I have little doubt that there will be a hue and cry today among progressive humanity over the FBI’s execution of a search warrant against the very prominent activist in the Opposition movement to U.S. foreign policy, former marine and arms control inspector Scott Ritter.
Since the start of Russia’s Special Military Operation, Scott has been one of the loudest cheerleaders for the Russian forces, telling us nearly every week how Russian victory and Ukrainian capitulation are just around the corner. It is no wonder that he attracted to himself a huge public audience both in the United States and abroad.
This misleading analysis of the war I forgive him. All observers, myself included, have been left wrong-footed by the willingness of the United States and its allies to regularly escalate and change the nature of the conflict from a Russia-Ukraine conflict to a Russia-NATO war, in which new assets are wagered at the casino tables and the war is drawn out, moving with the horizon.
However, along the way Scott Ritter has made some serious errors of judgment which have led ineluctably to the present search and to his likely trial and conviction.
This is not the fate of one brave but misguided public figure that I am writing about. It is the failure by Ritter and others to understand what constitutes correct behavior with respect to the publicly identified adversary of the United States, which Russia is today just as the Soviet Union was in the days of the first Cold War. I write to inform a new generation of activists where the red lines are and what to avoid lest they fall victim as Ritter has and similarly discredit the Opposition.
Ritter hanged himself when he acknowledged last night in a video released on the internet that he had accepted ‘compensation’ from both RT and Sputnik, which are news outlets financed by the Russian government.
That likely will not be the sole charges against him for violating the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) when his case goes to court. He also accepted travel to Russia and within Russia paid for by Russian hosts, first a publisher of one of his books in a Russian language edition and then by a group of extreme nationalists linked to the philosopher-political activist Dugin. Their financial arrangements with the Russian government are opaque. This also showed willful disregard for propriety and for the journalist’s obligation to be objective. That Ritter’s objectivity had been compromised was perfectly evident from his glowing reports on Russia upon his return to the United States.
No country has a monopoly on stupidity. There is plenty to go around for all of mankind. And the existence of RT is a perfect demonstration of the occasional blindness of the Russian government. Its director Margarita Simonyan is a brilliant public speaker with a phenomenal memory for quotations from Russian poetry that she uses to add depth to her appearances on television. However, the RT project that she has overseen represents a misallocation of Russian state funds and failure to exploit Russia’s news gathering manpower properly.
From the very start, RT positioned itself as a mirror to America, with programs prepared and delivered by has-been U.S., Canadian and other English speaking journalists. The results were second rate in terms of quality and misguided in mission. Mirrors to America’s blemishes and rot are better held up by Americans in country, not by the country’s adversary. More importantly, RT never exploited the wealth of material right under its nose within the state’s Russian language broadcasting to its domestic audience. It would have better served Russia’s reputation in the world if the high quality news broadcasts of Vesti and the top quality political talk shows like The Great Game or Evening with Vladimir Solovyov were either re-broadcast with English voice-over or with English subtitles. This was never done.
The Russians also have been foolish in their organization of the annual Valdai Conference gatherings in which, prior to CO VID and to the Special Military Operation when travel to Russia became impossible, they year after year invited Russia-haters like Angela Stent of George Washington University to come, take the microphone and have their photos taken with Vladimir Putin for later display on their desks back in their university. By these invitations, the Russian leadership only lent credibility to an enemy.
But to come back to Ritter: my drawing red lines against accepting compensation or ‘favors’ from Russian state news broadcasters is not a rule that I came to by myself. It was given to me by an icon of the Opposition movement in the United States going back several decades, professor Steve Cohen. For more than two years, I was in daily contact with Cohen as from 2015 when we jointly created the American Committee for East-West Accord. During this period, Cohen was invited to Russia to take part in the Valdai conferences but declined the invitation because he considered it dead wrong to take travel and expenses from the Russian hosts lest he expose his flanks to ridicule and attack by American patriots. Stent had nothing to fear in this regard considering her stream of anti-Putin, anti-Russian publications. But for Cohen, it would discredit the movement. This, alas, is precisely what Scott Ritter has done.
Die gestrige Durchsuchung von Scott Ritters Haus durch das FBI: eine konträre Sichtweise
Ich habe kaum Zweifel, dass es heute einen Aufschrei unter der fortschrittlichen Menschheit geben wird, weil das FBI einen Durchsuchungsbefehl gegen den sehr prominenten Aktivisten der Oppositionsbewegung gegen die US-Außenpolitik, den ehemaligen Marinesoldaten und Rüstungskontrollinspektor Scott Ritter, vollstreckt hat.
Seit Beginn der russischen Militäroperation ist Scott Ritter einer der lautesten Befürworter der russischen Streitkräfte und erzählt uns fast jede Woche, dass der russische Sieg und die ukrainische Kapitulation unmittelbar bevorstehen. Es ist kein Wunder, dass er sowohl in den Vereinigten Staaten als auch im Ausland ein großes Publikum für sich gewinnen konnte.
Diese irreführende Analyse des Krieges verzeihe ich ihm. Alle Beobachter, mich eingeschlossen, wurden von der Bereitschaft der Vereinigten Staaten und ihrer Verbündeten, den Konflikt regelmäßig zu eskalieren und von einem Russland-Ukraine-Konflikt in einen Russland-NATO-Krieg umzuwandeln überrascht, bei dem ständig neue Mittel an den Kasinotischen eingesetzt werden und der Krieg sich immer mehr in die Länge zieht.
Im Laufe der Zeit hat Scott Ritter jedoch einige schwerwiegende Fehleinschätzungen begangen, die unweigerlich zur jetzigen Durchsuchung und zu seiner wahrscheinlichen Verurteilung führen werden.
Ich schreibe hier nicht über das Schicksal einer tapferen, aber fehlgeleiteten Persönlichkeit des öffentlichen Lebens. Es ist das Versagen Ritters und anderer, zu verstehen, was ein korrektes Verhalten gegenüber einem öffentlich identifizierten Gegner der Vereinigten Staaten darstellt, der heute Russland ist, genau wie es die Sowjetunion in den Tagen des ersten Kalten Krieges war. Ich schreibe, um eine neue Generation von Aktivisten darüber zu informieren, wo die roten Linien verlaufen und was zu vermeiden ist, damit sie nicht wie Ritter zum Opfer werden und die Opposition in ähnlicher Weise diskreditieren.
Ritter hat sich selbst erhängt, als er gestern Abend in einem im Internet veröffentlichten Video zugab, dass er sowohl von RT als auch von Sputnik, die von der russischen Regierung finanzierte Nachrichtensender sind, “Entschädigungen” angenommen hat.
Das wird wahrscheinlich nicht die einzige Anklage sein, die gegen ihn wegen Verstoßes gegen das Gesetz über die Registrierung ausländischer Agenten (FARA) erhoben wird, wenn sein Fall vor Gericht kommt. Er hat auch Reisen nach Russland und innerhalb Russlands akzeptiert, die von russischen Gastgebern bezahlt wurden, zunächst von einem Verleger, der eines seiner Bücher in russischer Sprache herausgab, und dann von einer Gruppe extremer Nationalisten, die mit dem Philosophen und politischen Aktivisten Dugin verbunden sind. Ihre finanziellen Vereinbarungen mit der russischen Regierung sind undurchsichtig. Auch dies zeugt von einer vorsätzlichen Missachtung des Anstands und der Verpflichtung des Journalisten zur Objektivität. Dass Ritters Objektivität kompromittiert worden war, zeigte sich deutlich in seinen glühenden Berichten über Russland nach seiner Rückkehr in die Vereinigten Staaten.
Kein Land hat ein Monopol auf Dummheit. Es gibt genug für die gesamte Menschheit. Und die Existenz von RT ist ein perfekter Beweis für die gelegentliche Blindheit der russischen Regierung. Die Direktorin des Senders, Margarita Simonyan, ist eine brillante Rednerin mit einem phänomenalen Gedächtnis für Zitate aus der russischen Poesie, die sie nutzt, um ihren Fernsehauftritten mehr Tiefe zu verleihen. Das von ihr geleitete RT-Projekt steht jedoch für eine Fehlallokation russischer Staatsgelder und für das Versäumnis, Russlands Arbeitskräfte zur Nachrichtenerfassung richtig zu nutzen.
Von Anfang an positionierte sich RT als Spiegel Amerikas, mit Sendungen, die von ehemaligen amerikanischen, kanadischen und anderen englischsprachigen Journalisten vorbereitet und vorgetragen wurden. Die Ergebnisse waren von der Qualität her zweitklassig und vom Auftrag her fehlgeleitet. Ein Spiegel für Amerikas Makel und Fäulnis wird besser von Amerikanern im Lande gehalten, nicht vom Gegner des Landes. Noch wichtiger ist, dass RT den Reichtum an Material, den der staatliche russischsprachige Rundfunk seinem inländischen Publikum direkt vor der Nase bietet, nie genutzt hat. Es wäre dem Ansehen Russlands in der Welt zuträglicher gewesen, wenn die hochwertigen Nachrichtensendungen von Vesti und die erstklassigen politischen Talkshows wie Das grosse Spiel oder Abend mit Vladimir Solovyov entweder mit englischem Voice-over oder mit englischen Untertiteln ausgestrahlt worden wären. Dies ist nie geschehen.
