuß in den warmen Gewässern des Indischen Ozeans, richtig erkannt.

Das reicht mehrere hundert Jahre zurück und ist ein Bestreben, das in der jüngeren, sehr jungen Geschichte vom russischen nationalistischen Politiker Schirinowski geäußert wurde. Er sprach genau davon, dass Russland eine Marinepräsenz, einen Marinestützpunkt im Indischen Ozean haben möchte. Aber das ist ein anderes Thema.

7:57
Die anderen Optionen sind – und das hat Wilkerson nicht erwähnt – Algerien und Ägypten. Die Russen haben viele Optionen. Die Amerikaner haben diese Länder in Nordafrika verärgert und vor den Kopf gestoßen. Die Ägypter sind stinksauer über das, was heute in Syrien vor sich geht. Es ist also denkbar, dass die Russen, wenn sie aus irgendeinem Grund das Gefühl haben, ihre Präsenz in Syrien aufgeben zu müssen, sich in Algerien engagieren würden. Warum nicht? Es dient demselben Zweck.

Napolitano: 8:31

Was ist dieser Zweck, außer eine Basis für Marinepersonal zu haben? Ich meine, was werden sie dort damit machen?

Doctorow:
Sehen Sie, diese Schiffe im Mittelmeer haben ihren Heimathafen in Sewastopol. In einer Krisensituation hätten die Türken jedoch das Recht, ihnen die Rückkehr durch die Dardanellen zurück ins Schwarze Meer zu verwehren. Aus Sicherheitsgründen und um diese Schiffe im Mittelmeer unter allen Bedingungen versorgen zu können, brauchen die Russen also einen Stützpunkt im Mittelmeer.

Napolitano:
Verstanden. Wie ist die russische, genauer gesagt, wie ist die Sicht des Kremls auf Präsident Erdogan jetzt? Ich meine, drängt er immer noch auf einen Beitritt zu den BRICS? Ist es wahrscheinlich, dass dies auf die Vollmitgliedschaft in den BRICS ausgeweitet wird, oder missfällt dem Kreml sein Verhalten in Bezug auf Syrien?

Doctorow: 9:41
Oh, das missfällt dem Kreml sehr. Es besteht kein Zweifel, dass sie sich hintergangen fühlen. Sie – Menschen auf den höheren Ebenen der russischen Regierung und in politischen Kreisen – hielten Erdogan nicht für eine verlässliche Person. Sie wussten, dass er mal so und mal so handelt. Sie wussten mit Sicherheit, dass er große Geldangebote aus den Vereinigten Staaten erhielt, die er braucht, weil es seiner Wirtschaft sehr schlecht geht.

Und so haben sie nicht damit gerechnet… Ich bin mir sicher, dass er sich damit selbst aus der weiteren Betrachtung innerhalb der BRICS-Staaten ausgeschlossen hat. Das heißt aber nicht, dass die Russen emotional sind und auf eine Weise reagieren, die nicht ihren eigenen Interessen dient. Sie werden Herrn Erdogan nicht fallen lassen. Nicht, weil sie ihn mögen, sondern weil er ein Nachbar ist, mit dem sie sich arrangieren müssen, und weil sie sehr wichtige Projekte haben, sowohl für die Türkei als auch für Russland. Er hat sein Land als Gasdrehscheibe für russische Lieferungen an diejenigen Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union positioniert, die diese noch wollen und nicht erhalten können. Und er schuldet ihnen noch Geld für die Fertigstellung eines der größten Kernkraftprojekte, die Russland außerhalb seines eigenen Landes hat.

Das sind also Dinge, die er braucht. Er braucht die Fertigstellung dieses Energieprojekts. Es ist wichtig für seine Wirtschaftspläne, und die Russen brauchen es. Ich würde sagen, um es in einer Sprache auszudrücken, die Amerikaner heute besonders zu schätzen wissen, ist die Beziehung zwischen Moskau und Istanbul transaktional.

Napolitano: 11:33
Schönes Wort. Haben die Russen nicht tatsächlich – um über Transaktionen zu sprechen – Luftverteidigungssysteme an die Türken verkauft?

Doctorow:
Ja, das haben sie. Sie haben ihnen die S-400 verkauft, und Erdogan hat sich, das muss man ihm lassen, trotz des starken Drucks der Vereinigten Staaten an diesen Deal gehalten, weil er darauf bestand, dass die Verteidigung seines Landes nicht völlig der Gnade der neuesten Regierung in Washington und deren Einstellung zu ihm und seinem Land ausgeliefert sei, sondern dass es eine gewisse Autonomie haben würde. Und die russischen S-400 waren für diesen Zweck sehr wichtig, nicht nur, weil sie ein hervorragendes Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis bieten und sehr zuverlässige Luftverteidigungssysteme sind, sondern auch, weil es ein Zeichen an die Vereinigten Staaten war, dass er nicht in ihrer Tasche steckt.

Napolitano;
Erdogan ist ein sehr, sehr … Präsident Erdogan ist eine sehr interessante Persönlichkeit. Mich würde Ihre, Sie wissen schon, Zwei-Minuten-Version darüber interessieren, wie Sie ihn auf der internationalen Bühne wahrnehmen. Ich meine, vor drei Monaten bezeichnete er den israelischen Premierminister Netanjahu als Kriegsverbrecher, und letztes Wochenende feierte er mit ihm, natürlich nicht physisch im selben Raum, den Sturz von Präsident Assad. Wie sehen der Kreml, wie sehen andere Akteure im Nahen Osten, wie sieht Ägypten Präsident Erdogan?

Doctorow: 13:10
Keiner von ihnen mag ihn. Aber andererseits – ich weiß, dass in der hohen Diplomatie und in internationalen Beziehungen eine Art persönliche Sympathie oder die Fähigkeit, miteinander auszukommen, ein wichtiger positiver Faktor ist. Herr Erdogan lässt dies nicht zu, indem er sich doppelzüngig verhält und gegen die Interessen der heutigen Partner handelt. Sein Verhalten ist also nichts Neues. Das macht er schon lange. Die Menschen wissen, dass sie sich nicht zu sehr auf ihn verlassen sollten. Aber sie wissen auch, dass sein Land sehr wichtig ist. Was die Bevölkerung und die Lage betrifft, ist es so, wie es in den letzten 2000 Jahren immer war. Es ist eine Brücke zwischen Asien und Europa. Und das wissen wir aus der Migrationskrise. Er ist unvermeidlich. Und so macht man Geschäfte mit ihm, aber nicht aus besonderer Sympathie für seine Persönlichkeit.

Napolitano: 14:10
Richtig. Vor ein paar Minuten haben Sie uns daran erinnert, dass die Vereinigten Staaten und Großbritannien weiterhin Angriffe in Russland mit ATACMS und Storm Shadows, amerikanischem und britischem technischem Know-how und physischer Beteiligung sowie ukrainischer Beteiligung ermöglichen. Die Sprecherin des Pentagons, eine Frau namens Sabrina Singh, die ich nicht kenne und die sich vermutlich am Ende ihrer Karriere befindet, hat einige Kommentare darüber abgegeben, dass die US-Geheimdienste davon ausgehen, dass es bald zu einem weiteren Oruschnik-Angriff kommen könnte. Hier sind ihre Kommentare. Ich würde mich freuen, Ihre Meinung zu hören, Professor Doctorow. Chris, Schnitt Nummer eins.

Singh: 14:57
Putin hat öffentlich gesagt, dass Russland beabsichtigt, eine weitere experimentelle Oreshnik-Rakete zu starten, wie Sie erwähnt haben. Es ist möglich, dass Russland dies in den kommenden Tagen tun wird. Ich habe kein genaues Datum für Sie. Ich denke, es ist wichtig zu wissen, dass, sollte Russland sich für den Start dieser Art von Rakete entscheiden, dies keine entscheidende Wende auf dem Schlachtfeld bedeuten wird. Es ist nur ein weiterer Versuch, der Ukraine Schaden zuzufügen und Opfer zu fordern. Das haben wir schon einmal erlebt. Sie versuchen, jede Waffe in ihrem Arsenal einzusetzen, um die Ukraine einzuschüchtern. Aber natürlich hat die Ukraine, zusammen mit den Vereinigten Staaten und anderen Partnern auf der ganzen Welt, weiterhin unsere Unterstützung, während sie, wie Sie wissen, jeden Tag auf dem Schlachtfeld kämpft.

Napolitano: 15:41
Plant der Kreml, die Oreshnik regelmäßig einzusetzen? Befürchtet man dort, dass die von der Oreshnik beabsichtigte Botschaft von den USA und dem Westen ignoriert oder sogar verspottet oder mit Gleichgültigkeit behandelt wird?

Doctorow:
Nun, das ist eine komplizierte Frage, weil es hier mehrere Blickwinkel gibt. Zunächst einmal geht es darum, was Washington glaubt, dass die Russen tun werden. Da gibt es nichts zu überlegen. Das russische Verteidigungsministerium hat vom 10. bis 13. dieses Monats eine Flugverbotszone über dem Gebiet in Astrachan ausgerufen, von dem aus die Oreschnik, der erste Oreschnik-Abschuss, stattfand und von dem aus offensichtlich weitere Oreschnik-Abschüsse gegen Ziele, die der Kreml identifiziert, stattfinden werden. Es gibt also keine Geheimdienstinformationen preis, die Amerika herausgefunden hat. Die sind öffentlich zugänglich.

16:43
Was Frau Singh fehlt und was die westlichen Medien absichtlich auslassen, ist die Frage, worauf die Russen feuern werden. Und dazu muss ich leider eine Neuigkeit bringen, die sie nicht erwähnt hat.

Napolitano:
Was ist das?

Doctorow:
Das russische Außenministerium hat heute den russischen Bürgern geraten, nicht nach Westeuropa oder in die Vereinigten Staaten zu reisen, weil es dort zu ernsthaften Problemen kommen könnte. Das bedeutet aber auch, dass Russland derzeit erwägt, die Oreschnik gegen ein NATO-Ziel einzusetzen. Das ist mit ziemlicher Sicherheit die Absicht dieser Botschaft.

Ihre Aussage, dass diese Oreschnik-Rakete keine Bedeutung für das Schlachtfeld hat, ist also völlig falsch. Sie ist von größter Bedeutung für die NATO und ihre Fähigkeit, diesen Krieg fortzusetzen.

Napolitano:
Hier ist Maria Sacharowa, die Sprecherin des russischen Außenministeriums, die gestern, Professor Doctorow, genau das gesagt hat, was Sie gerade erwähnt haben. Schnitt Nummer 14.

Zakharova: 17:55 [englische Synchronstimme]
Angesichts der Konfrontation in den russisch-amerikanischen Beziehungen aufgrund der offiziellen Haltung Washingtons stehen sie kurz davor, die Reisen abzubrechen. Privat- und Geschäftsreisen in die USA sind mit ernsthaften Risiken behaftet. Es gibt eine regelrechte Jagd der amerikanischen Strafverfolgungs- und Geheimdienstbehörden nach unseren Bürgern. Und es gibt einen ausgeklügelten Plan, um russische Staatsbürger ins Ausland zu locken.

Wie geschieht das? Sie versenden Einladungen mit einigen vorteilhaften kommerziellen oder touristischen Angeboten. Danach werden die Zielpersonen festgenommen und dann gemäß den Auslieferungsabkommen an die amerikanische Gerichtsbarkeit ausgeliefert. Es gibt eine vollständige Liste der Länder, die mit den USA in Bezug auf die Auslieferung zusammenarbeiten. Sie wird auf unserer Website zu finden sein. Deshalb fordern wir während der Feierlichkeiten und in Zukunft dazu auf, von Reisen in die USA oder in verbündete Satellitenstaaten, vor allem nach Kanada, und in Länder der EU mit einigen Ausnahmen abzusehen. Es handelt sich natürlich nicht um einen Notfall.

Napolitano: 19:23
Ich meine, wenn das ernst ist, dann ist das ziemlich heftiges Zeug, Professor Doctorow.

Doctorow:
Dies war eine sehr deutliche Warnung für eine sehr geringe Bedrohung. Ich glaube also, dass dies eine indirekte Botschaft an Washington über die Möglichkeit eines Angriffs auf ein NATO-Objekt war. Dies ging schon seit 20 Jahren so, dass russische Staatsbürger in Drittländern, Thailand und wer weiß wo noch, an die Vereinigten Staaten ausgeliefert wurden, um dort wegen verschiedener mutmaßlicher Verbrechen vor Gericht zu stehen. Das ist nichts Neues.

Warum spricht sie jetzt genau über NATO-Länder, also Westeuropa, die Vereinigten Staaten und Kanada? Ich weiß es nicht. Aber ich denke, dass im Kreml derzeit viel darüber nachgedacht wird, wie sie Oreschnik als Nächstes einsetzen wollen und ob – ich bin davon ausgegangen, und das habe ich letzte Woche gesagt, dass sie beschlossen haben, dass dies das größte Druckmittel gegen Kiew sei und dass sie Herrn Selenskyj mit den nächsten möglichen Angriffen, nämlich Enthauptungsschlägen, in Angst und Schrecken versetzen würden. Wenn sie sagen, dass sie Entscheidungszentren ins Visier nehmen wollen, dann ist er ein Entscheidungszentrum. Das war also meine Annahme.

20:53
Aber jetzt muss ich das überdenken, und ich denke, sie überlegen, ob sie Polen angreifen wollen oder nicht. Das wäre am logischsten und würde die kürzeste Vorwarnzeit erfordern, denn die polnische Basis, die Amerika hat, ist eine Militärbasis, und die Anwesenheit von Zivilisten ist in einiger Entfernung davon und vernachlässigbar. Daher würde ich heute die Möglichkeit eines russischen Angriffs, eines Gegenangriffs oder eines Vergeltungsschlags für das, was in Taganmog passiert ist, nicht ausschließen.

21:23
Was ist nun in Taganmog passiert? Ich habe verschiedene Erklärungen dafür gesehen, was das Ziel war. Die gängigste Erklärung, die man in unserem Mainstream findet, ist, dass es sich um einen Militärflugplatz handelte. Die interessantere Erklärung ist, dass sich neben diesem Militärstützpunkt eine Fabrik befindet, die Flugzeuge herstellt, das russische Äquivalent zu den amerikanischen Spionageflugzeugen, den Frühwarnflugzeugen. Und das wäre, wenn es so wäre, ein sehr bedrohlicher Schaden gewesen, wenn es gelungen wäre. Es würde zu den früheren Vorfällen passen, die sechs Monate oder länger zurückliegen, als es Angriffe auf die russischen Frühwarnradare gab. Die Flugzeuge, über die wir sprechen, sind das luftgestützte Äquivalent dieser Frühwarnradare.

22:24
Und sie wurden abgeschossen. Es waren sechs ATACMS, sagen die Russen. Zwei davon wurden abgeschossen, wobei Trümmer über das Gebiet fielen und Verletzungen und einige Schäden an Autos und anderer nicht-strategischer, nicht-wichtiger Ausrüstung verursachten. Aber sie sagen, dass das Gebäude angegriffen wurde und nichts, das Gebäude, das heißt die Fabrik, von der ich spreche, nicht beschädigt wurde. Dennoch, wenn das gelungen wäre, wäre es ein schwerer Verlust für Russland gewesen.

23:03
Und so denke ich, dass dieser Angriff mit äußerster Besorgnis aufgenommen werden sollte, zwei wurden abgeschossen und vier wurden von Russlands hochmoderner elektronischer Kriegsausrüstung umgeleitet. Dennoch war es eine ernsthafte Bedrohung, und ich denke, die Russen überdenken gerade, wie sie Washington das Fürchten lehren können.

Napolitano: 23:23

Uns bleiben nur noch ein oder zwei Minuten, Professor Doctorow. Was passiert aus der Sicht des Kremls in Tiflis, Georgien?

Doctorow:
Aus Sicht des Kremls ist die Beteiligung oder der Einfluss Russlands auf die Handlungen der Regierungspartei Georgischer Traum völlig falsch. Bei der ganzen Angelegenheit geht es um den Versuch Washingtons, Georgien wie die Ukraine zu benutzen, um eine neue Front gegen Russland zu eröffnen und die Aufmerksamkeit Moskaus vom Schlachtfeld im Donbass abzulenken. Die Schwarzmeer-Russen haben nichts mit dem Konflikt zwischen Präsident Zorav Peshvili und der … Partei Georgischer Traum zu tun, die das Parlament kontrolliert.

Die betroffene Dame, die Präsidentin des Landes, ist eine Doppelstaatsbürgerin, sie hat einen französischen Pass, und die Russen sagen, dass sie eng mit dem französischen Geheimdienst zusammenarbeitet, dass sie eine Agentin des französischen und des CIA-Geheimdienstes ist. Es handelt sich also um einen rein innenpolitischen Streit innerhalb Georgiens darüber, ob das Land von den Vereinigten Staaten als Stellvertreter für einen Angriff auf Russland benutzt werden soll.

Napolitano: 24:57
Wow. Das würde mich nicht überraschen. Professor Doctorow. Vielen Dank. Nochmals vielen Dank, dass Sie uns dabei geholfen haben, unser Ziel von einer halben Million Abonnenten zu erreichen. Sie waren ein wichtiger Teil der Sendung, und ich hoffe, dass es so weitergeht. Und wir freuen uns darauf, Sie nächste Woche wiederzusehen.

Doctorow:
Danke, und ich freue mich auch darauf.

Napolitano:
Vielen Dank. Später heute Morgen um 11:15 Uhr ist Max Blumenthal dran; um 14:00 Uhr heute Nachmittag ist ein neuer ehemaliger britischer Diplomat hier; und um 15:00 Uhr heute Nachmittag ist Matt Hoh dran.

25:31

Judge Napolitano für „Judging Freedom“.

Today I will deal with an issue that receives no attention whatsoever on Russian talk shows. On the contrary, they have become accessories to the problem.  Both of my favorite television programs of this genre, The Great Game and Evening with Vladimir Solovyov now open with 15 minutes or more of the day’s speech to the nation by Vladimir Putin. I say ‘now’ because it wasn’t this bad even six months ago.

The daily Putin speeches reflect a special feature of Russia’s official calendar.  Nearly every calendar day celebrates one or another of the multitude of Russia’s civilian professions or dedicated divisions of the military. So, there is a day of airmen, a day of the marines, a day of artillerymen; or a day of IT workers, a day of medical nurses, a day of public-spirited volunteers, etc., etc.  Putin delivers his praise and encouragement to each of them for the whole nation to hear.

Any days which are not highlighting a given career line are used to commemorate some important battle from World War II or from the many ground and sea battles of Imperial Russia going back to the 18^th century if not earlier. And for good measure, there is the day of the Order of St George and a day for the St Andrew’s flag (yesterday), which Peter the Great approved in 1703 to fly on ships of the Russian navy.

President Putin’s administration provides the speeches for each of these events that, we may assume, do not especially resonate with the broad population. And by the order of someone in the news department of Russian state television, most likely Dmitry Kiselyov, they now fill the opening segments of those talk shows and are repeated on each and every news bulletin during the day.

As if this daily tedium were not enough, Russian television is presently heavily promoting Putin’s annual Direct Line program, when the whole nation is invited to send in by email, telephone call or other designated channels the questions they would like Vladimir Vladimirovich to answer live on air. D-day is 19 December at 12.00 noon Moscow time. Today’s news already is showing the gals at work in the Moscow call center taking down questions and working at lists of the categories of issues that trouble callers the most. All major television channels will carry Direct Line live for as many hours as it runs and then will offer excerpts on their news shows.

Traditionally many of the questions are not actually questions but requests for presidential intervention to solve one or another problem in some given locality from across the land or some personal problem. The President will direct his staff or regional government leaders to deal immediately with the problem and then there may well be follow-up reporting in the next day or two showing that no request goes unresolved.

In its own way, Dieect Line is one of the parallel structures to the State Duma and offices of regional governors that have grown up in the Putin era to ensure that The Boss is properly informed of what is on people’s minds and to take action to redress injustice or failures at the local level. That is the positive side of it. On the negative side, it is one more glaring example of how the presidency hogs the airwaves.

I think it would be unfair to call this a cult of personality. But it is an intrusion on people’s free time and desire to be left alone when they close their door on the world each evening. As it is, the daily reporting on the war in Ukraine from the front lines takes an inordinate amount of news time without giving the public a proper sense of how close or far away is victory.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

Translation into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Die ermüdenden täglichen Fernsehansprachen von Wladimir Putin

Heute möchte ich mich mit einem Thema befassen, das in russischen Talkshows keinerlei Beachtung findet. Im Gegenteil, sie sind zu Komplizen des Problems geworden. Meine beiden Lieblingsfernsehsendungen dieses Genres, Das große Spiel und Abend mit Vladimir Solovyov, beginnen jetzt mit 15 Minuten oder mehr der täglichen Rede Wladimir Putins an die Nation. Ich sage „jetzt“, weil es vor sechs Monaten noch nicht so schlimm war.

Die täglichen Putin-Reden spiegeln eine Besonderheit des offiziellen russischen Kalenders wider. An fast jedem Kalendertag wird einer der zahlreichen zivilen Berufe oder speziellen Abteilungen des Militärs Russlands gefeiert. So gibt es einen Tag der Flieger, einen Tag der Marines, einen Tag der Artilleristen; oder einen Tag der IT-Mitarbeiter, einen Tag der Krankenschwestern, einen Tag der gemeinnützigen Freiwilligen usw. usw. Putin richtet seine Lobesworte und Ermutigungen an jeden von ihnen, damit die ganze Nation sie hören kann.

An Tagen, an denen keine bestimmte Berufsgruppe im Mittelpunkt steht, wird einer wichtigen Schlacht aus dem Zweiten Weltkrieg oder einer der vielen Land- und Seeschlachten des kaiserlichen Russlands gedacht, die bis ins 18. Jahrhundert zurückreichen, wenn nicht sogar noch weiter. Und als Zugabe gibt es den Tag des St.-Georgs-Ordens und einen Tag für die St.-Andreas-Flagge (gestern), die Peter der Große 1703 für die Schiffe der russischen Marine genehmigt hat.

Die Regierung von Präsident Putin stellt die Reden für jede dieser Veranstaltungen zur Verfügung, die, wie wir annehmen können, bei der breiten Bevölkerung nicht besonders gut ankommen. Und auf Anordnung von jemandem aus der Nachrichtenabteilung des russischen Staatsfernsehens, höchstwahrscheinlich Dmitry Kiselyov, füllen sie nun die Eröffnungsteile dieser Talkshows und werden in jeder einzelnen Nachrichtensendung im Laufe des Tages wiederholt.

Als ob diese tägliche Langeweile nicht schon genug wäre, bewirbt das russische Fernsehen derzeit massiv Putins jährliche Sendung „Direkter Draht“, bei der die ganze Nation eingeladen ist, per E-Mail, Telefonanruf oder über andere Kanäle Fragen einzusenden, die Wladimir Wladimirowitsch live in der Sendung beantworten soll. Der Tag X ist der 19. Dezember um 12:00 Uhr Moskauer Zeit. Die heutigen Nachrichten zeigen bereits, wie die Mädels im Moskauer Callcenter die Fragen notieren und an Listen mit den Kategorien der Probleme arbeiten, die die Anrufer am meisten beunruhigen. Alle großen Fernsehsender werden „Direct Line“ live übertragen, solange die Sendung läuft, und dann Auszüge in ihren Nachrichtensendungen zeigen.

Traditionell sind viele der Fragen eigentlich keine Fragen, sondern Bitten um ein Eingreifen des Präsidenten, um das eine oder andere Problem an einem bestimmten Ort im ganzen Land oder ein persönliches Problem zu lösen. Der Präsident wird seine Mitarbeiter oder die regionalen Regierungschefs anweisen, sich sofort mit dem Problem zu befassen, und dann wird es in den nächsten ein oder zwei Tagen möglicherweise eine Folgeberichterstattung geben, die zeigt, dass keine Anfrage ungelöst bleibt.

Auf seine eigene Art ist Direct Line eine der Parallelstrukturen zur Staatsduma und zu den Büros der Regionalgouverneure, die in der Ära Putin entstanden sind, um sicherzustellen, dass der Boss angemessen darüber informiert wird, was die Menschen beschäftigt, und um Maßnahmen zu ergreifen, um Ungerechtigkeiten oder Missstände auf lokaler Ebene zu beheben. Das ist die positive Seite davon. Die negative Seite ist, dass es ein weiteres eklatantes Beispiel dafür ist, wie die Präsidentschaft die Sendezeit für sich beansprucht.

Ich denke, es wäre unfair, dies als Personenkult zu bezeichnen. Aber es ist ein Eingriff in die Freizeit der Menschen und in ihren Wunsch, in Ruhe gelassen zu werden, wenn sie jeden Abend die Tür zur Welt schließen. So wie es aussieht, nimmt die tägliche Berichterstattung über den Krieg in der Ukraine von der Front einen übermäßigen Teil der Nachrichtenzeit in Anspruch, ohne der Öffentlichkeit ein angemessenes Gefühl dafür zu vermitteln, wie nah oder fern der Sieg ist.

As an introductory comment to the transcript of today’s chat with Judge Andrew Napolitano, I am obliged to explain my point about how a factory producing the Russian equivalent of American AWACS planes may have been the true target of the Ukrainian strike on Taganrog using ATACMS missiles. Like the Ukrainian drone attacks earlier this year on Russian early warning radars in the south of the country, the factory making Russian AWACS has no value whatsoever to the Ukrainian forces, and so one should ask why would they go after it. The simple answer is that such an attack only serves American interests in destroying Russian defenses against a possible U.S. preemptive nuclear strike coming from US submarines in the Mediterranean or Persian Gulf. For this very reason, the Kremlin may well be reconsidering what it should target in its retaliatory strike now. Logically the target should now be some valuable U.S. military asset like its newly opened base in Poland.

Transcript submitted by a reader

Napolitano: 0:32
Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for “Judging Freedom”. Today is Thursday, December 12, 2024. Professor Gilbert Doctorow will be here with us in just a moment on Russia, Ukraine, Syria, and Georgia. Ooh, but first this.

0:51
[video: Thank you, 500,000 subscribers]

Napolitano: 1:43
Well, thank you, everyone, for helping us achieve this milestone. Professor Doctorow, thank you for your contributions to the show as well, and we hope that they can continue, and welcome here. It’s always a pleasure to be able to pick your brain. I have a lot to speak to you about.

2:00
President-elect Trump on Sunday evening tweeted that Syria fell because its benefactor deserted it, and he identified the benefactor as Vladimir Putin. Is there any truth to that statement?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
Not really. Yes, the Russians did not make a great effort to save Syria when it was clear that it was mission impossible. They have prioritized Ukraine. They will take Ukraine where they want to take it, and they will not be distracted by anything. If they weren’t distracted seriously by the invasion of their own province of Kursk, why would they be distracted by something rather remote, which was not salvageable? Because their own intelligence informed them that the regime of Assad was collapsing from within.

Napolitano: 3:00
Does Russia expect to continue to maintain the troops and naval personnel and ships in Syria?

Doctorow:
Well, let me just continue to the last point.

Napolitano
Sure.

Doctorow;
Whether Russia abandoned Syria, This is being used by Western media, by “The New York Times” in particular, today’s edition of how Putin has been so disappointed and has taken such a heavy hit in Syria and therefore he’s making greater efforts in Ukraine. These are unrelated issues, as far as Russian pursuit of its main task. The Western press here in Belgium, French newspapers, as of yesterday, were saying the same thing, that the Russians took a big hit. They were very happy to have something, what they believed would take news away from the disastrous situation that’s evolving day by day in Ukraine for the United States, for NATO, and most of all for Mr. Zelensky and his gang running the show in Kiev.

4:11
So let’s not be distracted or misled by the intention of all this material coming into Western media. Its purpose is propagandistic and it is– now, to answer your question directly about what the Russians are saying, what they’re thinking of doing. The Russians’ options are rather considerable, what to do. First of all, they’re sitting tight. They’re waiting to see how this new rebel-led government will be treating the area where they are based, which is the coastal area of the Alawites, the home support group, home constituency of Bashar Assad. It is presently safe, although the Russians took the precaution of moving their ships more than eight kilometers out to sea, out of range of artillery. That was a precaution. It was quite wise.

Napolitano: 5:16
What artillery did the Russians fear? I mean, who would dare to attack Russia there? The US? The IDF? The Turks?