Die Russen haben sich auch bei der Organisation der jährlichen Valdai-Konferenz dumm angestellt, zu der sie vor COVID und der militärischen Sonderoperation, als Reisen nach Russland unmöglich wurden, Jahr für Jahr Russlandhasser wie Angela Stent von der George Washington University einluden, um das Mikrofon zu übernehmen und sich mit Wladimir Putin fotografieren zu lassen, damit sie es später auf ihren Schreibtischen in ihrer Universität ausstellen konnten. Mit diesen Einladungen hat die russische Führung einem Feind nur Glaubwürdigkeit verliehen.
Aber um noch einmal auf Ritter zurückzukommen: Die rote Linie, die ich gezogen habe, um keine Entschädigungen oder “Gefälligkeiten” von russischen staatlichen Nachrichtensendern anzunehmen, ist keine Regel, die ich selbst aufgestellt habe. Sie wurde mir von einer mehrere Jahrzehnte alten Ikone der Oppositionsbewegung in den Vereinigten Staaten, Professor Steve Cohen, vermittelt. Mehr als zwei Jahre lang stand ich täglich mit Cohen in Kontakt, und zwar seit 2015, als wir gemeinsam das American Committee for East-West Accord gründeten. In dieser Zeit wurde Cohen nach Russland eingeladen, um an den Valdai-Konferenzen teilzunehmen, aber er lehnte die Einladung ab, weil er es für absolut falsch hielt, Reisekosten und Spesen von den russischen Gastgebern entgegen zu nehmen, um seine Flanken nicht der Lächerlichkeit und den Angriffen amerikanischer Patrioten auszusetzen. Stent hatte in dieser Hinsicht nichts zu befürchten, wenn man bedenkt, dass sie einen Strom von antiputinistischen und antirussischen Veröffentlichungen veröffentlicht. Aber für Cohen hätte es die Bewegung in Misskredit gebracht. Leider ist es genau das, was Scott Ritter getan hat.
My 53-minute interview on Dialogue Works today covered a broad range of the recent developments in the Ukrainian war and Middle East crisis.
We opened with discussion of the still ongoing Ukrainian incursion in the Kursk oblast of Russia, which like the Belgorod oblast to the south just across from Kharkov that was attacked some months ago is a part of the Russian Federation having a common border with Ukraine.
This assault was intended to grab the attention of Kiev’s Western backers to prove that they are still in the fight and capable of bold attacks. In this regard, they have had some success. For example, this evening’s online edition of The Financial Times, gives the story front page mention: “Ukraine presses on with surprise military incursion into Russia.”
However, as I explain in the interview this is one more case of the Zelensky regime placing Public Relations above military strategy: the mission is doomed and is only a momentary distraction from the total destruction Ukraine is experiencing on the battlefield as we learn from the daily reports of the advances on the front lines per Russian news, all of which is confirmed with slight delay in the FT and other western media. The flash in the pan achievements at Kursk must be put up against the 120,000 Ukrainian soldiers and officers who were killed or maimed in just the past two months, per Sergei Shoigu.
We also discussed at length what lines of communication remain between Russia and the United States and likely scenarios for evolution of the conflict between Israel and its neighbors, including possible use of nuclear weaons. The conversation ended with my estimation of the reasons why the European Union under its existing leadership is utterly incapable of exerting any influence on international relations, reasons which are to be found within its supranational structure and home-grown neo-Conservative elites, not just due to servility before Washington.
A full transcript will likely be posted within the coming 24 hours.
Transcription below by a reader
Nima R. Alkhorshid: 00:02 Yeah, let’s get started with what’s going on, on the battlefield in Ukraine. It seems that in the Kursk region, there are a lot of tensions going on. What are we hearing from Russians right now?
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: Well, this evening’s news, the “Viesti” [“News”] program at 8 PM, opened with about 10 minutes of coverage of precisely this, showing the meeting that Vladimir Putin had with his closest colleagues in the defense area, that is the Minister of Defense, Belousov, Shoigu from the Security Council, and Gerasimov from a remote position, all reporting directly to– oh, of course, the head of the FSB, Portnikov. These three in his presence and one remote, were reporting to him on what is happening in the Kursk region. We have to remember, looking at the map, what are we talking about? Kursk is a rather big province, but it’s like Belgorod: it is a border that Russia has with Ukraine. And we haven’t heard much about it, although I can tell you that this year, there has been– in the last few months, there has been considerable action in Kursk, as drones and other attack equipment have been used by Ukraine against the residential areas close to the border, but not only. Missiles have come further into the Kursk Oblast.
01:46 Now, what is this all about, or the scale of it? To put it– the numbers that I heard this evening, according to Gerasimov, there were 1,000 Ukrainian forces who came at 5.30 in the morning. They attempted to cross the border and they attacked and damaged to the best of their ability residential homes and and civilian infrastructure, just on the Russian side of the border. They were driven back by Russia’s security personnel on the border, guards, and also by military detachments who were sent in for firefighting to push them back. The Russian reports say that out of the original 1000, 350 Ukrainians were taken out of action. Of those, one-third were killed outright and two-thirds were severely wounded. They showed on television some of the captured Ukrainian fighters, who were explaining what they were sent to do.
02:58 But in the bigger order of things, this incursion, very much like the incursion months ago in Belgorod, has a specific purpose, which is not a military purpose, but a terror purpose: to frighten the Russian population. And I’d say, considering the overall situation of Ukraine on the ground, which is dire on the front lines, the intention is to distract attention away from the battleground losses and to show that Ukraine still has available reserves and available strategies to impose losses and to humiliate Russia. That was what Belgorod was all about, and that’s what this is all about.
The– that’s said, this comes virtually on top of the latest public relations stunt, which was a day ago when Zelensky pointed to the two F-16s flying overhead and was saying how wonderful it is that Ukraine has just received 10 such planes and how this would give them the ability to defend themselves against the Russians. These are distractions, 10 planes with a total of six Ukrainian trained pilots, even if the planes are filled by NATO personnel dressing up as Ukrainians. This against several hundred, 600 or more advanced fighter jets on the Russian side, tells you that the chance of changing the balance of power in this war is nil. It is a public relations stunt to raise the morale of the otherwise very depressed Ukrainian armed forces.
04:59 What do we mean by depressed, and why would they be depressed? Again, figures that came out two days ago. This is from Shoigu, who was in Baku. He had just arrived in Baku for a big meeting with the Azerbaijani leadership, having just been in Iran, in Tehran, where he was conducting some very important discussions with the Minister of Defense, with the newly inaugurated president of Iran, to assure them of Russia’s ability and intention to fulfill all obligations arising from the agreement on common defense that Russia and Iran have reached. So, Mr. Shoigu was saying to the press, while in Baku, that the figures of Ukrainian losses over just the last two months are 120,000 men lost. That’s to say 60,000 Ukrainians killed or severely injured so they’re no longer combat worthy, per month.
06:23 Let’s compare that with the replacements that Ukraine is talking about, and after using the most extreme methods to compel unwilling males between age 18 and 59 to go to the front. They have recruited 30,000 per month, and as I just said, they have lost 60,000 per month. And that’s not the whole story, because those 30,000 who are coming on are, according to Russian information, only receiving one week’s training before they’re sent to the front. According to military doctrine, in a war like this, they should receive 60 days of training, not one week of training. In other words, they’re being put in uniforms, they’re being given weapons of one sort or another, and they’re being sent to their death. That is the situation in the Ukrainian armed forces, which is not to say that there are no capable and well-trained and well-equipped troops. There are some, but very few. And they are becoming rarer still, as Ukraine has made these public relations stunts to try to impress its Western backers, that they are still capable and motivated to fight on against Russia. They are stunts, they are not militarily justified. And they’re very costly in terms of the lives and combat worthiness of the few brigades that are of higher quality in Ukraine.
Alkhorshid: 08:11 Don’t you think that part of what they’re doing right now is because the United States is totally concerned about what’s going on in the Middle East? That’s why it seems in the eyes of the Zelensky administration, they’re just not the priority of the United States any more.
Doctorow: Well, I wouldn’t read it quite as you have done. You are suggesting that the United States is pulling out or has lost interest. I don’t think it’s lost interest. There are enough neocons at the helms of power in Washington for them not to be totally distracted by events in the Middle East and to maintain Washington’s flow of arms to Ukraine, even if some arms are being diverted to Israel indeed. Nonetheless, when you hear about the daily kill ratio that the Russians are practicing, not just on personnel but on Western equipment, the equipment is vast. And for $60 billion, you get a bit of hardware, even if it’s all not perfect, even if it’s all, some of it’s coming out of warehouses, and having been declared in the past below standard.
09:42 Nonetheless, the Ukrainians have a lot of gear, and a lot of gear is being blown up every day. How many tanks, how many Bradleys, how many armored personnel carriers of one manufacturer or another. We hear about it, and it’s a never-ending list. So, there’s a lot for Russia to destroy. And among my peers, commentators on your program and on other major news portals, alternative news, there is very often the tendency to speak as if Ukraine is at the end of its rope, or as you were just suggesting, that Washington is no longer interested. I’m sure there are people in Washington who are interested. And the flow is not stopping, even if it is reduce somewhat.
10:37 That’s not the problem. The problem is Ukrainian manpower. Nobody can replace that. Certainly nobody in Western Europe wants to replace that with themselves. The United States, of course, also has no intention of putting boots on the ground. So in terms of live personnel, it’s only what Ukraine can put up. And as I indicated, on the basis of information that’s being disseminated by Russian news, the replacement of wounded or killed officers and troops in the Ukrainian army is substandard. It is people who have been dragooned and who at the first opportunity will raise their hands and surrender to the Russians.
So, the Ukrainian position on the field of battle is a losing hand. That doesn’t mean that they’re going to capitulate tomorrow, but over the course of several months, before the end of this year, there’s a consensus, they will have to give up. But it’s not the end of the year, it’s not tomorrow. And let’s be aware of that. Even in this Kursk, I just quote the latest Russian report to Putin, that there is fierce fighting going on there. The cleanup operation is not all that easy, so they do have some motivated soldiers on the Ukrainian side and obviously they were well equipped. These were not the ones who were dragooned off the streets of Kiev and who were given wooden rifles. No, no. It is easy, all too easy to be overenthusiastic and to propose our wishes as if they are realities. I’m not offering that tonight.
Alkhorshid: 12:33 Do we know how does Russia perceive these F-16s right now in Ukraine, and what does it mean politically and militarily for Russia?
Doctorow: I’m sorry, I didn’t quite catch the start of your sentence. What is it that you’re asking?
Alkhorshid: The question is, how does Russia perceive F-16s right now in Ukraine, politically and militarily? How do they find it?
Doctorow: Well, what I said at the opening, that 10 F-16s are nothing at the present moment, because of the– they’re up against several hundred, if not 600 or more, very modern Russian jets piloted by people who have extensive experience in the air and in dogfights and so forth. But that’s not the whole story.
13:27 The Ukrainian side has almost nowhere to hold those planes securely on its own territory, because the Russian missiles, based on reconnaissance, which the Russians have, are prepared to destroy anything on the ground. Therefore, these planes are viewed by Russia as a possible spark for a conflict with NATO, rather than by themselves as posing a threat to Russia. Russia has to assume, I mean, the Wolfowitz doctrine that goes back to the 1990s, the United States saying that they would not accept, that they would not tolerate any country having a capability to withstand them, not an intention to withstand them, but just a capability to withstand them.
14:27 The Russians are using exactly the same logic that some of these F-16s are nuclear-capable, and the Russians are saying they are compelled to deal with those planes or with all of the F-16s as if they were nuclear capable and as if they were being sent against their own country armed to strike and deliver nuclear strikes. This is the Russian position, but there is a great deal of confidence in their own ability to destroy those planes on the ground or in the air if necessary.
Alkhorshid:15:06 Yeah. Do you think that, because with this conflict, with these tensions right now in the Middle East, Russia is saying that if you’re going to continue arming Ukrainians, we’re going to help these groups in the Middle East to fight you back. Do you think that would bring something, some sort of sanity in the mind of the Washington people, decision-makers in the Biden administration, that somehow they may not be willing to send more weapons, more aids to Ukraine?
Doctorow: Well, there’s the American expression “seeing is believing”, and I think that applies to this case. It is fair to say that the Russians have allowed the United States and its allies, UK in particular, to cross their red lines repeatedly over the last two years without suffering the consequences that one would expect. For that reason, there is the, I think, widely-held assumption that much of what the Russians say is bluff. Now, that is not true. But, and the reasons why the Russians haven’t responded very strongly to red lines being crossed is the cautiousness and the prudence of Mr. Putin, and not because they couldn’t do it. So, how you would read the Russians? Are they incapable, or do they lack the will to defend themselves properly?
16:41 It’s understandable that warmongers in the States will choose to believe that the Russians are bluffing and that we can do anything we want with them without fearing a proper response, a strong response. That is where we are. And the situation has parallels now with what is going on in Tehran. How is Tehran going to respond to the very provocative acts of Israel, which are intended precisely to elicit a very devastating counter-attack by Iran that would justify Israel bringing the United States into a war with Iran at its side? The Russians have tried very hard to avoid similar knee-jerk response to American and Western provocations, at the risk of being misunderstood.
Alkhorshid: 17:47 In your opinion, are we going to have any sort of security agreement between Iran and Russia? Are they going in that direction?
Doctorow: There are those who say that it’s just a matter of weeks before this agreement that has been long negotiated is concluded. The Israeli provocations, I think, hasten the willingness of the Iranians to enter into such an agreement. Let us be honest about it. A full alliance with Russia was never an unquestioned or uncontested policy within Iran. Within Iran, there was long the hope that they could find some accommodation with the United States and with the West. And is with great reluctance that they have thrown in their lot with Russia and China.
18:47 Will they conclude this? Of course they will. Russia received substantial military assistance from Iran from the early days of the special military operation. It’s no secret to anyone that when this war started in February 2022, Russia had very little experience in building and in using drones. Iran had much more experience and had viable products in mass production. So Russia benefited from Iran’s military assistance, particularly in the area of drones. And it is understandable that Iran would have looked for, and probably have received already, very sophisticated electronic warfare equipment from Russia, and I would not be surprised if they received air defense techniques, technology, such as the S-400, to defend themselves against Israeli and Israeli-cum-United States air attacks.
Alkhorshid: 20:04 In your opinion, is– just talking about the conflict in the Middle East, do you think, is Israel seeking for any sort of strategic objective when it comes to these assassinations, military and political assassinations of Hamas leaders?
Doctorow: I think there’s a consensus in the alternative media, [of] which I and you are a part, that Israel has staged these assassinations, and most especially the assassination of the Hamas leader in Tehran, precisely to provoke Iran into countermeasures that will lead directly to a hot war, a hot war in which Israel will find the United States finally reluctantly at its side as an enabler for attacks, including possibly nuclear bomb attacks on Iran.
21:14 This is not something that you require a great deal of expertise to arrive at. It’s patently obvious. The murder of the moderate Hamas leader who was conducting, was actively participating in the hostage negotiations and the ceasefire negotiations, that could not be a stronger statement that Israel is looking for a war. Now, I use the word Israel as if the whole country is behind that. Regrettably, a large part of Israeli population is behind that, probably a majority of the population. But the real mover here is one man and a couple of his accomplices. The one man is Netanyahu, his own personal ambition and personal need for a wider war, to stay in power, to hold on to power, to avoid leaving power and finding himself in the courts within Israel and outside Israel for his domestic crimes and for his war crimes as regards the courts in Hague.
22:36 This is a compelling reason for him to do what he’s doing now against his own national interest. It is hardly in the national interest of Israel to find itself at war with all of its neighbors. That is not viable. Israel was humiliated just by Hezbollah in their last war. Now, here we’re speaking about combined forces of Hezbollah, Iran, and the Houthis in Yemen, as well as these militias that are in Syria and Iraq. That is risking the survival of the Israeli state, and for what purpose, other than, I said, to save the skin of one Mr. Netanyahu.
Alkhorshid: 23:33 The other thing would be, you talk about Wolfowitz doctrine and these neocons who are behind this type of ideology when it comes to Russia. And, in your opinion, is the Israeli lobby in the United States part of these neocons who are deciding about these conflicts, or they’re separate from these neocons? Because at the same time you’re having two conflicts going on, in Ukraine and in the Middle East, and maybe a third one with China. Is that logical in your opinion?
Doctorow: 24:08 Logical? No. for the well-being of the United States, of course it isn’t illogical. The neocons are, by definition, ideological people. They are not practical people. They are not people with military expertise more than I have. There are, of course, among them some military folks, but the ones we hear about most, the ones, the biggest loudmouths, are themselves not military men. They’re armchair generals. They’re people who are preoccupied by ideological concerns. And what are these concerns all about? They’re about maintaining American global dominance, otherwise called hegemony. And they are indifferent to most risks that pursuing such a policy brings to the United States, just as Mr. Netanyahu is indifferent to the existential threat to his own country that his daily actions are provoking.
Alkhorshid: 25:21 In your opinion, right now, who’s running the show in the Middle East? Is the Biden administration and Netanyahu supporting them? Or Netanyahu is running the show and the Biden administration has no choice but supporting them?
Doctorow: Well, I think that, again, there’s a consensus within the community of oppositionists to the Washington imperial policy, and that consensus is that Mr. Netanyahu is– I think it was Jacques Baud who said– a wild card or an uncontrollable cannon on the deck. I think he is his own director, he is not taking orders and he is not looking for agreement with the United States. I think he feels confident that the United States is in his pocket and will go wherever it has to go, because he is creating the new reality. Is he correct in that? Regrettably, I think he is largely correct.
26:36 I think under no circumstances can we imagine that Biden or Blinken or Sullivan are controlling Netanyahu. By giving out false information for decades, he has instigated an American policy vis-à-vis Iran that has been wrongheaded and has served only the possible interests of Israel and certainly not American interests. So, regrettably, American foreign policy is being manipulated by one Mr. Netanyahu and very successfully, I have to add.
Alkhorshid: 27:22 Yeah, and the other thing would be: right now in the United States, how [can they] talk with Russia and China? [The] last time we heard that there is some sort of communication between Putin administration and Washington was this attempt to assassinate Putin, and they tried to talk with Austin, Lloyd Austin. How do you see the line of communication right now between Russia and the United States? And maybe you can provide something on this attempt, that they tried to assassinate Putin.
Doctorow: Well, a lot of hopeful commentary arose after the prisoner exchange, which is unparalleled since the Cold War days, and indicated that even in these times of very great tensions and zero trust between the United States and Russia, it was possible to accomplish something of a big scale and rather intricate, difficult technically to achieve.
28:36 So the communication was effective. And people have asked, is that the only line of communication, the only topic of communication, which has, which remains today? The question is tied, maybe tied, to what you just mentioned. That is the unexpected phone call, going back to the 13th of July, I believe, when the Russian Minister of Defense, Belosov, phoned to his counterpart, Lloyd Austin, and told him that there’s something, a plot going on, which, if it proceeds, could lead to an uncontrollable escalation in our conflict with disastrous consequences.