Doctorow:
The fog of war would have been. concealed very nicely, who was firing those anti-artillery missiles. Just as contingency. Well, the Israelis had moved in and taken the buffer zone, moved tanks close to Damascus, allegedly, all they were saying to protect themselves against every contingency.

So why shouldn’t– what kind of a contingency were _they_ protecting themselves against, when they knew the value of Assad’s military?

Napolitano: 5:58
How does a person perceive a snarky statement from the president-elect, like the one that I just paraphrased for you, Assad lost because his benefactor deserted him and that benefactor is Vladimir Putin? It’s not a quote, but it’s a fair paraphrase.

Doctorow:
No, they don’t take anything that Trump says seriously. They don’t take anything that merits the candidate of the Christian Democrats in the electoral process is saying. And he’s making very dramatic statements about how the Taurus missiles should be shipped immediately to Kiev.

The Russians are focused on their day-to-day pursuit of the war and of how to retaliate now for the latest defiant strike by the United States and Kiev against Taganrog, which I assume we’ll talk about. But let me take a step back, because you asked me what are the other options. Larry Wilkerson the other day mentioned something that really caught my attention. That, oh yes, the Russians could, if they’re chased out, if they feel that they have to abandon their naval base in Tartus on the Syrian coast, they could now seek to do a deal with the Iranians and to move their naval base in the region to Iran. It’s a very amusing proposition and I’m glad that he raised it, because he correctly identified the Russians’ desire to have a naval base, to have their boots in the warm waters of the Indian Ocean.

This goes back several hundred years, and it has in the recent, very recent history, been an ambition that was stated by the Russian nationalist politician Zhirinovsky. He spoke precisely about Russia’s wishing to have a naval presence, naval base in the Indian Ocean. But that’s a separate point.

7:57
The other options are– and Wilkerson didn’t mention that– Algeria, Egypt. Russians have many options. The Americans have antagonized, alienated these countries in North Africa. The Egyptians are hopping mad over what’s going on in Syria today. So it is conceivable that if for any reason the Russians felt it was necessary to abandon their presence in Syria, they would open up in Algeria. Why not? It serves the same purpose.

8:31
What is that purpose, other than having a base of naval personnel? I mean, what are they going to do with it there?

Doctorow:
Look, these ships in the Mediterranean have their home base in Sevastopol. However, in a situation of crisis, the Turks would have the right to close their right of return through the Dardanelles back into the Black Sea. So for purposes of security and being able to provide for these ships in the Mediterranean under all conditions, Russians need a base in the Mediterranean.

Napolitano:
Got it. What is the Russian, I’ll be more precise, what is the Kremlin’s view of President Erdogan now? I mean, is he still pushing to enter BRICS? Is that likely to be expanded to the full membership of BRICS or is his behavior with respect to Syria something displeasing to the Kremlin?

9:41
Oh, it’s very displeasing to the Kremlin. There’s no doubt that they felt a stab in the back. They were– people at the higher levels of Russian government and political circles, they did not see Erdogan as a reliable person. They knew that he goes this way and that way. They certainly knew that he was receiving big offers of cash from the United States, which he needs because his economy is doing very poorly.

And so they did not count on– certainly, I think that he has eliminated himself from further consideration within BRICS. But saying that does not mean to say the Russians are emotional, are responding in a way that doesn’t serve their own interests. They will not abandon Mr Erdogan, not because they like him, but because he’s a neighbor with whom they have to get along, and because they have very important projects, both for Turkey and for Russia. He has positioned his country as the gas hub for Russian deliveries to those member states of the European Union that still want and can’t receive it. And he is still owing them money for the completion of one of the biggest nuclear power projects that Russia has outside of its own country.

So these are things that he needs. He needs that energy project to be completed. It is important to his economic plans, and the Russians need it. I would say, to put it in a language that Americans will especially appreciate today, the relationship of Moscow with Istanbul is transactional.

Napolitano: 11:33
Nice word. Haven’t the Russians in fact– talk about transactional– sold air defense systems to the Turks?

Doctorow:
Yes, they have. They’ve sold them the S-400, and Erdogan, to his credit, stood by that deal under very heavy pressure from the United States because he was making the point that his country’s defense would not be totally at the mercy of the latest administration in Washington and how it feels about him and his country, that he would have some autonomy. And the Russian S-400s were very important for this purpose, not just because they’re outstanding value for the money and very dependable air defenses, but because it was a statement to the United States that he is not in their pocket.

Napolitano;
Erdogan is a very, very, President Erdogaan is a very interesting character. I’d be interested in your, you know, two-minute version of how you perceive him on the international scene. I mean, three months ago, he was calling Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu a war criminal, and last weekend was celebrating with him, not physically in the same room, of course, over the demise of President Assad. How does the Kremlin, how do other players in the Middle East, how does Egypt view President Erdogan?

Doctorow: 13:10
None of them likes him. But then– I know that in high diplomacy and international relations, some kind of personal liking or ability to get along is an important positive factor. Mr. Erdogan does not allow that to happen by his duplicity and by his acting against the interests of today’s partners. So there’s nothing new with his behavior. He’s been around for a long time. People know not to rely on him too heavily, But they also know that his country is very important. Population-wise, situationally, it is what it always was for the last 2, 000 years. It’s a bridge between Asia and Europe. And we know that from the migrant crisis. He is unavoidable. And so you do business with him, but not out of any particular liking for his personality.

Napolitano: 14:10
Right. A few minutes ago, you reminded us that the United States and Great Britain continue to facilitate strikes inside Russia using ATACMS and Storm Shadows, American and British technical know-how and physical involvement, as well as Ukrainian. The Pentagon spokesperson, a woman named Sabrina Singh, whom I don’t know and who I guess is at the tail end of her career there, made some comments about US intel is thinking that another Orushnik may soon come. Here are her comments. I’d be happy to hear your thoughts, Professor Doctorow. Chris, cut number one.

Singh: 14:57
Putin has said publicly that Russia intends to launch another experimental Oreshnik missile, as you mentioned. It’s possible that Russia could do it in the coming days. I don’t have an exact date for you. I think it’s important to note that should Russia choose to launch this type of missile, it’s not going to be a game changer on the battlefield. It’s just yet another attempt to inflict harm and casualties in Ukraine. We’ve seen this before. They’re trying to use every weapon that they have in their arsenal to intimidate Ukraine. But of course, Ukraine, with the United States, other partners around the world, continues to have our support as they, you know, fight every single day on the battlefield.

Napolitano: 15:41
Is the Kremlin plan to use the Oreshnik on a regular basis? Are they concerned that the message intended by the Oreshnik apparently is being ignored or almost even mocked or treated with indifference by the US and the West?

Doctorow:
Well, that’s a complicated question because there are several angles here. The first of all are what Washington thinks the Russians will do. There’s nothing to think about. Mr. Russian Ministry of Defense stated from the 10th to the 13th of this month, they have declared a no-flight zone over the area in Astrakhan from which the Oreshnik, the first Oreshnik firing took place and obviously where subsequent launches of Oreshnik against targets that the Kremlin identifies will take place. So she’s not divulging some intelligence that America has come up with. It’s in the public domain.

16:43
What she is missing, and what the Western media is intentionally missing, is the question of what the Russians are going to fire against. And for that, I regrettably have to bring a piece of news that she didn’t mention.

Napolitano:
What is that?

Doctorow:
That is that the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs today told Russian citizens not to travel in Western Europe or the United States because there might be some serious problems that they will find. But this is as much as saying that Russia is considering right now using the Oreshnik against a NATO target. That is almost certain what the intent of that message was.

So her saying that this Oreshnik missile has no relevance to the battlefield is dead wrong. It has every relevance to NATO and its ability to continue this war.

Napolitano:
Here is Maria Zakharova, the Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson yesterday, Professor Doctorow, saying exactly what you just mentioned. Cut number 14.

Zakharova: 17:55 [English voice over]
Seeing the confrontation in the Russian-American relations because of the official Washington, they are on the verge of breaking the trips, private and business trips to U. S. Are fraught with serious risks. There is a literal hunt by the American law enforcement and intelligence service for our citizens. And there is a fraught scheme of luring out Russian citizens abroad.

So how is it happening? They send invitations with some beneficial commercial or tourist offers. After that, the people that were targeted are detained, and then they’re extradited to the American jurisdiction according to the extradition agreements. And there is a full list of countries that cooperate with the US in the, regarding the extradition. It will be on our website. That is why we urge during the celebrations and in the future to refrain from any trips to the US or any allied satellite states, first of all Canada, and countries of the EU with some exceptions. It isn’t an emergency, of course.

Napolitano: 19:23
I mean, if this is serious, this is pretty heavy-duty stuff, Professor Doctorow.

Doctorow:
This was a very big warning for a very shallow threat. So I believe that this was an indirect message to Washington about the possibility of a strike on a NATO asset. This had been going on for 20 years, that Russian citizens in third countries, Thailand, and Lord knows where, had been extradited to the United States to stand trial for various alleged crimes. Now that’s not new.

Now why is she speaking precisely about NATO countries, that is Western Europe and the United States and Canada? I don’t know. But I think that there is a lot of re-examination now in the Kremlin as to how they want to use the Oreshnik next and whether– I had assumed, and I’ve said this in the last week, that they decided that the greatest point of leverage was against Kiev and that they would have Mr. Zelensky dead frightened about the next strikes that might come, namely the decapitation strikes that– when they say they’re going to target decision-making centers, well, he is a decision-making center. So that was what I assumed was the case.

20:53
But now I have to rethink that, and I think they are considering whether they want to hit Poland or not. That would be the most logical thing, would require the least advance warning, because the Polish base that America has is a military base, and the presence of civilians is at some distance from it and is negligible. Therefore, I would not rule out today the possibility of Russian strike, next response strike, retaliatory strike, for what happened in Taganmog.

21:23
Now what happened in Taganmog? I’ve seen different explanations of what was targeted. The most common one you’d find in our mainstream is that it was a military air base. The more interesting explanation is that our next adjacent to that military base is a factory producing planes, the Russian equivalent of the American spy planes, the early warning planes. And that, if so, that would have been a very threatening damage if it succeeded. It would be in line with the earlier, this goes back six months or more, when there were attacks on the Russian early-warning radars. The planes that we’re talking about are the airborne equivalent of these early-warning radars.

22:24
And they were shot down. There were six ATACMS, the Russians say. Two of them were shot down with debris falling over the area and causing some damage and some injury to cars and other non-strategic, non-important equipment. But they say that the building was attacked and nothing, the building meaning the factory I’m talking about, was not damaged. Nonetheless, if that had succeeded, It would have been a serious loss for Russia.

23:03
And so I think that taking this attack with the uttermost concern, two were shot down and four were diverted by Russia’s very advanced electronic warfare equipment. Nonetheless, it was a serious threat, and I think the Russians are recalibrating how to put the fear of God into Washington.

Napolitano: 23:23
We only have a minute or two left, Professor Doctorow. What’s happening in Tbilisi, Georgia from the Kremlin perspective?

Doctorow:
The Kremlin perspective is that it’s completely falsified, Russian participation or influence over what the Georgia Dream governing party is doing. The whole issue is about Washington’s attempt to use Georgia as it has used Ukraine, to open a new front against Russia and distract Moscow’s attention from the battlefield in the Donbass. The Bay Russians have nothing whatever to do with the conflict between the President Zorav Peshvili and the … Georgian dream party that controls the parliament.

The lady involved, the president of the country, is a dual national, she has a French passport, and the Russians say that she was heavily involved with French intelligence, that she is an asset of French and CIA intelligence. So this is a strictly domestic fight within Georgia over whether the country is going to be used as a proxy by the United States to attack Russia.

Napolitano: 24:57
Wow. Wouldn’t be surprised. Professor Doctorow. Thank you very much. Again, thank you for helping us to achieve our goal of a half million subscribers. You’ve been a core part of the show, and I hope it will continue. And we look forward to seeing you next week.

Doctorow:
Thanks, and I look forward to it as well.

Napolitano:
Thank you. Coming up later today at 11.15 this morning, Max Blumenthal; at two o’clock this afternoon, a new former British diplomat who will be here; and at three o’clock this afternoon, Matt Ho.

25:31
Judge Napolitano for “Judging Freedom”.

It was a particular pleasure to appear on ‘Judging Freedom’ today, when host Andrew Napolitano celebrated reaching 500,000 subscribers. The opening comments on this video express fulsome praise for this well-earned achievement in public service.

In our chat about Syria, the key question was whether this is truly a major setback for Vladimir Putin as Western mainstream is telling us or are they using this story line to cover up the disaster unfolding on the battlefield day by day for the Ukrainian armed forces and their US-NATO backers.

As I mention, the situation of the Russian bases in Syria is presently stable and there is every possibility that the new administration in Damascus will create an autonomous province to protect the Alawite population of that locality on the coast that is home to the Russians from retribution over their support role to the Assad family.  Time will tell.  But our media are ignoring the other options that Russia may well enjoy should it be required to abandon its 70-year lease on the bases in Syria.  Among these options is Iran, with its seaports on waters leading directly into the Indian Ocean. In its present condition after having suffered extensive losses among its Axis of Resistance proxies, Iran could well be motivated to offer bases to the Russian navy and air force.

The Russians have for centuries coveted the warm waters of the Indian Ocean and link-up with the Mediterranean would be assured via the Suez Canal. Alternatively, the Russians could very likely strike a deal with Egypt or with Algeria to set up shop in the Western Mediterranean and so satisfy their need for reprovisioning and refitting naval vessels of their Black Sea fleet operating in the Mediterranean with or without passage through the Dardanelles, which is subject to Turkish control.

We also discussed at some length how the Russians may respond to the latest Ukrainian use of   6 ATACMS missiles against Russian military assets in the city of Taganrog, on the coast of the Sea of Azov. The Ukrainians were said to target a military air base, however, it could well have been a factory adjacent to the airfield that manufactures the Russian equivalent of the American AWACS, i.e., specialized radar equipped planes used for intelligence gathering and early warning about incoming missiles or planes. The Ukrainian ATACMS were either shot down by the Russian Pantsyr air defense missiles (2) or diverted by Russia’s electronic warfare gear (4). Accordingly actual damage from this missile strike was minimal.  But the threat to key Russian security assets was real and the Russian response will have to be calibrated accordingly.