29:31 Now, at the time, nobody was told what plot or what risk Mr. Belosov had in mind when they discussed this. It has only a day ago, it came out on the Russian side that the risks, the danger that Belosov mentioned to Austin was a Ukrainian plot to assassinate Vladimir Putin and Belosov himself during the Navy Day Parade on the 28th of July. That is a rare case where the communication was established at the highest level and apparently succeeded, because there was no assassination attempt finally. And Austin is said to have expressed surprise but to have taken on board the information from Belusov as something he would investigate. Presumably he did.
30:45 I would not read any particular hopeful signs of a broader communication line between these two countries from these two events, that is: a prisoner exchange and the assuming the the American reprimand to Ukraine not to even think of carrying out such a plot. Does this mean that there are secret negotiations going on today between Russia and the United States over the end to the Ukraine war? I think again, the consensus is no. There is no broader line of communication that would bear on the risks that we all are facing coming out of the Ukraine war.
31:43 Are there other lines of communication between the two countries? Yes, there are. For example, both the United States and Russia have forces in Syria. And going back to the period just after the Russian intervention in Syria in 2015, American and Russian forces on the spot established lines of communication to avoid conflict that could escalate into a war. We assume that those lines of communications, which are local level, not highest level, remain in place. The lines of communication are extremely important.
32:27 And one of the biggest losses when the intermediate- and medium-range missile treaty was abandoned by the United States, subsequently suspended by Russia, it was the whole process of exchange of personnel and of information at various levels to maintain arms control. That was of very great importance in stabilizing the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union and its successor state, the Russian Federation. That regrettably, I think it was more important than the widely advertised merits of these treaties in terms of equipment staying in place, that there be no arms war, no development of further arms. That is almost, my estimation, a secondary consequence of these treaties. The primary consequence being trust building from the broad exchange of personnel and the verification processes that were embedded in these arms treaties.
Alkhorshid: 33:55 And the other thing would be how does the United States perceive the protest in Hiroshima against Israel in your opinion? How are they trying to manage what’s going on there, or they’re not capable of doing it?
Doctorow: Well I think the United States is managing the relationship with Japan very effectively. They have kept Japan down. They have a prime minister in Japan who is doing the bidding of the United States. The speech which he delivered yesterday on the anniversary, 79th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, could not have been better written … if it had been prepared in Washington. He said what the Americans would love to hear. He did not say a word about who dropped the bomb, the Americans that is. And instead, he used the opportunity to make false accusations against Russia for sabre rattling and threatening the world with nuclear weapons.
35:03 So that is precisely the Washington line. And we heard it from the mouth of the Japanese Prime Minister. The protests against the proceedings where 109 countries were present, except Russia, except Belarus, who were not invited, in line with the American-imposed isolation policy on Russia and Belarus. And this was all, again, part of the American scenario. “The world isolates these rogue countries that are engaging in aggressive action against the freedom-loving democratic country of Ukraine.” So the Japanese were doing their best. They invited the Israelis, which sparked a protest the day before on the 5th of August. It did not take place or occur on the 6th because it was banned by the Japanese government. On the 5th, there were demonstrators against the proceedings that would come the next day, and signs were read, “No to participation of genocide states in this commemoration”. The genocide state, of course, is Israel. Genocide state, the perpetrators of genocide in Gaza.
36:35 The United States could sleep calmly; this was not reported by the major media in the West. We didn’t hear a peep about it. As I’ve commented, of course, the fact that Israel was invited is not as objectionable as the protesters would have it. I think it is appropriate for Israel to be there, given that it’s precisely Israel that is the primary candidate to be the second country in the world to use nuclear weapons in wartime. What I have in mind is the very loose talk among the leaders of Netanyahu’s cabinet that it would be appropriate to drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza and solve the problem with the Palestinians, or the talk that I see mostly on social media that Israel is considering using nuclear weapons against the Hezbollah in southern Lebanon to wipe them out.
37:56 That last scenario is not official, but it is thinkable, given that Israel does not have the capability of putting boots on the ground to pursue a war against Hezbollah in Lebanon. They got their asses kicked in the last war with Hezbollah. They do not have fresh troops available to send there. We hear about very big resistance within the Israeli army to the continued waging of war in Gaza. These are mostly reservists. They’ve given up their private lives, their private businesses and employment on what should have been a temporary assignment that has gone on vastly longer than any of them assumed when they put on their uniforms and went off to fight Hamas. So, the notion that these troops, only some of whom you could call professional soldiers, would be sent against the hardened Hezbollah forces in southern Lebanon is unreasonable, which leaves you to ask, what can Israelis possibly do to conduct a war in Lebanon, if not using nuclear weapons?
Alkhorshid: 39:35 Yeah. In your opinion, when it comes to the Middle East, it seems that it’s much more complicated than what’s going on in Ukraine, because in Ukraine we know that two superpowers are fighting each other. Right now in the Middle East, it seems that the United States is trying to see what’s going on there, how they can manage the situation, considering Arab states, Turkey. But in your opinion, when it comes to the future of the conflict, is the United States winning politically? Because it doesn’t seem that even Arab states who are right now trying to be in line with the United States in the future, they would be the same.
Doctorow: 40:21 Well, winning is a problematic term. Israel has not won against Hamas in Gaza. Gaza is destroyed. There are, let’s say, 200,000 have died, so it’s 1,800,000 Palestinians in Gaza who are now living in dire poverty, unimaginable suffering from famine and from disease, without any assistance, substantial assistance from medical facilities, because Israel has systematically destroyed them as well and killed doctors. So how could this be called a win? Someone is going to have to take charge of this, whether it’s Israel or neighboring states, that remains to be seen. But this is an open sore created by Israel. It is not a solution. It is a problem.
41:26 Not to mention the aggravated situation in the West Bank, not to mention the 60,000 Israelis who have been forced to evacuate in the northernmost part of the country bordering on Lebanon. I don’t see a win there for Israel and certainly not a win for the United States. The United States’ whole project of the last years of the Trump administration with the Abraham Accords, that’s all been undone. The notion of normalizing relations between the neighbors and Israel under present circumstances is surreal.
So, the United States has suffered greatly in the region for enabling the genocide, for providing Israel with all the weapons it needed to destroy civilian life in Gaza. Everybody sees that. Now, why is there less action? Because people in the neighborhood does not want to become itself another Gaza. The Saudis were humbled, they were brought to their knees by the Houthis just a year and a half ago. The peace between– or the accommodation between– Iran and Saudi Arabia was the consequence of the military threat to the industry, the petroleum industry, refinery industry in Saudi Arabia, which the country itself could not realize, they could not defend themselves properly.
43:10 And so if this small outlying and impoverished part of the neighborhood in Yemen was able to force the Saudis to reconsider their policies and ultimately to agree to brokered peace with Iran. then the larger participants in the neighborhood are– pose still greater risks to themselves if they should follow the street and seek revenge on Israel. None of them want it, Jordan doesn’t want it. They all have a lot to lose and they all are aware of the military might of Israel, which Israel, as we’ve seen for the last half a year, has no hesitation [in] unleashing, regardless of the suffering for civilians and for the broad population of the neighborhood countries.
Alkhorshid: 44:20 In your opinion, this behavior of Israel, just– everybody knows that the upper hand that Israel has right now is their nuclear bombs. And would that convince these Arab states, Iran, Turkey, [to] go after nuclear bombs? Because at the end of the day, they’re thinking of Israel and how to deal with Israel.
Doctorow: Well, this is not a new problem. It’s a problem that goes back perhaps 30 years. So I don’t see what is happening today that would cause the neighbors to change their minds about the advisability of acquiring nuclear weapons themselves. That will not solve the problem for a country that is behaving in an almost suicidal way like Israel is today. I don’t believe that their neighbors acquiring nuclear weapons would change their conduct. The Saudis are showing very, very prudence. The Jordanians, the same thing, I don’t think any of them has a warm word for Israel. They’re not acting out of common feeling. They’re acting out of simple fear, fear of devastating losses, which they cannot prevent with their own military resources. How all this will end, I don’t know.
45:48 But when you look at Iran, you’re coming to a different situation. Iran is not Saudi Arabia or Qatar or these other countries. Iran is a very substantial, very mighty country. And it, too, will only enter into war as a last resort, not as a first choice, not even as a second choice. They will not be humiliated. The assassination in Tehran was humiliating, and Iran is obliged to respond. But they will do so in a calibrated way, precisely not to give Israel the possibility of declaring war and forcing the United States to stand by it in attacking Iran jointly.
46:41 So, these are the realities. As for Mr. Erdogan, he is, of course, an interested party. Of course, his own religious beliefs and his political religious beliefs are aligned completely with Hamas. And yet, despite all of his denunciations of Israel, it is largely hot air. He also is not looking to burn all his bridges. Any war that he would engage in with Israel would immediately take him out of NATO, take him out of whatever American assistance Turkey has used, has needed, in its neighborhood, and to play a bigger role in the world. After all, Turkey is the second-largest army in NATO after the United States. And I don’t think he wants to throw that away, if he doesn’t have to. So, all of the neighbors have a lot to lose in a general war. The only country which seems to be willing to take that risk is Israel. And is that wise or is that irrational? I tend to think it’s the second.
Alkhorshid: 48:18 Just to wrap up this session, whenever we talk about the conflict in Ukraine and right now in the Middle East, the role of Europe is just missing. Nobody knows what Europe is doing right now. And while they’re not playing an important role in all of these discussions, all of these conflicts, do you think, what do they want Europe to be in the future, with the current policies that they’re having?