Washington has stated in the last day that it expects the Russians to respond with another attack on Ukraine using their new hypersonic Oreshnik missile. But there is now reason to believe that the Kremlin may be rethinking its strategy and will instead strike a target in NATO-land. The newly opened US missile base in Poland would appear to be very suitable for this purpose. And that would explain the otherwise inexplicable directive to Russian citizens issued by Maria Zakharova on behalf of the Foreign Ministry telling them not to travel to the European Union or North America.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qlC6XzR2uQ

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

„Judging Freedom“-Ausgabe vom 12. Dezember: Russland, Syrien und Georgien

Es war mir eine besondere Freude, heute bei „Judging Freedom“ aufzutreten, als Gastgeber Andrew Napolitano das Erreichen von 500.000 Abonnenten feierte. Die einleitenden Kommentare zu diesem Video drücken überschwängliches Lob für diese wohlverdiente Leistung im Dienst für die Öffentlichkeit aus.

In unserem Gespräch über Syrien ging es vor allem um die Frage, ob dies wirklich ein großer Rückschlag für Wladimir Putin ist, wie uns der Mainstream im Westen glauben machen will, oder ob sie diese Geschichte nur nutzen, um von der Katastrophe abzulenken, die sich Tag für Tag auf dem Schlachtfeld für die ukrainischen Streitkräfte und ihre Unterstützer aus den USA und der NATO abspielt.

Wie bereits erwähnt, ist die Lage der russischen Stützpunkte in Syrien derzeit stabil und es besteht durchaus die Möglichkeit, dass die neue Regierung in Damaskus eine autonome Provinz schafft, um die alawitische Bevölkerung dieser Ortschaft an der Küste, in der die Russen leben, vor Vergeltungsmaßnahmen für ihre Unterstützungsrolle für die Assad-Familie zu schützen. Die Zeit wird es zeigen. Unsere Medien ignorieren jedoch die anderen Optionen, die Russland durchaus offenstehen, sollte es gezwungen sein, seinen 70-jährigen Pachtvertrag für die Stützpunkte in Syrien aufzugeben. Zu diesen Optionen gehört der Iran mit seinen Seehäfen an Gewässern, die direkt in den Indischen Ozean münden. In seiner derzeitigen Lage, nachdem er unter seinen Stellvertretern der Achse des Widerstands erhebliche Verluste erlitten hat, könnte der Iran durchaus motiviert sein, der russischen Marine und Luftwaffe Stützpunkte anzubieten.

Die Russen begehren seit Jahrhunderten die warmen Gewässer des Indischen Ozeans und eine Verbindung zum Mittelmeer wäre über den Suezkanal gewährleistet. Alternativ könnten die Russen sehr wahrscheinlich ein Abkommen mit Ägypten oder Algerien schließen, um sich im westlichen Mittelmeer niederzulassen und so ihren Bedarf an Nachschub und Umrüstung von Marineschiffen ihrer Schwarzmeerflotte, die im Mittelmeer operiert, mit oder ohne Durchfahrt durch die Dardanellen, die der türkischen Kontrolle unterliegen, zu decken.

Wir haben auch ausführlich darüber diskutiert, wie die Russen auf den jüngsten Einsatz von 6 ATACMS-Raketen durch die Ukraine gegen russische Militäreinrichtungen in der Stadt Taganrog an der Küste des Asowschen Meeres reagieren könnten. Die Ukrainer sollen einen Militärflugplatz angegriffen haben, es könnte sich jedoch auch um eine Fabrik in der Nähe des Flugplatzes gehandelt haben, die das russische Äquivalent des amerikanischen AWACS herstellt, d.h. Flugkörper mit Spezialradar, die zur Informationsbeschaffung und Frühwarnung vor anfliegenden Raketen oder Flugzeugen eingesetzt werden. Die ukrainischen ATACMS wurden entweder von den russischen Pantsyr-Luftabwehrraketen abgeschossen (2) oder von der elektronischen Kriegsausrüstung Russlands umgeleitet (4). Dementsprechend war der tatsächliche Schaden durch diesen Raketenangriff minimal. Die Bedrohung für wichtige russische Sicherheitsanlagen war jedoch real und die russische Reaktion wird entsprechend angepasst werden müssen.

Washington hat am letzten Tag erklärt, dass es von den Russen einen weiteren Angriff auf die Ukraine mit ihrer neuen Hyperschall-Oreschnik-Rakete erwartet. Es gibt jedoch Grund zu der Annahme, dass der Kreml seine Strategie überdenkt und stattdessen ein Ziel im NATO-Gebiet angreifen wird. Die neu eröffnete US-Raketenbasis in Polen scheint für diesen Zweck sehr gut geeignet zu sein. Und das würde die ansonsten unerklärliche Anweisung an russische Bürger erklären, die von Maria Sacharowa im Namen des Außenministeriums herausgegeben wurde und in der sie aufgefordert werden, nicht in die Europäische Union oder nach Nordamerika zu reisen.

Transcription submitted by a reader

Nima R. Alkhorshid: 0:05
Hi everybody. Today is Tuesday, December 10th, and Dr. Gilbert Doctorow is back with us. Welcome back, Gilbert.

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
Well, thanks for the invitation. It’s a pleasure to be with you.

Alkhorshid:
Let’s get started with what’s going on in Syria and the repercussions of what has happened in Syria. Assad is gone right now, and Syria is in turmoil. What’s your take on what has happened, and how do you find Russia and Iran right now?

Doctorow:
Well, I know that you have given this question to several of your previous interviewees, and I listened with great attention to them, because particularly as regards of the interview with Larry Johnson, I largely agree with Larry on his caution. I think it’s well placed, and it’s very useful for the audience. What I would like to do as an overlay to what Larry has said is to give the Russian perspective, since that is not his strength.

1:11
His strength is very impressive as regards the history of radical Islamic groups in that region, and I appreciated hearing it. But as I said, what I would like to contribute is the Russian dimension, which is missing here. Then you had another of your guests whom I exchange emails with and whom I have a great deal of respect for, which is well called for because the man has vast experience in the US government’s service, and I mean Paul Craig Roberts. Unfortunately, I’m unable to agree with him on what he was telling your audience, because I believe it largely was coming from one source, a very suspect source, and that is John Helmer, who is the longest-serving journalist in Moscow, but who somehow has the wrong friends, And is giving information to people like Roberts, and through Roberts to a very big audience that is expressing the views of disgruntled, probably retired, colonels and generals who are cussing Putin at every turn.

2:17
But we’ll come back to that. Let’s just start with the missing segment to the story that was so well explained by Larry Johnson. And that is, there are a number of things that people say about Russia. The first instinctive remarks coming out of Western media was that in the Syrian change, in the departure of Assad, you had two winners and two losers. The United States– Turkey and Israel were the big winners, and Russia and Iran were the big losers.

2:52
And of course, it’s easy to understand that concept. After all, both Russia and Iran were very close to Assad. They saved his neck in 2015. From 2015 to 2017, it was precisely Russian air power and Iranian proxies on the ground, Hezbollah and others, who crushed the various different Islamic extremist groups that had seized most of Syria’s territory. So what does this mean now?

3:32
First of all, as Larry introduced in his discussion with you, a great deal of caution is needed in drawing any conclusions on what is happening, and is likely to happen, in Syria in the coming days, weeks, and months, given that the country is very diverse in its ethnic and religious populations, given that there are so many competing forces locally and internationally, influencing how this progresses. Given the fact, which he didn’t mention, but I will add here, that the whole force, armed force of the HTS, as they swept through from Idlib to Damascus, 30,000 men. A 30,000-man army cannot possibly hold down a country the size of Syria, which has been through 10 years of civil war and which has many loose ends, shall we say, and local competitors, not to mention the returning Syrians from Turkey and elsewhere who have their own interests to promote.

4:50
So it is really a bubbling pot, Syria. And it’s hard to say, will it boil over? Will it settle down and deliver something very useful? That’s not clear. Now the elements about the Russian story that have surfaced in primarily Western but also in alternative media, what does this mean for the Russian bases? What does it mean for Khmeimim, the air base that Russia has, and for Tarsus, the naval base, which is key to the maintenance of the Russian presence in the eastern Mediterranean? Ah, yes, they’ll be chased out.

Well, that’s a very superficial answer coming from, but it has a real logic behind it, if you consider that who was paying for all of this trouble in Syria. First of all, again, since people are speaking about the Turks as the drivers of this, they’re missing a certain time dimension here. This didn’t start three months ago. It didn’t start five years ago. It goes back 10 years, 20 years.

5:59
It goes back to Bashar al-Assad’s father. The-

Alkhorshid:
Al-Fasal al-Assad.

Doctorow:
Yes, the attempt to overthrow that regime has been there for decades. And one of the biggest factors from long ago to the present has been the United States of America. After all, during the crisis, the low point in Assad’s control over his own territory, going back to 2013 to 2015, America was heavily financing all of these terrorist groups of various stripes, trying to pretend that there are really bad terrorists and they’re moderate terrorists.

6:46
But this was rubbish. It was for domestic consumption in the States. It was an outright outrageous lie. The United States was financing anyone who could, who they thought had a potential to overthrow Assad. And that’s not where it ended.

Yes, of course, the combined efforts of Iran and Russia quelled the uprisings that spread across the whole territory of Syria back then. But the time since Russia’s presence was also important, and nobody talks about that. And this is something I want to bring into play. The Americans were financing all of these radicals and the Americans were doing something else that again people are ignoring right now, the American sanctions.

7:48
The American sanctions took a very heavy toll on the economy of Syria. And they were compounded by the American presence in the east of the country, where they have this still 1,000 men sitting there doing what? Watching over the oil and gas production, which is siphoned off to Israel or other buyers abroad, and depriving the Syrian government of revenues which it desperately needs. The single biggest factor in the collapse of the Assad government was arguably money. They didn’t have, in any case, they didn’t pay their soldiers. And so it’s no great wonder that when they were faced with a life and death struggle, with a force that was very well trained and equipped, the armies melted away.

8:49
They weren’t paid. They were starving, literally starving. They didn’t have food supplies to the soldiers. Now, all of that is a consequence of the way the United States beggared Syria through its sanctions and through stealing the wealth that otherwise it would have enjoyed from its production of oil and gas in the eastern provinces. So this is the background of America’s real responsibility for the collapse of the Syrian government.

9:25
I don’t say that Mr. Assad doesn’t share blame. The Russians themselves say openly today that his administration made very serious mistakes. It did not follow advice coming from Iran and from Russia on reforms, on conciliation with the various opposition groups, and with improving the condition of its armed forces.

9:54
So these are all background issues. But coming now to the special situation of Russia, [with] which I began this talk. The Russians from 2015 on had its presence on the ground, not boots on the ground. They didn’t have fighting forces on the ground. They had mediation forces on the ground, which were soldiers of course, and these soldiers went around the country and spoke with, discussed with local forces, the local political, politically active people, and with terrorists in these areas. They facilitated the removal of terrorist individuals, soldiers, with their families from all over Syria to Idlib province.

10:53
So they were in contact with local communities across Syria. They facilitated the resolution of differences that these local authorities had with the central government and gave some semblance of peace to Syria, which did not prevent a resurgence of the Islamic movements, but it gave a breathing space to Assad, if he had used it properly. The residue of all this is that Russia is today probably the only external force or factor in the Syrian equation which has a knowledge of people across the country whom it worked with to stabilize the country. And that stabilizing contribution of Russia is still appreciated.

11:55
You will note that the Iranian embassy was forced to close and then was sacked by rebels. The Russian embassy was not closed. The Russian embassy was given protection by the HTS authorities. And that is an expression of the reasons for an optimism about Russia’s ability to play a stabilizing and positive contribution to Syria as it emerges, if it doesn’t spin out of control for reasons that have nothing to do with Russia. So there you have it, who are the winners, who are the losers? It’s much too early to say, but I would dare venture to say that Russia is not a loser.

Alkhorshid: 12:47
What has happened to Syria and Bashar al-Assad recently that he couldn’t accept advice coming from Iran and Russia? What has happened? Was he thinking of improving the relationship between Syria and Arab states? That’s why he has decided to go in that direction?

Doctorow:
Well, you’ve just set out a very possible explanation. I don’t have a better explanation. He has been– he refused to meet with the Turks, which was a terrible mistake. He refused to accept the advice, as I said, going back several years from the Russians on reforms and particularly reform of his military. And what he had in his mind– well, we may find out. After all, he’s sitting in Moscow. And when I said that the Russians have a good knowledge of localities, they also have him.

13:45
And so they have an additional asset to understand who is who in dynamics across the country. But I’d like to add an additional explanation for the Syrian situation, which I don’t think listeners to this program will have heard from elsewhere. Again, I do not present myself as a specialist of any kind on Western Asia and on Syria in particular, But I do present myself as a specialist on what the Russians are saying about this, and which Russians. I want to highlight this. The people I listen to are the leading academics, orientalists in Russia from the major universities and think tanks. Members of the state Duma who for various personal reasons from their past government service are well informed about the situation in the Middle East and in Syria, and military men who have in their course– that is, they’re of course all retired, nobody who is in active service goes on talk shows in Russian television– but they are retired and yet have very relevant experience and knowledge.

15:04
Now they share this on talk shows, and I think two of the most authoritative ones that I listen to. And I hold that out as being a real asset and that is underused. This is all, I say, open sources. I agree, they’re not in English. However, this, in this day and age, you can have– you can, by very clever software, find, make translations of these shows.

15:34
And they’re ignored. Instead you have people like John Helmer who has an indisputable advantage, at least theoretically, sitting in Moscow and not sitting in Brussels or London or New York. But who seems to be listening to disgruntled people. I’d say the best thing I can say about his situation is that it attests to the real freedom of speech in Russia, which everyone in London would like to deny, because– and freedom of press, because he is a journalist, after all, and many of the things that he’s saying about Putin and about the Russian high command could very easily legally be interpreted as sedition. And nobody’s brought sedition charges against him, and I hope they never will. But still, what he’s saying is of that variety.

16:25
Unfortunately, as I said, there’s people in the States who are very intelligent, very clever, very experienced. Nonetheless, they take this type of message as being determinant, because it’s coming from someone sitting in Moscow. When it, in fact, is not representative, Russians are not in the streets attacking, cursing out Putin for having lost Syria. They’ve got bigger problems on their plate, namely how to resolve the war in Ukraine, and all minds are focused on that.

So this is where we are today in the Russian situation. I listen to people who are fairly optimistic. And as I said, they’re quite experienced, they’re quite knowledgeable, and I take their judgments as being worth passing along as I do today on your show.

Alkhorshid: 17:31
You mentioned 2015, in which Iran and Russia together helped Bashar al-Assad in Syria. And we know in 2016 there was a military coup in Turkiye. During those days, Iran and Russia, again, they were trying to help Erdogan in Turkiye. How [can we] understand the behavior of Turkiye in which, let’s put it this way, are Russians feeling that they were betrayed by Turkiye in Syria?

Doctorow: 18:13
Yes and no. They– I think most serious scholars and diplomats would not have expected better of Erdogan. They’ve seen him go this way and that way. I think there’s no chance of his entering BRICS under the circumstances. But I think there’s something else, which I meant to say a moment ago and overlooked. And this explains in part, or gives an answer in part to what you’re asking. There’s another way of looking at what’s going on in Syria.

It is decolonization. Again, these orientalists in Moscow, reminding us about the artificiality of all of the borders in West Asia. They were drawn in the case of Lebanon and Syria, they were drawn up by the French without any regard to the ethnic population, religious populations of the new states that they announced. And so when you look at Erdogan, he’s part of that decolonization process. How much of Syria will be nibbled away by its neighbors remains to be seen.

19:35
But what Erdogan is doing is part of that. Even if he doesn’t take title to the borderlands that his forces now occupy, effectively he controls a part of what has been Syria and is likely to control it for a long time to come. What is his motive for that? What does he gain from that? Well, possibly it gives him leverage with the Kurdish population on the Syrian side of the border.

Here again, that is an issue for decolonization. The fact [is] that there is no Kurdish nation-state, when the Kurds are spread across three boundaries. They’re in Turkey, they’re in Syria, they’re in Iran. That whole region has very heavy concentrations of Kurds and they have no state. They have no more state than the Palestinians have a state.

20:40
So these are holdovers from the colonial period that have yet to be resolved. I don’t want to make this seem that the artificiality of these national borders explains everything. No, you have– there are similar problems [in] the whole of the middle of Africa, where the colonial powers drew boundaries that ignored completely minorities and created permanent minorities who would be deprived of all civic rights, essentially, certainly of all electoral power, in the states that were created and incorporated then. And even here in Europe, you had the Sudeten Germans. We have today various national minorities, pockets of minorities in many states, including– I just was in Northeastern Italy six weeks ago in Trieste. And Trieste has a very large Slovenian population and always will have, because those borders are now set in concrete within the European Union.

21:55
But it is impossible to have ethnically pure nation states. But we have an exaggerated case in West Asia, and Syria is an outstanding example. And we will see how these various ethnic groups find a solution in the present situation where there’s nobody above them, forcing them to live together, as Mr. Assad’s government did.

Alkhorshid: 22:30
In the Russian media, or in the Russian part of this discussion, do you think that they’re considering Syria being in a similar position as we’re witnessing in Libya, or they’re seeing it’s going to be totally different?

Doctorow;
No, this risk is acknowledged. That there could be an outbreak of genuine civil war across Syria is not dismissed. It is considered a risk. We’ll see. I was watching half an hour ago the latest Al Jazeera reports coming out of Syria on the naming of the new prime minister who comes from Idlib, who was the minister for development in the provisional non-Assad government that ran Idlib under Turkish protection, who was an electrical engineer, and who worked for a time for a Russian gas company.

23:34
So a man who sounds quite civilized and who has experience in government is not just somebody with a primary school education and a rifle. So there is reason to hope that a person of that sophistication will be able to deal with the real challenges of going from Idlib province to running the whole country, where there are these centrifugal forces, all of them are pulling in different directions.

Alkhorshid: 24:05
Because right now people are talking about that Syria is different, Syria is totally, the situation in Syria is totally different from what we’ve seen in Libya. But at the end of the day, we know that even right now, with these new changes in Syria, Russia and Iran are talking about stabilizing the situation in Syria. And on the other hand, you see just before coming up, we’ve learned that Israel is just getting closer to Damascus and hitting– yesterday they were bombing Syria, all of the military bases, all of the equipment in Syria. And they don’t want any sort of stabilization in Syria. They want– this chaos would help Israel. On the other hand, Russia is not going to benefit from that. Russia is talking about even with this new government or these new groups, rebels, whatever we call them, and they are seeking for some sort of stabilization.

How do you see the balance of powers considering all of this? Because I don’t see that the United States and together with Israel, they’re seeking for any sort of rational movements inside Syria because that wouldn’t benefit Israel in the long term.

Doctorow: 25:29
What the position of this new government will be eventually with respect to Israel remains to be seen. The logic is that they will not be friends. These Israeli attacks do not help set up a framework for cooperation with the new Syrian government, such as it forms.

The old story is: he laughs best, who laughs last. And I think there’s been a lot of laughing going on in Jerusalem, which is premature. The Russians have been very tolerant of Israeli rampages throughout the region. They have become, since the onset of this genocide in Gaza, they have become less tolerant, less forgiving, and far more critical. I do not see that the latest Israeli attacks across Syria are going to endear Jerusalem to Moscow.

26:32
So will the Russians find themselves in a direct military confrontation with Israel? I doubt it, but it cannot be dismissed. The interests are so different, so divergent with respect to the future of Syria, but I would not discount such a possibility.

Alkhorshid: 26:56
How about Russia and Iran right now? Is the situation in Syria going to bring them closer together?

Doctorow:
Oh absolutely, yes. It was already expected that in January, the long-awaited comprehensive cooperation agreement, which includes a mutual defense section, will be signed and then ratified. These events in Syria, I think, hasten and reinforce the understanding of how essential that is. Everyone is in the West rejoicing over what this means for, what the events in Syria mean for continued supply of Iranian military hardware to Hezbollah. I agree with the assessment given by Larry Johnson that it will complicate further supplies, but it’s unlikely to interrupt or end such supplies.

28:06
There has also been too much rejoicing about how this means that Iran comes next. It will be vanquished by Israel and the United States acting together. I see no reason for that or that Iran did not respond to the Syrian crisis because it’s weakened since its proxies, particularly Hezbollah, have had these serious defeats at the hands of the Israelis, going back to the explosion of those handheld devices through the assassination of much of the leadership of Hezbollah. Yes, of course, there were these very serious setbacks in the axis of resistance.

28:55
Nonetheless, Iran itself is not part of that. Iran itself has not been weakened in its ability to destroy Israel with its missiles, or to shoot down the whole Israeli air force if they cross its borders. So these arguments, I think, are rather empty. They’re certainly not persuasive to me. That Iran would look with ever greater interest in having a defense agreement with Russia today is self-evident. So that will proceed. I think all questions over that have been swept away by the debacle in Syria, debacle for Iran, not for Russia.

Alkhorshid: 29:43
And how did you find the reaction coming from Donald Trump? He said that Russia was defeated in Syria and the picture– the most important thing that he was talking about– the picture that he’s giving us about the war in Ukraine, he says 600,000 Russian soldiers were killed and injured in Ukraine. And on the other hand, when he’s talking about the Ukrainian part, he says 400,000, which is [a] totally distorted picture for anybody who knows the reality of what’s going on in Ukraine. Who’s providing Donald Trump with this information? Or is he putting this out intentionally on purpose to put some sort of pressure on Putin?

Doctorow: 30:33
Knowing his personality, I think the second explanation is more likely. Nonetheless, at some point, truth has to be said from high places, and just to put out complete rubbish does not improve his standing with anybody. What I have to ask is where is Tulsi Gabbard? What is her job going to be if her president, who is supposedly reliant on her for national security assessments, is proceeding with such stupid propaganda that we’ve heard for the last three years from the Biden administration, from these awful propagandists, Sullivan and Blinken? Trump is simply discrediting himself and marginalizing himself by making these outrageous statements.

31:30
It doesn’t, I don’t worry about it. I’m satisfied. I had an interview last night, a telephone interview, with a journalist who’s now the deputy foreign editor at Moskovsky Komsomolets, one of the several newspapers that I’ll quote from, which has a title dating from Soviet Times, which still has a substantial readership, in Moscow at least. And he was, when we had a discussion such as we’re having now, about the outlook for Trump mediating and bringing peace, and I expressed to him what I’m expressing to you now, he said, “My goodness, you’re so optimistic.”

32:16
I am optimistic, because I’m persuaded now that absolutely nothing depends on Donald Trump. That peace will come in Ukraine de facto, whether it is set down in a document that’s signed by this side and that side, is almost an irrelevancy for the Russians. For Mr. Putin and his entourage, it is an irrelevancy. They don’t need or particularly want a signed piece of paper, signed by whom? By Zelensky? He has no value for them.

32:48
They would only be interested in a paper that’s signed by the president of the United States. And even then, they will insist that it has provisions in it in which they are guarantors, co-guarantors of the peace, and not that the guarantors are directed against their interests. So the possible contribution– again, American papers, American media speak of Trump and what he’s trying to do as being a determining factor in how this ends up. As if America is a bystander, an honest broker, America is perceived by Russia as a co-belligerent. And there’s no way that a co-belligerent can act as a mediator for the ending this war. So the Trump participation is discounted 99 percent by the Putin administration.

Alkhorshid: 33:53
How about the situation in Georgia, Gilbert? What do we know about that situation, and how serious is that for Russia?

Doctorow:
The Russian position is that to speak of the Georgian “dream” government in place as being pro-Russian or influenced by Russia is pure propaganda; that this is written, it’s a script written in Washington, which has no basis in fact. As they point out, their relations with Georgia are minimal. They don’t have diplomatic relations. They don’t have air transport any more. They did for a brief time, but that was canceled. The possibilities of their exerting a direct influence in Georgia are nil, and they’re not seeking any.

34:53
The whole dispute is between the Georgian government, which refuses to become a Ukraine-2. They refuse to be drawn into the American attempts to encircle and open a second front in Russia to draw their attention away from the Ukraine fighting. That is what the whole thing is all about. The leader of, the president of Georgia, who is constitutionally obliged to leave the office at the end of this month, is apparently staging an insurrection.

35:38
Under normal conditions, she should be imprisoned for treason. I think that if she’s lucky, they will put her on the first plane out to Paris so she can go back and eat her croissants at home and leave them in peace. The Russian position is that this is a completely falsified issue, falsified by the United States and by the EU, who do not want it to be seen for what it is, which is an attempt by the EU to open a second front against Russia via Georgia.

Alkhorshid: 36:20
How about Romania? What’s going on in Romania? Is that going to influence Russia’s position?

Doctorow:
Well, Romania already had a big bullseye mark on it, and that hasn’t changed. I don’t think the Russians would be keen to bomb Romania if the leading candidate in the recent elections were allowed to stay in the race and to win the second round, which he possibly would, because he has come out against further assistance, aid, to Ukraine and against the anti-Russian position of the EU.

37:13
But otherwise, as I said, there was a bullseye on Romania because it, like Poland, is the home to these two centers, supposedly anti-ballistic missile bases, but de facto the launching bases for medium-range missiles, possibly for hypersonic ballistic missiles, when the United States has them ready to put into operation, against Moscow. And so they are the two countries, Poland and Romania, which would be at the top of the list if Russia were to proceed with a strike on a NATO country as a revenge for continued attack ATACMS or Storm Shadow strikes from Ukraine on the interior regions of Russian Federation.

Alkhorshid: 38:19
A huge question right now for the European countries would be: what are the consequences of what’s going on in Syria for Europe? We know many people came from Syria and that region to Europe. Right now we can consider many of them against Bashar al-Assad government and many are closest to these people, these rebels ideologically. But are they going to get back to Syria or we’re going to have a new wave of immigration coming to the European countries?

Doctorow: 38:57
Well, the latest news in the “Financial Times”, and I think in other major mainstream print and electronic media. is that the countries of the EU are suspending, Germany in particular, are suspending their review of refugee petitions from Syrians who are in Europe today.

And they’re doing that in the belief that these people should go back now that Assad has been overthrown. However, they came to Europe not because they [had] any disaffection from Assad as such. They came because they were threatened by war, by civil war in their homeland. And there is nothing in the present situation to suggest guaranteed stability that would justify their returning to their homeland. Therefore, all discussion of sending people back to Syria, because it’s now safe, is nonsense.

40:08
And as you just indicated, the greater likelihood is that if turmoil breaks out, there’ll be further movements of Syrians abroad, and by preference, not to Lebanon, because it is a mess all by itself, not to Turkey, because they really are not wanted in Turkey. They already have three million or more Syrian refugees as it is, but to go to Europe. And so we would have another wave of illegals coming into the EU.

Alkhorshid: 40:44
Can Russia cooperate with Turkiye again, or [are those days over] because of this type of betrayal coming from Turkiye? And we have seen that Turkiye is trying to play both sides. And with Americans, with the West and with Russia and Iran, they are talking to each other. But at the end of the day, how do you see the future of Turkiye in terms of the relationship they’re having with Russia?

Doctorow: 41:13
Unchanged. The Russians don’t have a choice. You’re, in this we’re speaking hardball politics. The the only mistake would be to have some emotional attachment to Erdogan or the– but serious political thinkers and diplomats in Russia know that they have to have relations with their neighbors. And he is a big and important neighbor. So whatever they think about Erdogan the man, and they have no particular fondness for him, they know that these big projects– for example, the completion of this major nuclear power station in Turkey, or the continued development of Turkey as a major gas hub that takes in primarily Russian gas and delivers it to Europe– these projects should go ahead.

42:19
The Russians are not happy with Erdogan, not at all. Certainly they consider his arming, his training, his bringing in Ukrainians to help the HTS and to facilitate their successful campaign against Assad… These things the Russians know and they swallow them with difficulty. But swallow it they will, not because they’re weak or stupid, but because this is the real world we live in.

Alkhorshid: 42:58
I think that’s why Erdogan is feeling free to do whatever he wants to do in that region.

Doctorow:
Whatever he can do, and what he can do is circumscribed. He’s buying the S-400s air defense. He’s dependent in a way on Russia. He has his pipelines. He’s positioning himself as a major hub. Without Russian gas, that’s history. And his efforts to be useful to Europe in this regard will be canceled. So he cannot do things to Russia that are genuinely painful to Russia.