Doctorow: Well, Europe is lost. And unfortunately, in the midst of all these crises we’ve been talking about there are Olympics games going on. The Olympics are, have been, regrettably, they have been a proof, a demonstration of everything that the Russians, the Chinese are saying about Europe, that it’s a civilization that’s lost. It’s a civilization that’s committing suicide. The notion of Europe’s place in the world has been a matter of conjecture, a matter of discussion [by] some very smart people on television programs and discussion groups for decades now. And without any result, if there are sterile discussions, because the elites that are conducting them are disconnected from their own nations.
49:49 The idea of Europe as a supranational body is a departure from the peace of Westphalia, from the sovereign nations that were deemed in 1648 to be the best protection of the rights of their citizens, the rights to live and to enjoy religious freedom and other freedoms. That was what was achieved in 1648. The 1992 agreements on the European Union have been a negation of that. They are an affirmation of globalism. They are an affirmation that national identity is a source of war, nationalism is a source of war, which is another very closely related concept to the American guiding principle that democratic countries are not warlike and authoritarian countries are warlike because they’re fragile, they do not have popular support, and they need to engage in foreign adventures to maintain their rule over the country.
51:11 These are wonderful ideas for intellectuals to play with. They’re totally false ideas, and the European Union today is based on a collection of false ideas. So, to speak about, it’s exerting a place in the world until it reviews the academic and unrealistic concepts that it holds dear today, makes no sense. Europe has no future until it starts looking in the mirror and until the elites that we have today are replaced by people with some common sense who are not ideologues.
52:01 It is not just subservience to the United States that explains the insane policies being pursued by Europe today. Europe has its own homegrown neocons, Europe has its own homegrown ideologues, and Europe has its own homegrown idiots, and now exerting positions of power which were unthinkable 20 or 30 years ago. There’s such a degradation in the quality of Europe’s leaders that a fool like Baerbock could– in a country as serious, we like to think of Germany as serious– remain in power as a member of the cabinet, is the greatest demonstration that Europe is doomed until there’s a turnover in the elites, and the ideologues, and the ignoramuses are removed from power.
Alikhorshid: 53:08 Yeah. Thank you so much for being with us today. Great pleasure as always.
I use the word ‘discussion’ to characterize my interview yesterday morning because the Press TV presenter is an active interlocutor who does not merely pitch questions prepared in advance to interviewees.
The commemoration ceremonies of the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima were dedicated to the 70,000 civilians who lost their lives instantly and to the total of 140,000 who died within a year from cancers and other consequences of radiation poisoning. Almost no coverage of the 79th anniversary of the bombing appeared in major Western media.
On Russian state television, by contrast significant attention was given to the proceedings, beginning with exposing the extraordinary hypocrisy of the Japanese prime minister’s address in which no mention was made of who had dropped the bomb. Meanwhile, Russia and Belarus were not invited to the ceremony whereas more than 100 other countries were. But then again, the Palestinians were also excluded, whereas Israel was welcomed to Hiroshima by the city’s mayor.
It was the latter invitation which was at the center of attention on Press TV’s News Review in which I participated together with a panelist in Australia. Israel’s presence had prompted protest demonstrations in Hiroshima on the day before, 5 August, with signs reading “No to the Genocide State.” The logical connection was clear: the above-mentioned civilian deaths in Hiroshima are matched with the 40,000 plus deaths in Gaza by the official tally, in reality perhaps 200,000 deaths if one factors in death by hunger and disease in a situation where food supplies are being withheld and medical facilities have been destroyed.
In my interview, I called out the paradox: whatever the intentions of the organizers, de facto the inclusion of Israeli representatives was justified given that precisely Israel is positioning itself as the likely second nation after the United States to use nuclear weapons in wartime. I say this because it is an open secret that Israel has been pondering dropping the bomb on Gaza to hasten the elimination of the Palestinian population or on southern Lebanon to eliminate Hezbollah once and for all.
That Israel has long wished to atomic-bomb Iran is known to all for more than a decade. It has been restrained from doing so only by lack of needed air support from the United States. In the present circumstances of possible escalation to a region-wide war in the Middle East, Washington may well present itself as the enabler of an Israeli bombing campaign in Iran that includes a nuclear component.
PressTV: 0:00 [Gilbert] Doctorow is an independent international affairs analyst joining us from Brussels. We also have Tim Anderson, who is the Director of the Center for Counter-Hegemonic Studies, who joins us from Sydney. Gentlemen, welcome to you both. Gilbert Doctorow, I’ll first start with you.
So I think there are two aspects to this story. One is the fact that the US is the only country to have used weapons of mass destruction. And the second is the fact that we’re looking at the volume of bombs that have been dropped in the Gaza Strip, courtesy of the US, equals, and if not more than, the bombs dropped there in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What are your thoughts on that?
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 0:34 First, I’d like to congratulate you, Press TV, for covering this issue. The major media today have said nothing about the demonstrations in Hiroshima against the Israeli rampage in Gaza. And as I understand it, the issue was about the invitation by the local authorities to Israel among the other countries that are participating in this commemoration. They condemn the participation of Israel precisely because of the genocide being committed in Gaza. So again, I salute you for bringing up this important aspect, which is otherwise totally ignored by major media.
1:19 As regards the uniqueness of the destruction that the United States perpetrated in Japan, I would have to add, perhaps it was the only use of weapons of mass destruction, but it was not the only use of wanton murder of civilians during World War II. And the Brits worked together with the United States in the, for example, the firebombing of Dresden, which also had catastrophic numbers of casualties. Nonetheless, coming to today, I think this is highly relevant that you are speaking about the nuclear bombs that were dropped in Hiroshima, because the nuclear issue is very much alive with us today.
2:01 And I would say paradoxically, the invitation to Israel might have been very appropriate, if not necessarily for the reasons that the mayor’s office in Hiroshima had in mind. I say that because there is discussion among analysts about the desire of the Israeli leadership to use some of its nuclear weapons stock in the present confrontation with Hezbollah, for example, using a nuclear weapon to bomb southern Lebanon. That is in discussion, and it makes the participation of Israel at the Hiroshima commemoration– it gives it a certain sense. Israel, of course, would be very happy to use its nuclear arms against Iran, which should explain, in part, your particular and justified interest in what is going on.
PressTV: 2:54 Okay, you raise a very interesting point there. Tim Anderson, the fact that the Israeli regime would contemplate using the nuclear bomb, in the case of what our guest there said, on southern Lebanon, they have contemplated using it on the Gaza Strip. I don’t know if I should use the word contemplation, but statements have been made by the Israeli officials that, you know, that should be an option. Even in the US, some of these extreme US congressmen, like Lindsey Graham, have suggested that. But in the bigger picture, the confrontation in terms of the retaliation coming from Iran and some of the resistance groups may prompt the Israeli regime to maybe contemplate the use of nuclear weapons. Do you think that that is a possibility here?
Tim Anderson: 3:44 Well, yes, there are at least two U.S. Congressmen talking about the idea of using nuclear weapons on Gaza, and that should be alarming. Really, it should be a criminal incitement, you would think, but they get away with this sort of thing in the US arena. Of course, your initial story was about the US using weapons of mass destruction. Let’s not forget Korea, the war in Korea, they used bacteriological weapons there, they used chemical weapons there, and in Vietnam also, all of those nuclear, biological, chemical weapons.
They’ve accused other states of doing this, but basically speaking, it’s the US regime that has been the worst offender in the world in using these weapons. And of course, when we talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, largely civilian targets. They were not military targets. Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were military targets. They were civilian targets. So they were deliberately used against civilian populations.
4:46 Of course, historically, it seems like the aim was to send a message to the Soviet Union at that time as the rush was on to try and colonize Northeast Asia, which they’ve done successfully in the southern part of the Korean Peninsula. So really, it’s a notorious anniversary. We should be remembering it. Thank you, as your other guest said, for bringing this to people’s attention, to remember these terrible anniversaries. And let’s remind ourselves that the US has always accused others of carrying out or planning such crimes, but it’s really the US regime itself which has been at the forefront of these worst of all atrocities and they’re supporting of course the atrocities in Gaza now which in many respects replicates some of the massacres that were carried out against civilians and children in Vietnam 50 years ago.
PressTV: 5:35 All right Gilbert Doctorow, I have less than a couple minutes. When you talk about the way that you did in terms of the Israeli regime contemplating maybe the use of nuclear weapons in southern Lebanon. Is that based on what? Have you read something or is there some indications of that?
Doctorow: The subject has been featured more on social media than in official news reports, but it has a certain logic to it. So for that reason, I felt it worth mentioning here on air. No, I cannot give you a citation to go to, to find this founded, but as I said, it makes a lot of sense, considering what my fellow panelist said about the use of a nuclear weapon in Gaza.
PressTV: 6:26 Thank you, Gilbert Doctorow, independent international affairs analyst. And I’d also like to thank Tim Anderson, Director of the Center for Counter-Hegemonic Studies. Thank you to you both. And with that, we come to an end for this News Review.
Translation into German (Andreas Mylaeus)
Transkript eines Lesers
PressTV: 0:00
[Gilbert] Doctorow ist ein unabhängiger Analyst für internationale Angelegenheiten, der aus Brüssel mit uns spricht. Außerdem haben wir Tim Anderson, den Direktor des Center for Counter-Hegemonic Studies, der aus Sydney zu uns stößt. Meine Herren, ich begrüße Sie beide. Gilbert Doctorow, ich fange mit Ihnen an.