43:39
What he did was to thumb his nose at Russia with respect to Syria. That is unpleasant, but it’s not all that painful.

Alkhorshid:
Gilbert, to be honest, I do feel that in Iran as well, they don’t have any sort of problem with Turkiye. They talk to each other, they have good relationship, But at the end of the day, what Turkiye is doing is against both of these countries, Iran and Russia. But there has to be something, some decision on the part of Russia or Iran to make Erdogan understand that the way that he’s trying to harm them, even in– let’s focus on Ukraine. What do you think about the future position of Erdogan in Ukraine? They have been sending arms, they have been talking against– recently he said that Russia should accept the terms that Zelensky is putting on the table. These are huge statements on the part of Turkiye, but at the end of the day, they want to have some sort of benefit coming from Iran and Russia to them.

Doctorow: 44:50
I think last night’s Russian television, “The Great Game”, they were counting how many wars have we had with Turkey over the years, 25 wars? So this history goes back a long way. And in Eastern Europe, just as in Western Europe, people have very long memories.

Let’s put this whole relationship into a language that particularly American viewers of this program will appreciate. The relationship between Russia and Turkey is transactional. Donald would appreciate this very much. Transactional, this is– they are not allies. They have some common interests, and they will not sacrifice those common interests because of personal enmity.

Alkhorshid: 45:42
Yeah, totally understandable. Thank you so much, Gilbert, for being with us today. Great pleasure, as always.

Doctorow:
Well, I enjoyed this very much, and I hope viewers will as well.

‘Dialogue Works’ edition of 10 December: Russia and the turmoil in Syria and Georgia

Today’s session with host Nima Alkhorshid focused primarily on the situation in Syria following the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad.  Who are the winners and losers from this among the foreign interveners? Will the new HTS-backed government, with its just named premier coming from their administration running Idlib province, be able to maintain order throughout the country or is a Libya-like civil war likely to bring chaos and further bloodshed? Will the Russians be able to keep their naval and air bases in the country?  Will Russia contribute to the consolidation of the country given its extensive contacts with local authorities across Syria developed during 2015-2020?

We also discussed at some length how Turkey’s betrayal of arrangements agreed with Russia on dealing with Idlib back in 2020 will affect future relations between the two countries. The word I use to describe these relations going forward is one that will be very familiar to Americans as they contemplate Donald Trump’s approach to foreign affairs: transactional.

And we found time to talk about Donald Trump’s latest remarks on why the Russians must sue for peace. His estimates of Russian war losses and of the state of the Russian economy appear to be as delusional as those we have heard from the Biden administration’s chief propagandists Sullivan and Blinken.  One wonders where is his nominee for head of U.S. intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. Can she provide him with an understanding of the present state of the war based on reality? Will he listen? Does his thinking have any relevance to the way the Russia-Ukraine war will end?

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaBxzJleSm0

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

„Dialogue Works“-Ausgabe vom 10. Dezember: Russland und die Unruhen in Syrien und Georgien

Die heutige Sitzung mit Gastgeber Nima Alkhorshid konzentrierte sich hauptsächlich auf die Lage in Syrien nach dem Sturz von Baschar al-Assad. Wer sind die Gewinner und Verlierer unter den ausländischen Interventen? Wird die neue, von der HTS unterstützte Regierung, deren gerade ernannter Premierminister aus ihrer Verwaltung stammt, die die Provinz Idlib leitet, in der Lage sein, im ganzen Land für Ordnung zu sorgen, oder wird ein Bürgerkrieg wie in Libyen wahrscheinlich zu Chaos und weiterem Blutvergießen führen? Werden die Russen ihre Marine- und Luftwaffenstützpunkte im Land behalten können? Wird Russland angesichts seiner umfangreichen Kontakte zu lokalen Behörden in ganz Syrien, die es im Zeitraum 2015–2020 aufgebaut hat, zur Konsolidierung des Landes beitragen?

Wir haben auch ausführlich darüber gesprochen, wie sich der Verrat der Türkei an den mit Russland vereinbarten Vereinbarungen über den Umgang mit Idlib im Jahr 2020 auf die künftigen Beziehungen zwischen den beiden Ländern auswirken wird. Das Wort, das ich verwende, um diese künftigen Beziehungen zu beschreiben, ist den Amerikanern sehr vertraut, wenn sie über Donald Trumps Herangehensweise an die Außenpolitik nachdenken: Transaktion.

Und wir fanden Zeit, über Donald Trumps jüngste Äußerungen darüber zu sprechen, warum die Russen um Frieden bitten müssen. Seine Schätzungen der russischen Kriegsverluste und des Zustands der russischen Wirtschaft scheinen ebenso wahnhaft zu sein wie die, die wir von den Chefpropagandisten der Biden-Regierung, Sullivan und Blinken, gehört haben. Man fragt sich, wo seine Kandidatin für den Posten des US-Geheimdienstchefs, Tulsi Gabbard, bleibt. Kann sie ihm ein realistisches Bild vom aktuellen Kriegsgeschehen vermitteln? Wird er zuhören? Hat seine Denkweise irgendeine Relevanz für das Ende des Russland-Ukraine-Krieges? Siehe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaBxzJleSm0

Yesterday’s talk show Sunday Evening with Vladimir Solovyov on Russian state television devoted a long segment to the fall of Bashar al-Assad and to what comes next for Syria. The panelists were ‘regulars’ on this show, but among them always were professional orientalists and retired military officers who had spent time in Syria during their careers and knew the subject matter firsthand.

Before setting out here what was said by these Russians, I am obliged to note that this morning’s BBC and other major Western media make it clear that those in the United States, Britain, Turkey and Israel who backed the rebels financially and militarily, those who had been cheerleading the ‘rebels’ of the HTS as they moved out of Idlib province, stormed Aleppo, swept through Hama and Homs before capturing Damascus now are themselves uncertain what comes next. It would appear that the speed with which the HTS brought down Assad surprised them all. Though they all commented in the midst of the process on how the fall of Assad would be a major setback for Russia, likely ending its lease of a naval base in Tartus and air base in Khmeimin, they do not now know whether it is a good or bad thing for their own interests in Syria and in the wider Middle East.

In this context, the uncertainty I heard last night from Russian academics, Duma members and retired military is justified and no doubt arises from the fact that the overthrow of the Assad regime was done by a force numbering approximately 30,000. What we have witnessed over the past 11 days was not so much the conquering strength of HTS as the total collapse of the Syrian army, which surrendered its positions. Soldiers ran for their lives, leaving to the approaching enemy their arms, tanks and munitions.

This victorious force of 30,000 will be unable to hold onto power alone and force its will on the very diverse population of Syria where many local actors have their own interests to defend. Moreover, those competitors in place will now be challenged by the large number of variously motivated terrorists who have been released from the Syrian prisons and by the large numbers of refugees living in Turkey and elsewhere who may now return to Syria to present their political demands.

HTS leader al-Julani has spoken of his intentions to practice an inclusive policy to rally all Syrians to his side, but the extent to which this will happen is presently unforeseeable. The reality that the future make-up and direction of the Syrian government is uncertain was proven already yesterday by the decision of the Israeli government to send in the IDF to take control of the buffer zone separating their occupied territory in the Golan from Syrian forces.

                                                                                     *****

Even before the fall of Damascus, commentators on Russian television had indicated that the Kremlin was deeply disappointed with Assad, that his armed forces were asleep and unready to deal with a renewed armed struggle by insurgents. This view was substantiated in detail last night on the Solovyov show. We were told that the Syrian army simply melted away because its soldiers were disaffected: they were dirt poor, they were starving from inadequate supply of provisions and they were led by corrupt generals who never came near the front lines and had no combat experience to justify their positions of authority. We were shown a video clip of Putin dating back several years in which he said Russia had no intention of ‘being more Syrian than the Syrians themselves,’ meaning that Russia would not provide soldiers to fight if the Assad government could not constitute a fighting force on its own.

The expert panelists last night had no fears for the future of the Russian bases. We were told that Russian diplomacy is in contact with the HTS and other political-military actors in post-Assad Syria to ensure the continuation of Russian military presence on Syrian territory.  Moreover, we know that those bases in the northwest of Syria are in the Alawite areas that were the political constituency of the Assad dynasty which will surely be able to defend its interests in the newly formed government in Damascus. So much for the short-lived gloating of British and American journalists over Russia’s alleged defeat due to Bashar al-Assad’s overthrow.

Russia will likely remain a major player in Syrian politics for other reasons relating to its activities in 2015-2017 when it was heavily involved in crushing the several Islamic extremist groups active across Syrian territory. Though the Russian military effort then was mostly in the air, using its locally based as well as long range bombers to great effect, and though the boots on the ground were mostly Iranian proxies, the pacification process village by village was enabled by Russian soldiers negotiating with the terrorist groups and with the civilian populations. Russia gained then vast experience of local politics, as much or more than what other foreign interveners in the Syrian civil war may have gained. We may assume that this valuable knowledge will be complemented by whatever Russian intelligence may now gain from talking to Bashar al-Assad during his exile in their country.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Was sagen die Russen über den Sturz des Assad-Regimes?

Die gestrige Talkshow „Sonntagabend mit Wladimir Solowjow“ im russischen Staatsfernsehen widmete dem Sturz von Baschar al-Assad und der Zukunft Syriens einen langen Abschnitt. Die Diskussionsteilnehmer waren „Stammgäste“ dieser Sendung, aber unter ihnen waren immer auch professionelle Orientalisten und pensionierte Militäroffiziere, die während ihrer Karriere Zeit in Syrien verbracht hatten und sich mit dem Thema aus erster Hand auskannten.

Bevor ich hier wiedergebe, was diese Russen gesagt haben, muss ich anmerken, dass die BBC und andere große westliche Medien heute Morgen deutlich gemacht haben, dass diejenigen in den Vereinigten Staaten, Großbritannien, der Türkei und Israel, die die Rebellen finanziell und militärisch unterstützt haben, diejenigen, die die „Rebellen“ der HTS angefeuert haben, als sie aus der Provinz Idlib auszogen, Aleppo stürmten, durch Hama und Homs fegten, bevor sie Damaskus einnahmen, nun selbst unsicher sind, was als Nächstes kommt. Es scheint, als hätte die Geschwindigkeit, mit der die HTS Assad zu Fall brachte, alle überrascht. Obwohl sie alle mitten im Prozess kommentierten, dass der Sturz Assads ein schwerer Rückschlag für Russland wäre und wahrscheinlich das Ende der Pacht eines Marinestützpunkts in Tartus und eines Luftwaffenstützpunkts in Khmeimin bedeuten würde, wissen sie jetzt nicht, ob dies für ihre eigenen Interessen in Syrien und im Nahen Osten im Allgemeinen gut oder schlecht ist.

In diesem Zusammenhang ist die Unsicherheit, die ich gestern Abend von russischen Akademikern, Duma-Mitgliedern und Militärs im Ruhestand gehört habe, gerechtfertigt und rührt zweifellos daher, dass der Sturz des Assad-Regimes von einer Truppe von etwa 30.000 Mann durchgeführt wurde. Was wir in den letzten elf Tagen erlebt haben, war weniger die Eroberungskraft von HTS als vielmehr der völlige Zusammenbruch der syrischen Armee, die ihre Stellungen aufgab. Soldaten rannten um ihr Leben und überließen dem herannahenden Feind ihre Waffen, Panzer und Munition.

Diese siegreiche Truppe von 30.000 Mann wird nicht in der Lage sein, die Macht allein zu halten und der sehr vielfältigen Bevölkerung Syriens ihren Willen aufzuzwingen, da viele lokale Akteure ihre eigenen Interessen zu verteidigen haben. Darüber hinaus werden die bestehenden Konkurrenten nun durch die große Zahl unterschiedlich motivierter Terroristen, die aus den syrischen Gefängnissen entlassen wurden, und durch die große Zahl von Flüchtlingen, die in der Türkei und anderswo leben und nun nach Syrien zurückkehren könnten, um ihre politischen Forderungen zu präsentieren, herausgefordert.

Der HTS-Führer al-Julani hat seine Absicht bekundet, eine integrative Politik zu betreiben, um alle Syrer auf seine Seite zu bringen, aber inwieweit dies geschehen wird, ist derzeit nicht absehbar. Dass die zukünftige Zusammensetzung und Ausrichtung der syrischen Regierung ungewiss ist, wurde bereits gestern durch die Entscheidung der israelischen Regierung bewiesen, die israelische Armee (IDF) zu entsenden, um die Kontrolle über die Pufferzone zu übernehmen, die ihr besetztes Gebiet auf den Golanhöhen von den syrischen Streitkräften trennt.

                                                                                     *****

Schon vor dem Fall von Damaskus hatten Kommentatoren im russischen Fernsehen darauf hingewiesen, dass der Kreml von Assad zutiefst enttäuscht sei und dass seine Streitkräfte untätig und unvorbereitet seien, um einem erneuten bewaffneten Aufstand der Aufständischen entgegenzutreten. Diese Ansicht wurde gestern Abend in der Sendung Solowjow ausführlich untermauert. Uns wurde gesagt, dass die syrische Armee einfach zerflossen sei, weil ihre Soldaten unzufrieden waren: Sie waren bitterarm, sie hungerten aufgrund unzureichender Versorgung mit Lebensmitteln und sie wurden von korrupten Generälen angeführt, die sich nie in die Nähe der Front begaben und keine Kampferfahrung hatten, die ihre Führungspositionen rechtfertigte. Uns wurde ein mehrere Jahre altes Video von Putin gezeigt, in dem er sagte, Russland habe nicht die Absicht, „syrischer als die Syrer selbst“ zu sein, was bedeutet, dass Russland keine Soldaten für den Kampf bereitstellen würde, wenn die Assad-Regierung nicht selbst eine Kampftruppe aufstellen könnte.

Die Experten auf dem Podium hatten gestern Abend keine Bedenken hinsichtlich der Zukunft der russischen Stützpunkte. Uns wurde mitgeteilt, dass die russische Diplomatie mit der HTS und anderen politisch-militärischen Akteuren im Syrien nach Assad in Kontakt steht, um die Fortsetzung der russischen Militärpräsenz auf syrischem Gebiet sicherzustellen. Außerdem wissen wir, dass sich diese Stützpunkte im Nordwesten Syriens in den Gebieten der Alawiten befinden, die die politische Wählerschaft der Assad-Dynastie waren, die sicherlich in der Lage sein wird, ihre Interessen in der neu gebildeten Regierung in Damaskus zu verteidigen. So viel zur kurzlebigen Schadenfreude britischer und amerikanischer Journalisten über die angebliche Niederlage Russlands aufgrund des Sturzes von Baschar al-Assad.

Russland wird wahrscheinlich aus anderen Gründen, die mit seinen Aktivitäten in den Jahren 2015–2017 zusammenhängen, weiterhin eine wichtige Rolle in der syrischen Politik spielen. In diesem Zeitraum war Russland maßgeblich an der Zerschlagung mehrerer islamischer Extremistengruppen beteiligt, die auf syrischem Gebiet aktiv waren. Obwohl die russischen Militäraktionen damals hauptsächlich aus der Luft erfolgten, wobei sowohl die lokal stationierten als auch die Langstreckenbomber mit großer Wirkung eingesetzt wurden, und obwohl die Bodentruppen hauptsächlich aus iranischen Stellvertretern bestanden, wurde der Befriedungsprozess Dorf für Dorf durch russische Soldaten ermöglicht, die mit den terroristischen Gruppen und der Zivilbevölkerung verhandelten. Russland sammelte damals umfangreiche Erfahrungen in der lokalen Politik, mindestens genauso viele wie andere ausländische Akteure, die in den syrischen Bürgerkrieg eingegriffen haben. Wir können davon ausgehen, dass dieses wertvolle Wissen durch Erkenntnisse ergänzt wird, die der russische Geheimdienst möglicherweise jetzt aus Gesprächen mit Baschar al-Assad während seines Exils in ihrem Land gewinnt.

What is the value of the Opposition in the USA and Europe in preventing a looming nuclear war? A look at The National Press Club event organized by Scott Ritter yesterday provides some answers.

The ‘No Nuclear War’ proceedings in Washington, D.C. on 7 December (Pearl Harbor Day in the United States) will no doubt be put online by various internet platforms.  I used the following channel hosted by Daniel Haiphong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh_Rckp1BXI

At the end of the first panel discussion of this event, organizer Scott Ritter asked panelists Ted Postol and Colonel Wilkerson what they might say to today’s key global decision makers who rule on war or peace, Tony Blinken (the stand-in for senile Joe Biden) and Vladimir Putin, to persuade them not to follow the present escalatory path and to spare us all a nuclear exchange that will end human life on Earth.

Tellingly, Ted Postol, said there was nothing to say to Blinken, because he doesn’t listen and pursues his insane policies with no regard for others’ views, including those of the vast majority of Americans who voted on 5 November against further wars. Tellingly, Colonel Wilkerson found words to deliver to Putin calling upon his forbearance.

And this, lady and gentlemen, brings us to the question of the value of the Opposition movement in the USA against the country’s aggressive foreign and military policy wherein senior officials are saying publicly that the country is ready to enter a nuclear war with Russia and to prevail. Answer: close to nil.

I say this not in a spirit of despair, because I believe there will be no such war, but to point to where our salvation, such as it will be, comes from: namely from Moscow and not from Washington or from any of the valiant anti-war gatherings such as took place at The National Press Club yesterday. Further remarks from the dais made it perfectly clear that there are no grounds to expect more reasonable and predictable decision making in Washington from the incoming Trump administration.

                                                                           *****

Nonetheless, I salute the courage, intelligence and public-spirited patriotism of Ritter and of those whom he brought to speak at this event. What they said from the dais deserves the widest possible audience.

Regrettably, the audience numbers on Haiphong’s platform when I tuned in this morning were not especially encouraging: just 50,000 views 10 hours after posting on the internet, suggesting a final audience of perhaps 100,000 – very much in line with the sad audience numbers for the excellent CNN interview with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov, which I reviewed on these pages yesterday.

Readers of my published articles know well that I have had critical, even harsh things to say about Scott with respect to the impropriety of his past financial arrangements with Russian broadcaster RT. They will know that I have had more serious disagreements with Scott’s first panelist yesterday, MIT professor emeritus Ted Postol over his longstanding and present-day underappreciation of Russian achievements in defense, right down to the latest Oreshnik missile strike in Dnipro.

I make no apologies for challenging leading Opposition personalities when I think they are wrong or causing discredit to the movement. And I have no hesitation in saying ‘thank you’ to those same individuals when I see the outstanding contributions they can and do make to public education about the most critical issue of our times, namely the escalating war with Russia over Ukraine.

However, at the end of the day, our fate depends not on what the still insignificant peace movements in the USA and Europe can do.

Scott Ritter had initially planned to organized a peace demonstration in the streets of Washington, D.C. on 7 December. The reason he gave for redirecting his efforts to a National Press Club event was likely inclement weather that would depress attendance and so work against the visual impact that he is trying to achieve. I think that he was very wise to select The National Press Club, where the numbers of persons in the room are irrelevant to the informational impact of the event. And his selection of participants was brilliant. In this regard, I single out Colonel Wilkerson for recounting his experience as an insider at the highest levels of the U.S. government at critical moments in U.S. relations with Russia bearing on the possible onset nuclear war over the years.

At the end of the day, whether war comes, whether we will survive, is presently in the hands of Vladimir Putin. And up to now, he has shown that our fate is in good hands.

Eighteen months ago, the widely known Russian political scientist Sergei Karaganov publicly called upon President Putin to stop the escalatory cycle that he claimed is encouraged by Russia’s turning the other cheek to provocations, and to deliver a demonstration nuclear strike somewhere in NATO-land to sober up the war mongers in the Collective West and make them understand that no further crossing of Russia’s red lines will be tolerated, that ‘nyet’ means ‘nyet.’  Karaganov repeated this refrain on 7 June this year at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, where he served as the moderator during the plenary session during which Putin delivered the keynote address and took questions.

Vladimir Putin rejected this challenge to his policy of restraint and bided his time till the moment to unleash ‘shock and awe’ arrived. That moment was on 21 November when Russia made an ‘experimental’ strike against the massive Yuzhmash military factory in the Ukrainian city of Dnipro (Dnepropetrovsk) using their newest hypersonic intermediate range ballistic missile Oreshnik.

Soon afterwards, the Russians claimed the attack had been entirely successful and that they had demolished the multi-story reinforced concrete facility which was designed in Soviet times to withstand a nuclear strike, thereby showing the destructive force of Oreshnik in its barest form, without a payload of conventional explosives, not to mention the nuclear warheads which it is also capable of carrying.  

Apparently, these facts were not properly reported to the Pentagon, which in the days that followed staged two further ATACMS attacks on the Kursk province of the Russian Federation, defying the Russian will to put an end to these atrocities.

However, what Moscow did next seems to have penetrated the thick skulls in Washington and changed U.S. behavior with respect to facilitating Ukrainian missile attacks deep into Russian territory.

On27 November chief of the Russian General Staff Gerasimov phoned his American counterpart, Charles Brown, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ostensibly to carry out ‘deconflcting’ obligations and to forewarn the Americans about the about-to-start Russian naval exercises in the Eastern Mediterranean during which there would be test firings of various hypersonic missiles, perhaps to include the Oreshnik. The Americans were advised to clear their naval vessels from the area of the exercises. It is widely assumed that Gerasimov directly warned Brown against any further ATACMS going into Russian territory lest American military assets in the Middle East be destroyed by Russian missiles.

On the next day, 28 November, at  his press conference in Astana concluding his two-day state visit to Kazakhstan, Vladimir Putin said that any further missile attacks on Russian territory coming from Ukraine would result in Russia’s unleashing its Oreshnik on the ‘decision making and command and control centers of Ukraine,’ meaning in essence decapitation of the Zelensky regime and death of the senior American and other NATO officers who are directing the Ukrainian military operations from their underground bunkers in Kiev, Lvov and elsewhere in the country.

It would appear that by this time the devastating destructive force of the Oreshnik for the stated applications was fully understood in Washington and since that time no further missile strikes have taken place, even if Ukrainian drones continue to deliver their pin-prick strikes on towns across Russia, nearly all of which are effectively frustrated by Russian air defenses.

For the above reasons, I remain fairly confident that in the closing days of the Biden administration and in the time in office of the incoming Trump administration whoever is in charge of military and foreign policy, whether Neocon in political persuasion or just ‘normal’ patriots, shall we say, Washington will do the right thing now because it has tried everything else till today and failed.

I wish my fellow speakers in the Opposition movement to warmongering from the US government well, but happily we do not have to count on their reining in the worst instincts of our leaders either through meetings with sympathetic Congressmen, as Scott Ritter is presently doing, or by street demonstrations. Reason will prevail because of the prevailing military superiority of the other side.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

„No Nuclear War“: 7. Dezember im National Press Club

Welchen Wert hat die Opposition in den USA und Europa bei der Verhinderung eines drohenden Atomkriegs? Ein Blick auf die gestern von Scott Ritter organisierte Veranstaltung im National Press Club gibt einige Antworten.

Die „No Nuclear War“-Veranstaltung in Washington, D.C. am 7. Dezember (dem Pearl Harbor Day in den Vereinigten Staaten) wird zweifellos von verschiedenen Internetplattformen online gestellt werden. Ich habe den folgenden Kanal von Daniel Haiphong genutzt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh_Rckp1BXI

Am Ende der ersten Podiumsdiskussion dieser Veranstaltung fragte der Organisator Scott Ritter die Diskussionsteilnehmer Ted Postol und Oberst Wilkerson, was sie den heutigen globalen Entscheidungsträgern, die über Krieg oder Frieden entscheiden, Tony Blinken (der Stellvertreter des senilen Joe Biden) und Wladimir Putin, sagen könnten, um sie davon zu überzeugen, nicht den gegenwärtigen Eskalationspfad einzuschlagen und uns allen einen nuklearen Schlagabtausch zu ersparen, der das menschliche Leben auf der Erde beenden würde.

Bezeichnenderweise sagte Ted Postol, es gäbe Blinken nichts zu sagen, weil er nicht zuhöre und seine wahnsinnige Politik ohne Rücksicht auf die Ansichten anderer verfolge, einschließlich der Ansichten der überwiegenden Mehrheit der Amerikaner, die am 5. November gegen weitere Kriege gestimmt haben. Bezeichnenderweise fand Colonel Wilkerson Worte, um Putin zur Mäßigung aufzurufen.

Und damit, meine Damen und Herren, kommen wir zur Frage nach dem Wert der Oppositionsbewegung in den USA gegen die aggressive Außen- und Militärpolitik des Landes, in der hochrangige Beamte öffentlich sagen, dass das Land bereit sei, in einen Atomkrieg mit Russland einzutreten und ihn zu gewinnen. Antwort: fast null.

Ich sage dies nicht aus Verzweiflung, denn ich glaube, dass es keinen solchen Krieg geben wird, sondern um darauf hinzuweisen, woher unsere Rettung, so wie sie aussehen wird, kommt: nämlich aus Moskau und nicht aus Washington oder von einer der tapferen Antikriegsversammlungen, wie sie gestern im National Press Club stattfanden. Weitere Bemerkungen von der Rednerbühne machten deutlich, dass es keinen Grund gibt, von der neuen Trump-Regierung in Washington eine vernünftigere und vorhersehbarere Entscheidungsfindung zu erwarten.

                                                                           *****

Dennoch bewundere ich den Mut, die Intelligenz und den staatsbürgerlichen Patriotismus von Ritter und denjenigen, die er als Redner zu dieser Veranstaltung eingeladen hat. Was sie vom Podium aus sagten, verdient ein möglichst breites Publikum.

Leider waren die Zuschauerzahlen auf der Plattform von Haiphong, als ich mich heute Morgen eingeschaltet habe, nicht besonders ermutigend: Nur 50.000 Aufrufe 10 Stunden nach der Veröffentlichung im Internet, was auf eine endgültige Zuschauerzahl von vielleicht 100.000 schließen lässt – was sehr im Einklang mit den traurigen Zuschauerzahlen für das hervorragende CNN-Interview mit dem stellvertretenden russischen Außenminister Ryabkov steht, das ich gestern auf diesen Seiten besprochen habe.

Die Leser meiner veröffentlichten Artikel wissen, dass ich mich kritisch, ja sogar harsch über Scott geäußert habe, was die Unangemessenheit seiner früheren finanziellen Vereinbarungen mit dem russischen Sender RT betrifft. Sie wissen auch, dass ich mit Scotts erstem Diskussionsteilnehmer, dem emeritierten MIT-Professor Ted Postol, ernsthaftere Meinungsverschiedenheiten hatte, und zwar über seine langjährige und auch aktuelle Unterschätzung der russischen Verteidigungsleistungen, bis hin zum jüngsten Raketenangriff von Oreschnik in Dnipro.

Ich entschuldige mich nicht dafür, dass ich führende Persönlichkeiten der Opposition herausfordere, wenn ich denke, dass sie falsch liegen oder die Bewegung in Verruf bringen. Und ich zögere nicht, denselben Personen zu danken, wenn ich sehe, welch herausragende Beiträge sie zur öffentlichen Aufklärung über das kritischste Thema unserer Zeit leisten können und leisten, nämlich den eskalierenden Krieg mit Russland um die Ukraine.

Letztlich hängt unser Schicksal jedoch nicht davon ab, was die noch unbedeutenden Friedensbewegungen in den USA und Europa tun können.

Scott Ritter hatte ursprünglich geplant, am 7. Dezember eine Friedensdemonstration in den Straßen von Washington, D.C., zu organisieren. Der Grund, den er für die Umleitung seiner Bemühungen auf eine Veranstaltung des National Press Club angab, war wahrscheinlich das schlechte Wetter, das die Besucherzahl drücken und somit der von ihm angestrebten visuellen Wirkung entgegenwirken würde. Ich denke, dass er sehr klug war, den National Press Club auszuwählen, wo die Anzahl der Personen im Raum für die Informationswirkung der Veranstaltung irrelevant ist. Und seine Auswahl der Teilnehmer war brillant. In diesem Zusammenhang möchte ich Colonel Wilkerson hervorheben, der von seinen Erfahrungen als Insider auf höchster Ebene der US-Regierung in kritischen Momenten der Beziehungen der USA zu Russland berichtete, die sich auf den möglichen Ausbruch eines Atomkriegs im Laufe der Jahre auswirkten.