Ich denke, es gibt zwei Aspekte in dieser Geschichte. Der eine ist die Tatsache, dass die USA das einzige Land sind, das Massenvernichtungswaffen eingesetzt hat. Und der zweite ist die Tatsache, dass die Menge an Bomben, die mit freundlicher Genehmigung der USA auf den Gazastreifen abgeworfen wurde, der Menge der in Hiroshima und Nagasaki abgeworfenen Bomben entspricht, wenn diese nicht sogar übertrifft. Was sagen Sie dazu?
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 0:34
Zunächst möchte ich Ihnen, Press TV, zu Ihrer Berichterstattung über dieses Thema gratulieren. Die großen Medien haben heute nichts über die Demonstrationen in Hiroshima gegen den israelischen Amoklauf in Gaza berichtet. Soweit ich weiß, ging es dabei um die Einladung der örtlichen Behörden unter anderem an Israel an dieser Gedenkfeier teilzunehmen. Sie verurteilen die Teilnahme Israels gerade wegen des Völkermords, der in Gaza begangen wird. Daher möchte ich Ihnen nochmals dafür danken, dass Sie diesen wichtigen Aspekt zur Sprache gebracht haben, der sonst von den großen Medien völlig ignoriert wird.
1:19
Was die Einzigartigkeit der von den Vereinigten Staaten in Japan verübten Zerstörungen betrifft, so muss ich hinzufügen, dass dies vielleicht der einzige Einsatz von Massenvernichtungswaffen war, aber nicht der einzige Einsatz von mutwilliger Ermordung von Zivilisten während des Zweiten Weltkriegs. Und die Briten haben mit den Vereinigten Staaten zusammengearbeitet, zum Beispiel bei der Bombardierung Dresdens, die ebenfalls eine katastrophale Zahl von Opfern forderte. Dennoch halte ich es für sehr wichtig, dass Sie heute über die Atombomben sprechen, die in Hiroshima abgeworfen wurden, denn das Thema Atomwaffen ist auch heute noch sehr aktuell.
2:01
Und ich würde sagen, dass die Einladung an Israel paradoxerweise sehr angebracht gewesen sein könnte, wenn auch nicht unbedingt aus den Gründen, die das Büro des Bürgermeisters in Hiroshima im Sinn hatte. Ich sage das, weil unter Analysten der Wunsch der israelischen Führung diskutiert wird, einige ihrer Atomwaffenbestände in der gegenwärtigen Konfrontation mit der Hisbollah einzusetzen, zum Beispiel eine Atomwaffe zur Bombardierung des Südlibanon. Das ist im Gespräch, und die Teilnahme Israels an der Hiroshima-Gedenkfeier gibt dem Ganzen einen gewissen Sinn. Israel würde natürlich sehr gerne seine Atomwaffen gegen den Iran einsetzen, was zum Teil Ihr besonderes und berechtigtes Interesse an den Geschehnissen erklären dürfte.
PressTV: 2:54
Okay, Sie sprechen da einen sehr interessanten Punkt an. Tim Anderson, die Tatsache, dass das israelische Regime den Einsatz der Atombombe in Erwägung zieht, im Falle dessen, was unser Gast dort sagte, im Südlibanon, haben sie den Einsatz im Gazastreifen in Erwägung gezogen. Ich weiß nicht, ob ich das Wort “in Erwägung ziehen” verwenden sollte, aber die israelischen Offiziellen haben erklärt, dass dies eine Option sein sollte. Sogar in den USA haben einige dieser extremen US-Kongressabgeordneten, wie Lindsey Graham, dies vorgeschlagen. Aber im Großen und Ganzen könnte die Konfrontation in Form von Vergeltungsmaßnahmen seitens des Iran und einiger Widerstandsgruppen das israelische Regime dazu veranlassen, den Einsatz von Atomwaffen in Erwägung zu ziehen. Glauben Sie, dass dies eine Möglichkeit ist?
Tim Anderson: 3:44
Nun ja, es gibt mindestens zwei US-Kongressabgeordnete, die über den Einsatz von Atomwaffen gegen Gaza sprechen, und das sollte alarmierend sein. Eigentlich sollte man meinen, dass dies eine kriminelle Aufstachelung ist, aber in den USA kommen sie mit solchen Dingen davon. Natürlich ging es in Ihrer ursprünglichen Meldung um den Einsatz von Massenvernichtungswaffen durch die USA. Vergessen wir nicht Korea, den Krieg in Korea, wo sie bakteriologische Waffen und chemische Waffen eingesetzt haben, und auch in Vietnam haben sie all diese atomaren, biologischen und chemischen Waffen eingesetzt.
Die haben andere Staaten beschuldigt, dies zu tun, aber im Grunde genommen ist das US-Regime der schlimmste Übeltäter in der Welt beim Einsatz dieser Waffen gewesen. Und natürlich, wenn wir über Hiroshima und Nagasaki sprechen, sind dies weitgehend zivile Ziele. Sie waren keine militärischen Ziele. Weder Hiroshima noch Nagasaki waren militärische Ziele. Es waren zivile Ziele. Sie wurden also absichtlich gegen die Zivilbevölkerung eingesetzt.
4:46
Historisch gesehen war es wohl das Ziel, eine Botschaft an die Sowjetunion zu senden, die sich damals beeilte, Nordostasien zu kolonisieren, was ihr im südlichen Teil der koreanischen Halbinsel auch gelang. Es ist also wirklich ein berüchtigter Jahrestag. Wir sollten ihn nicht vergessen. Ich danke Ihnen, wie Ihr anderer Gast sagte, dass Sie die Menschen darauf aufmerksam gemacht haben, damit sie sich an diese schrecklichen Jahrestage erinnern. Und wir sollten uns daran erinnern, dass die USA immer andere beschuldigt haben, solche Verbrechen zu begehen oder zu planen, aber in Wirklichkeit ist es das US-Regime selbst, das an der Spitze dieser schlimmsten aller Gräueltaten steht, und sie unterstützen natürlich die Gräueltaten in Gaza, die in vielerlei Hinsicht einige der Massaker wiederholen, die vor 50 Jahren in Vietnam an Zivilisten und Kindern verübt wurden.
PressTV: 5:35
Gut, Gilbert Doctorow, ich habe weniger als ein paar Minuten Zeit. Wenn Sie davon sprechen, dass das israelische Regime den Einsatz von Atomwaffen im Südlibanon in Erwägung zieht, wie Sie es getan haben. Worauf stützt sich das? Haben Sie etwas gelesen oder gibt es Hinweise darauf?
Doctorow:
Das Thema wurde mehr in den sozialen Medien als in den offiziellen Nachrichten behandelt, aber es hat eine gewisse Logik. Aus diesem Grund hielt ich es für erwähnenswert, dies hier in der Sendung zu sagen. Nein, ich kann Ihnen kein Zitat nennen, aber wie gesagt, es macht sehr viel Sinn, wenn man bedenkt, was mein Kollege über den Einsatz einer Atomwaffe in Gaza gesagt hat.
PressTV: 6:26
Vielen Dank, Gilbert Doctorow, unabhängiger Analyst für internationale Angelegenheiten. Und ich möchte auch Tim Anderson danken, dem Direktor des Center for Counter-Hegemonic Studies. Vielen Dank an Sie beide. Und damit sind wir am Ende dieses News-Reviews angelangt.
In mid-July major Western media reported a phone conversation had taken place between U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and his Russian counterpart Andrey Belousov at the initiative of the Russian side. But there was no information about the content of their talk other than to say that it was to forestall an attack that might result in uncontrollable escalation of the conflict between the two countries.
Even yesterday, on Russia’ most authoritative talk show The Great Game, when speaking of this phone call, the moderator said that no one knows what threat was averted.
However, today, Russia’s Deputy Minister of Defense Ryabkov and the ministry’s spokesperson Maria Zakharova gave us precisely this information:
Apparently Russian intelligence had uncovered a plot by the Ukrainians, with support from Great Britain, to murder both Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Minister of Defense during the Navy Day parade in Petersburg on 28 July. We are told that Austin was caught unawares but took the warning seriously.
This exchange of phone calls at the top of the respective military commands was said by Great Game panelists to demonstrate that notwithstanding the unprecedented mutual distrust and anger between the parties, they are still capable of constructive dialogue. It may be said to have promoted the implementation of the prisoner exchange that took place this past week as a result of similar top level discussions between the respective intelligence agencies.
Postscript, 7 August: Today’s edition of the quasi-governmental Rossiyskaya Gazeta (banned in the EU as a disseminator of fake news) carries an article headlined: “Ministry of Foreign Affairs has said that the interpretation of Ryabkov’s words regarding provocations during the Navy Parade was incorrect.”
According to RG, in an interview with the state television station Rossiya 1 deputy minister Ryabkov had merely declined to answer a direct question about preparations for an attempted assassination and had said only that ‘there is a certain connection with this kind of event.’
I consider this finessing of the language to be no more than a test of wills between the hard line Ryabkov and his, shall we say, ‘gently, gently’ boss Sergey Lavrov. Surely only the risk of some devastating attack on Russia could have prompted Belousov to lift the telephone from its cradle and phone Austin.
It is always a challenge to appear on feature programs of WION, India’s premier English-language global broadcaster.
The display of newly arrived F-16s on Ukrainian territory was the subject of the day in my 12-minute chat on WION yesterday.
Considering that the half dozen or more WION newscasts yesterday about the American jets ran no longer than 2 minutes each, I was especially appreciative of the opportunity to delve into the broader context of these planes finally coming into Ukrainian hands.