Letztlich liegt es in den Händen von Wladimir Putin, ob es zum Krieg kommt und ob wir überleben werden. Und bisher hat er gezeigt, dass unser Schicksal in guten Händen ist.

Vor achtzehn Monaten forderte der weithin bekannte russische Politikwissenschaftler Sergei Karaganov Präsident Putin öffentlich dazu auf, den Eskalationskreislauf zu stoppen, der seiner Meinung nach dadurch gefördert wird, dass Russland bei Provokationen ein Auge zudrückt, und irgendwo im NATO-Gebiet einen atomaren Demonstrationsschlag durchzuführen, um die Kriegstreiber im kollektiven Westen zur Vernunft zu bringen und ihnen klarzumachen, dass ein weiteres Überschreiten der roten Linien Russlands nicht toleriert wird und dass „Njet“ auch „Njet“ bedeutet. Karaganov wiederholte diesen Refrain am 7. Juni dieses Jahres auf dem Internationalen Wirtschaftsforum in St. Petersburg, wo er als Moderator während der Plenarsitzung fungierte, in der Putin die Grundsatzrede hielt und Fragen beantwortete.

Wladimir Putin wies diese Herausforderung seiner Politik der Zurückhaltung zurück und wartete den richtigen Zeitpunkt ab, um „Schock und Ehrfurcht“ zu verbreiten. Dieser Moment kam am 21. November, als Russland einen „experimentellen“ Angriff auf die riesige Militärfabrik Yuzhmash in der ukrainischen Stadt Dnipro (Dnepropetrowsk) mit seiner neuesten ballistischen Hyperschall-Mittelstreckenrakete Oreschnik durchführte.

Bald darauf behaupteten die Russen, der Angriff sei ein voller Erfolg gewesen und sie hätten die mehrstöckige Stahlbetonanlage zerstört, die zu Sowjetzeiten so konzipiert worden war, dass sie einem Atomschlag standhalten würde. Damit hätten sie die Zerstörungskraft von Oreschnik in ihrer reinsten Form gezeigt, ohne eine Nutzlast konventioneller Sprengstoffe, ganz zu schweigen von den nuklearen Sprengköpfen, die sie ebenfalls tragen kann.

Offenbar wurden diese Fakten dem Pentagon nicht ordnungsgemäß gemeldet, das in den darauffolgenden Tagen zwei weitere ATACMS-Angriffe auf die Provinz Kursk in der Russischen Föderation durchführte und damit den russischen Willen herausforderte, diesen Gräueltaten ein Ende zu setzen.

Was Moskau jedoch als Nächstes tat, scheint die dicken Schädel in Washington durchdrungen zu haben und das Verhalten der USA in Bezug auf die Ermöglichung ukrainischer Raketenangriffe tief in russisches Gebiet verändert zu haben.

Am 27. November rief der Chef des russischen Generalstabs Gerasimov seinen amerikanischen Amtskollegen Charles Brown, den Chef der Joint Chiefs of Staff, an, angeblich um Verpflichtungen zur „Konfliktvermeidung“ zu erfüllen und die Amerikaner vor den bevorstehenden russischen Marineübungen im östlichen Mittelmeer zu warnen, bei denen verschiedene Hyperschallraketen getestet werden sollten, möglicherweise auch die Oreschnik. Den Amerikanern wurde geraten, ihre Marineschiffe aus dem Gebiet der Übungen abzuziehen. Es wird allgemein angenommen, dass Gerassimow Brown direkt davor warnte, weitere ATACMS-Raketen auf russisches Territorium abzufeuern, damit amerikanische Militäreinrichtungen im Nahen Osten nicht durch russische Raketen zerstört werden.

Am nächsten Tag, dem 28. November, sagte Wladimir Putin auf seiner Pressekonferenz in Astana zum Abschluss seines zweitägigen Staatsbesuchs in Kasachstan, dass jeder weitere Raketenangriff auf russisches Territorium aus der Ukraine dazu führen würde, dass Russland seine Oreschnik auf die “ Entscheidungs-, Kommando- und Kontrollzentren der Ukraine“ einsetzen würde, was im Wesentlichen die Enthauptung des Selensky-Regimes und den Tod der hochrangigen amerikanischen und anderen NATO-Offiziere bedeuten würde, die die ukrainischen Militäroperationen von ihren unterirdischen Bunkern in Kiew, Lwiw und anderswo im Land aus leiten.

Es scheint, dass man sich in Washington zu diesem Zeitpunkt der verheerenden Zerstörungskraft der Oreschnik für die genannten Anwendungen voll bewusst war, und seitdem hat es keine weiteren Raketenangriffe mehr gegeben, auch wenn ukrainische Drohnen weiterhin Nadelstiche gegen Städte in ganz Russland fliegen, die fast alle von der russischen Luftabwehr erfolgreich vereitelt werden.

Aus den oben genannten Gründen bin ich nach wie vor ziemlich zuversichtlich, dass in den letzten Tagen der Biden-Regierung und in der Amtszeit der neuen Trump-Regierung, wer auch immer für die Militär- und Außenpolitik zuständig sein wird, ob Neokonservative mit politischer Überzeugung oder einfach nur „normale“ Patrioten, Washington jetzt das Richtige tun wird, denn es hat bis heute alles andere versucht und ist gescheitert.

Ich wünsche meinen Mitrednern in der Oppositionsbewegung gegen die von der US-Regierung betriebene Kriegstreiberei alles Gute, aber glücklicherweise müssen wir uns nicht darauf verlassen, dass sie die schlimmsten Instinkte unserer Staats- und Regierungschefs zügeln, sei es durch Treffen mit wohlgesonnenen Kongressabgeordneten, wie es Scott Ritter derzeit tut, oder durch Straßendemonstrationen. Die Vernunft wird sich durchsetzen, weil die andere Seite militärisch überlegen ist.

My preference is to ‘stick with my knitting’ and limit my participation in on air news programs to what I know best, which is Russia.  However, since Russia has long been a major player in the Middle East thanks to its close ties with Syria, Iraq and, more recently, with Iran, it is difficult to decline insistent invitations to comment on the Syrian crisis from broadcasters in need of talking heads to make sense of breaking news.

The news coming out of Syria suggests that the regime of Bashar al-Assad is in retreat and may lose the match. Today’s Daily Telegraph in the U.K. informs us that he has evacuated his family to Moscow. The BBC insists that the country’s third largest city, Homs, will be the next major city to fall to the rebels following closely on the loss of Aleppo and Hama. Now Damascus itself appears to be their next prey.

There are also reports that the Russians have moved their naval ships out to sea from their base in the port of Tartus. Sergei Lavrov was asked about this today by journalists who were following him during his  visit to Qatar, and he confirmed the ships’ departure but said it was for participation in military exercises in the Mediterranean. That answer does not raise confidence that the Russians will try hard this time to prevail in Syria.

In the interview with WION, the toughest question was what exactly the Turks stand to gain from toppling the Assad regime and watching a radical Sunni regime take control of the country. The price Erdogan is paying for the satisfaction of seeing off the Assads, with whom he has sparred for decades is complete loss of trust by the Russians and Iranians. The gains he will make in stronger relations with Israel and the United States are unlikely to provide sufficient compensation.

Transcription submitted by a reader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxWYM8hhGUI
WION: 0:00
All right, so let’s start with the big story that we are tracking on WION at this hour. In a big blow to the Bashar al-Assad government, a war monitor has claimed that rebels have started to surround the government-held capital city of Damascus. The Syrian Defense Ministry has, of course, rubbished these reports of the army fleeing from its positions near the capital city. The Syrian government has lost control of the city of Daraa after the rebels wrested other key cities from its grip. Hezbollah claims they’ve sent about 2,000 of its fighters to Syria to defend its positions there, and the group has added that it has not participated in any of the battles with the Syrian rebels so far.

0:39
While Aleppo and Hama fell to the Islamist-led rebel alliance, Daraa reportedly has fallen to a local armed group, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Earlier this week, a rebellion group called Hayat Tahrir al-Sham was confined to northwest Idlib region, but it made a surprise and lightning attack backed by the Turks taking over Aleppo in the north and also Hama in central Syria to reach closer to Damascus. The rebel fighters and residents were seen celebrating in the streets of Hama after the forces took control of the city. A video published by a group affiliated with the Syrian rebels on Thursday is said to show detainees pulling out of the Hama prison after the rebels freed them. The Russian and the Syrian strikes have killed at least about 20 civilians in near Homs.

1:48
[Russian and Syrian strikes killed] about 20 civilians in and near Homs. Syria’s Defence Ministry has said that it is conducting attacks in the northern part of the city with cover from the joint Syrian and the Russian air force. Fearing rebels’ advance, tens of thousands of members of Assad’s Alawite minority are now fleeing from the city of Homs in central Syria. So as the rebel forces continue to gain more ground, the United Nations has said that at least about 370,000 Syrians have had to flee from their homes since the fighting began on the 27th of November. This includes 100,000 Syrians who have had to flee their home more than once. Meanwhile, Iran and Iraq have issued a joint statement with Syria warning that the sweeping rebel gains at the expense of the government forces poses a danger to the whole region.

2:40
During a visit to Baghdad, Iran’s top diplomat Abbas Araghkchi said that if Syria becomes a safe place for terrorists, then they should expect the return of the Islamic State group and other terrorist outfits. Meanwhile, what is interesting is that the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had said that he hopes that the Syrian rebels will continue in their advance against President Bashar al-Assad’s forces. But he has also voiced concerns about what he said were terrorist networks in their midst. Erdogan’s comments have outlined the complex structure of the rebel forces who are fighting against Assad.

3:15
To help make sense of what is happening at this moment in this very complex war theatre in Syria, we are joined in this broadcast by Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, who is an international affairs analyst and author and also a historian. Dr. Doctorow, you know, let me in fact start off by asking you this. Now looking at these spectacular gains that have been made by the rebels, are you surprised that the fact that Bashar al-Assad who is backed by Russia and also Iran has not been able to blunt the advances being made by the rebels?

Doctorow: 3:49
I think the problem is on the side of the government, Damascus, and I think the Russians were deeply disappointed by the lack of foresight in Bashar al-Assad’s entourage, that they did not prepare themselves for a resurgence such as we have just seen.

At the same time, I emphasize that we are all, all of us, reporting on this or trying to make sense of it, are acting in the midst of a fog of war. We have the Western media, mainstream media, in the first place. That is the BBC and the British media, in print as well, like The Telegraph, they are cheerleaders for the rebels. And they’re cheerleaders for good reason. It is clear that the British government and its intelligence agents are heavily involved in this operation.

4:46
They’re not the driving force, they’re not the originators of it, but they are contributors to it. And the reporting that we’re all seeing on the BBC reflects that fact. And if anyone who has a doubt about it will note that BBC’s latest reports have been quoting the so-called “White Helmets” to describe the civilian casualties that are alleged to take place in Syria due to bombing by the Syrian air force and the Russian airplanes that are based in Syria, in Latakia province. So the Brits are in this up to their necks. The Turks are in this, as you have just indicated.

5:26
That is to say, there are foreign elements, foreign forces that are driving this, although the group that is doing the liberation, as you say, of Aleppo and of Hama, they are based in Idlib under the terms of the end of the civil war, what we thought was the end of the civil war, negotiated in the Astana process.

WION:
Right. Now, it is true, you know, there is a fog of war, and the reports that are now emerging, both in the Western media and media from other parts of the world, need to be taken with a pinch of salt. But the Syrians themselves have admitted that they have lost Aleppo, they have also lost Hama, and that the rebels are moving closer to the central strategic city of Homs. Now the Western media is alleging that a lot of the Syrian army is of course abandoning its positions. This has been denied by the Syrians. All of that is fine.

6:29
But the fact [is] that this kind of an offensive cannot happen in a vacuum, it cannot suddenly start out. Where do you think things actually went wrong? Was this a failure of intelligence on the part of the Syrians and also their backers, that is Russia and Iran? That this kind of a force and this kind of an offensive was made possible by Hayat Tehrir al-Sham, a group that is backed by the Turks. And the Americans and the Brits, as you say, also have a very major role to play in this.

Doctorow: 6:57
Well, we have to single out the Turks, and they have created very bad feeling with the Russians and with the Iranians because of their obvious support and involvement in the training of these rebels. With Turkish assistance, the Ukrainian forces have entered this game and are, were active in training the HTS people in what they know best, perhaps better than many military experts around the world, and that is drone warfare.

7:36
This is apparently being used in the current offensive, and the skills which the Ukrainians certainly have developed in their war with Russia have been put into play. All of this thanks to the logistical support and surely financial support that they are receiving from Turkey and additionally from the British and the Americans. The Israeli involvement is hard to pin down, though the single biggest beneficiaries of all this chaos tht we are now witnessing is, in fact, Israel, because that was their long-term objective: to disrupt logistics across Syria, insofar as Syrian territory was being used as a conduit for arms from Iran to Hezbollah.

WION: 8:27
Right, it’s interesting that you say that one of the biggest nations which of course gains is the state of Israel because it cuts off the conduit of weapons and other materials that was being supplied. But what does Turkiye gain out of all of this? Because it is Turkiye which seems to be driving this operation.

Doctorow: 8:44
Yes, The involvement of Turkey is complex, that’s to be sure. They have been the sponsors of the groups that we now recognize as HTS in Idlib province. That was the consequence of the resettlement of various Islamic extremists that were operating across Syria and which were pinned down, isolated, and threatened with destruction by the Russian and Iranian forces in this period of 2015 to 2017.

9:23
So the end result was that they, with their families, I stress, this was a notable aspect of the end of the civil war, we thought it was the end, in 2017 up to 2020, was the resettlement of various groups of Islamic terrorists from across Syria into Idlib. And there they had the support– this is bordering with Turkey, and they had Turkish support. The Turks’ involvement there is to find supporters in their attempt to contain the Kurdish population that is east of Idlib and borders also with Turkey.

WION:
Interesting. Thank you very much indeed, Dr. Doctorow, for joining us and giving us that perspective there.

Doctorow: 10:09
Thanks for the invitation.

Post Script, 8 December: As we now know, the rebels have taken control of Damascus, Assad has fled the country and a new, unpredictable future has begun in Syria.