I opened my discussion with WION’s presenter Shivan Chanana by making reference to Swiss military expert Jacques Baud’s overarching view of the objectives of the U.S. and NATO in assisting Ukraine in their fight with Russia: namely to use Ukraine as a battering ram against Russia to inflict a humiliating defeat on the Kremlin that might precipitate regime change and the eventual break-up of the Russian Federation. At a minimum, their objective is to get Russia bogged down in Ukraine so that it cannot respond to other global challenges and so give the U.S. a free hand to perpetuate its global hegemony. To achieve this, the war in Ukraine must be drawn out as long as possible. This is why NATO ‘s deliveries of military hardware to Kiev have repeatedly and consistently been ’too little, too late.’ Such is the situation with respect to the F-16s.
Recovering Ukrainian land and sovereignty is a secondary or tertiary consideration of the Western powers. The massive losses that Ukraine is experiencing in men and materiel count for nothing. Hence, U.S. indifference to what is becoming a genocide in Ukraine as ever younger ‘recruits’ to its military forces deplete the country’s reproductive stock.
For those of you unfamiliar with Baud, I heartily recommend that you look him up in Amazon and acquire his latest of several books about the conflict. In my estimation he is the most authoritative of all the Western commentators about the war from the standpoint of military science. In that connection, I eagerly look forward to joining Baud in a three-man Round Table discussion of the BRICS Summit, and of the Ukraine war as well, that will take place in Greater Brussels on 26 October. For anyone interested in attending a live as opposed to virtual discussion of these key issues in geopolitics, please feel free to contact me directly for details.
I will not set out here the course of my discussion with Shivan Chanana. In due course, a full transcript will be appended to this report when I receive it from a loyal volunteer.
I close this note by mentioning the latest evaluation of Ukraine’s chances of maintaining its fight into the late autumn coming from panelists on the widely viewed and very well informed Russian state television talk show The Great Game per last night’s edition: https://rutube.ru/video/2cedd7b3f68ed9ebdbc4a730ff8fd686/
In short, thanks to enormous exertions of its recruitment officials patrolling the streets of all cities and towns, the Ukrainian army is scooping up about 30,000 new recruits per month, giving them one week (!) of training and sending them to the front. This number roughly corresponds to the number of Ukrainian soldiers and officers killed or seriously injured and withdrawn from combat in the same time period. Given that training for a live war normally takes 60 days, those who are being sent to the front today cannot make a serious contribution on the field of battle and are just cannon fodder.
Meanwhile, there is widespread discussion in the Ukrainian media about the numbers of conscript age men (18 – 59) who are actively evading the recruiters by going into hiding or fleeing abroad. These range from several hundred thousand to 800,000. That tells you a lot about the enthusiasm level of the broad Ukrainian population for continuing the fight against Moscow. Polls also indicate that over the past year there has been a dramatic increase in the percent of the population wanting to end the war now while accepting the permanent loss of the territory that Russia has captured.
Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus) followed by full transcript in English, followed by a translation of the transcript into German
Kann die Ukraine die russische Luftverteidigung mit F16 zerstören? | WION GAME PLAN
Es ist immer eine Herausforderung, in den Sendungen von WION, Indiens wichtigstem englischsprachigen Fernsehsender, aufzutreten.
Die Präsentation der neu eingetroffenen F-16-Kampfjets auf ukrainischem Gebiet war das Thema des Tages in meinem gestrigen 12-minütigen Chat auf WION.
In Anbetracht der Tatsache, dass die mehr als ein halbes Dutzend Nachrichtensendungen von WION über die amerikanischen Jets gestern jeweils nicht länger als zwei Minuten dauerten, war ich besonders dankbar für die Gelegenheit, den breiteren Kontext dieser Flugzeuge, die schließlich in ukrainische Hände gelangt sind, zu beleuchten.
Zu Beginn meines Gesprächs mit WION-Moderator Shivan Chanana verwies ich auf die übergreifende Sichtweise des Schweizer Militärexperten Jacques Baud zu den Zielen der USA und der NATO bei der Unterstützung der Ukraine in ihrem Kampf gegen Russland: nämlich die Ukraine als Rammbock gegen Russland zu benutzen, um dem Kreml eine demütigende Niederlage zuzufügen, die einen Regimewechsel und den schließlichen Zerfall der Russischen Föderation herbeiführen sollte. Ihr Ziel ist es zumindest, Russland in der Ukraine festzufahren, damit es nicht auf andere globale Herausforderungen reagieren kann und die USA freie Hand haben, ihre globale Hegemonie aufrechtzuerhalten. Um dies zu erreichen, muss der Krieg in der Ukraine so lange wie möglich in die Länge gezogen werden. Aus diesem Grund waren die NATO-Lieferungen von Militärgütern an Kiew wiederholt und konsequent “zu wenig und zu spät”. Dies ist auch bei den F-16 der Fall.
Die Rückgewinnung von ukrainischem Territorium und der ukrainischen Souveränität ist für die Westmächte eine zweit- oder drittrangige Überlegung. Die massiven Verluste, die die Ukraine an Menschen und Material erleidet, zählen nicht. Daher die Gleichgültigkeit der USA gegenüber dem, was sich in der Ukraine zu einem Genocid entwickelt, da immer jüngere “Rekruten” für ihre Streitkräfte den Reproduktionsbestand des Landes dezimieren.
Denjenigen unter Ihnen, die Baud nicht kennen, empfehle ich wärmstens, ihn bei Amazon aufzusuchen und sein neuestes von mehreren Büchern über den Konflikt zu erwerben. Meiner Meinung nach ist er von allen westlichen Kommentatoren des Krieges aus militärwissenschaftlicher Sicht der maßgebliche Autor. In diesem Zusammenhang freue ich mich sehr darauf, mit Baud an einer dreiköpfigen Diskussionsrunde über den BRICS-Gipfel und auch über den Ukraine-Krieg teilzunehmen, die am 26. Oktober im Großraum Brüssel stattfinden wird. Wer Interesse hat, an einer Live-Diskussion über diese geopolitischen Schlüsselthemen teilzunehmen, kann sich gerne direkt an mich wenden, um Einzelheiten zu erfahren.
Ich werde hier nicht den Verlauf meines Gesprächs mit Shivan Chanana wiedergeben. Zu gegebener Zeit werde ich diesem Bericht eine vollständige Abschrift beifügen, sobald ich sie von einem loyalen Freiwilligen erhalte.
Abschließend möchte ich auf die jüngste Einschätzung der Chancen der Ukraine, ihren Kampf bis in den Spätherbst hinein fortzusetzen, hinweisen, die von den Diskussionsteilnehmern der weithin sichtbaren und sehr gut informierten Talkshow des russischen Staatsfernsehens “Das grosse Spiel” in der gestrigen Abendausgabe abgegeben wurde: https://rutube.ru/video/2cedd7b3f68ed9ebdbc4a730ff8fd686/
Kurz gesagt, dank der enormen Anstrengungen ihrer Rekrutierungsbeamten, die in allen Städten und Gemeinden auf der Straße patrouillieren, sammelt die ukrainische Armee jeden Monat etwa 30.000 neue Rekruten ein, bildet sie eine Woche (!) lang aus und schickt sie an die Front. Diese Zahl entspricht in etwa der Zahl der ukrainischen Soldaten und Offiziere, die im gleichen Zeitraum getötet oder schwer verletzt und aus dem Kampf zurückgezogen wurden. Wenn man bedenkt, dass die Ausbildung für einen echten Krieg normalerweise 60 Tage dauert, können diejenigen, die heute an die Front geschickt werden, keinen ernsthaften Beitrag auf dem Schlachtfeld leisten und sind nur Kanonenfutter.
Inzwischen wird in den ukrainischen Medien viel über die Zahl der Männer im wehrpflichtigen Alter (18-59 Jahre) diskutiert, die sich den Rekrutierern aktiv entziehen, indem sie untertauchen oder ins Ausland fliehen. Die Angaben reichen von mehreren hunderttausend bis zu 800.000. Das sagt viel über die Begeisterung der breiten ukrainischen Bevölkerung für die Fortsetzung des Kampfes gegen Moskau aus. Aus Umfragen geht auch hervor, dass im letzten Jahr der Anteil der Bevölkerung, der den Krieg jetzt beenden will, dramatisch angestiegen ist, wobei er den dauerhaften Verlust der von Russland eroberten Gebiete in Kauf nimmt.
Transcript
Shivan Chanana, WION: 0:00 Ukraine has received 10 F-16 fighters from Western countries, and by the end of the year their number will increase to 20. That’s what is expected. Now Kiev hopes that the new fighter jets will help beat Russian forces or at least push them back, allowing them to regain air dominance on the war front. This is what Ukraine expects. What’s Ukraine’s F-16 game plan? Can they get past Russia’s formidable air defense systems?
Welcome to “Game Plan”. I’m Shivan Chanana. To discuss this further, we’re being joined by Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, international affairs analyst, author and historian, joining us from Brussels. Dr. Doctorow, always a pleasure speaking with you. Do you feel F-16s will make a difference in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war?
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 0:41 No, and it’s not my personal opinion. I think there’s a consensus of expert opinion that the effect on Ukraine’s defense and attack possibilities from the acquisition of these several F-16s will be nil. I can get into why that is so in a moment, but I’d like to look at the bigger issue. That is, what is NATO doing in and through Ukraine? And here I make reference to a well-known Swiss military expert, Jacques Baud, who has from the beginning held the opinion that the NATO approach to Ukraine is to use the country as a battering ram against Russia.
And NATO from the very beginning of this conflict, going back to February 2022, was never interested in Ukraine winning the battle and freeing its territory. Its only interest was in causing maximal damage to Russia, hopefully inflicting a humiliating defeat in one way or another on Russia, and thereby precipitating a regime change in Moscow and the eventual breakup of the Russian Federation. This is what he has said, and I subscribe fully to that as the overarching explanation of what has been going on. If Ukraine is battered, if Ukraine suffers enormous human and material losses as has been the case, that is of no concern to its backers or nominal backers in the United States and NATO.
2:13 So, the acquisition of these F-16s is put in this overall context of always too little, too late, always under-equipped, because the victory of Ukraine is not what is the objective. Drawing out the conflict, bleeding Russia, hopefully bringing Russia into a swamp of of long-term warfare with Ukraine that distracts Russia from the other geopolitical challenges that it faces across the globe.
WION: 2:49 Dr. Doctorow, now as far as the larger vision behind this Russia-Ukraine war is concerned, from NATO’s side or from the West’s side, of course there are varying opinions. If you ask someone from the West or rather from the US or who understands or backs NATO’s understanding, they will perhaps say that they are trying to keep Russia from invading and rather they want to get Russia out of Ukraine, and that’s why they’re arming Ukraine with the F-16s. But Ukraine from its perspective will be using the F-16s to the best that they can. Do you feel Ukraine will have to destroy Russian air defences to make the F-16s effective? And when I say Russian air defences, can they get past the likes of Russia’s S-300, S-400, S-500, their formidable air defense systems.
Doctorow: 3:37 Well I think you know the answer to that, and it’s negative. Of course they can’t. As I said, it’s mission impossible for Ukraine. If these airplanes ever take off, it’ll be a miracle. The Russians know very well which [are] the remaining air bases on Ukrainian soil, where these can be based. Most people are pointing to the far west of Ukraine, the area close to the Rumanian border. The Russians also can read the map, and they know very well what bases they are left to attack to make it physically impossible for Ukrainians to fly these planes from their own territory.
What does that mean? It means that they would be flying them from Rumania or from Bulgaria or from Poland, and it invites the conflict to escalate to a direct Russian-NATO war. However, I doubt that things will reach that critical impasse, because the world has more than one hearth of conflict and military confrontation. And it may well be overtaken by a regional war in the Middle East or the Western Asia that becomes the new center of attention and of all military efforts for the United States and its allies, whereby Ukraine will fall to the rear and have less support and less global media attention than it does right now. We’ll see. But everything is going to play out in the immediate weeks before us. So what I am now prognosticating is not something for the distant future. It’s something that we will all watch closely in the days ahead.
WION: 5:27 Dr. Doctorow, now I just want to take from what you mentioned, that Russia knows exactly where their air bases are, and Russia has been targeting these bases that may house the F-16s and has vowed to shoot them down. I want to understand from you, do you feel this is a preemptive measure by Russia to avoid any damage which F-16s may cause to the Russian forces if they are used and deployed and if they take off?
Doctorow: Well, there are multiple objectives on the Russian side. One of them is, as you say. The other is to humiliate the United States and to demonstrate that Russian hardware, including aircraft and air defences, are superior to anything that the United States is trying to sell abroad. I think that message already, at the present stage of the conflict, has been well established among global procurement officers for military equipment, including India’s own. The achievements of the Russian arms developers have been manifestly demonstrated, and the ability of Russia to adapt itself very quickly to the changing challenges on the battlefield with new equipment, with drones and other devices which were unknown to warfare two, three years ago. Russia has demonstrated an ability to master these skills, to implement and produce in numbers equipment that meets these challenges.
7:00 So Russia in every way has outperformed what the Pentagon and its allies in Western Europe have assumed was the case for Russia. So, on the level of global salesmanship of Russian military hardware, the experiments going on on Ukrainian territory, including what we are about to see as the likely destruction of F-16s on the ground, if not in the air, is in Russia’s favor.
As for changing the war, it is by general consensus of military experts, 10 airplanes, even 50 airplanes, will be meaningless in the ongoing conflict. The Russians have hundreds of planes, many of them high-performance, capable of shooting down the F-16s if there were ever to be a dogfight. But I don’t think it will get to that. I think these planes will more likely be destroyed by strikes of Iskandar or if necessary by hypersonic missile like Zircon or more likely Kinzhal before they ever leave leave the airport. I know very well that the United States and the Ukrainians are counting on the hardened nature of air bases that Ukraine inherited from its Soviet past. These were unusually well defended and with concrete bunkers, concrete hangars for planes. Nonetheless, Russia’s firepower with these hypersonic missiles is capable of defeating any of the existing air bases in Ukraine, not to mention the neighboring air bases in Rumania or Moldova.
WION: 8:59 Doctor, you mentioned that it will be a miracle if these fighter jets even take off. Now, I understand that you don’t think even, you know, that for them even flying within the country, even that is going to be a miracle. But as of now, it’s still unclear what missiles the F-16s will be equipped with or what missiles are being sent to Ukraine to arm the F-16s with. More importantly, what range will they have? Do you feel Ukraine would use these F-16s to target inside Russia, even if they take off and they’re within Ukrainian airspace?
Doctorow: 9:33 I think that’s the only interest that the Kiev authorities have in these planes. To talk about self-defense again, or they’re using them to destroy Russian air defenses is nonsensical. But the Ukrainians are hoping to use these planes to deliver long-range missiles, which, to the best of our knowledge, the United States has not yet authorized for equipping the F-16s. We’ll see. Everything is always a bit lagging.
10:05 The point about the the destruction of these planes on the ground is– we just have to remember what happened in the past week. It has not been a subject of discussion in major media in the West, but there are– in Russian media, there is discussion of the destructive attack using Kinzhal missiles on a rebuilt and revamped base west of Lvov, very close to Lvov, that was the host to numerous, dozens if not hundreds of NATO officers engaged in training and guiding the Ukrainian armed forces. If this base can have been so utterly destroyed, vaporizing, as they say, 200 or 300 officers, many of them senior NATO officials, then what is the chance of any F-16, based on anywhere in Ukrainian territory, evading the revenge attacks of the Russians? I think nil.
WION: 11:18 All right, Dr. Doctorow, thank you so much for sharing all your insights and sharing things that perhaps the regular public would not get to hear because majority of the narrative which goes out comes from the West. But this is a narrative which also needs to reach the ears of people who would be interested in matters and seeing where the Russia-Ukraine war is really heading. As of now, Ukraine has got 10 F-16s. They’re expecting more by the end of the year, and even more by next year. What kind of impact [will it] have on ground? As you mentioned earlier, we won’t need to wait too long to see that actually play out. Thank you so much for joining in on “Game Plan”. Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, international affairs analyst, author and historian, joining us from Brussels. Always a pleasure speaking with you, sir.
Doctorow: 12:00 Thanks so much to you.
Transkript
Shivan Chanana, WION: 0:00
Die Ukraine hat 10 F-16-Kampfflugzeuge aus westlichen Ländern erhalten, und bis Ende des Jahres wird sich ihre Zahl auf 20 erhöhen. Das ist die Erwartung. Nun hofft Kiew, dass die neuen Kampfflugzeuge dazu beitragen werden, die russischen Streitkräfte zu schlagen oder zumindest zurückzudrängen, so dass sie die Luftüberlegenheit an der Kriegsfront wiedererlangen können. Das ist es, was die Ukraine erwartet. Wie sieht der Plan der Ukraine für die F-16 aus? Können sie Russlands gewaltige Luftabwehrsysteme überwinden?
Willkommen zu “Game Plan”. Ich bin Shivan Chanana. Um dieses Thema weiter zu erörtern, haben wir Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, Analyst für internationale Angelegenheiten, Autor und Historiker, aus Brüssel zu Gast. Dr. Doctorow, es ist immer ein Vergnügen, mit Ihnen zu sprechen. Glauben Sie, dass die F-16 einen Unterschied im laufenden Krieg zwischen Russland und der Ukraine machen werden?
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 0:41
Nein, und das ist nicht meine persönliche Meinung. Ich denke, es gibt einen Konsens unter den Experten, dass die Auswirkungen auf die Verteidigungs- und Angriffsmöglichkeiten der Ukraine durch die Anschaffung dieser F-16 gleich null sein werden. Ich kann gleich darauf eingehen, warum das so ist, aber ich möchte mich mit dem größeren Thema befassen. Das heißt, was tut die NATO in der und durch die Ukraine? Und hier beziehe ich mich auf einen bekannten Schweizer Militärexperten, Jacques Baud, der von Anfang an die Meinung vertreten hat, dass der Ansatz der NATO gegenüber der Ukraine darin besteht, das Land als Rammbock gegen Russland zu benutzen.
Und die NATO war von Beginn dieses Konflikts an, also seit Februar 2022, nie daran interessiert, dass die Ukraine die Schlacht gewinnt und ihr Territorium befreit. Ihr einziges Interesse bestand darin, Russland so viel Schaden wie möglich zuzufügen, Russland auf die eine oder andere Weise eine demütigende Niederlage beizubringen und dadurch einen Regimewechsel in Moskau und schließlich den Zusammenbruch der Russischen Föderation herbeizuführen. Das ist es, was er gesagt hat, und ich schließe mich dem voll und ganz an, da dies die übergreifende Erklärung für die Geschehnisse ist. Wenn die Ukraine zerschlagen wird, wenn die Ukraine enorme menschliche und materielle Verluste erleidet, wie es der Fall gewesen ist, dann ist das für ihre Unterstützer oder nominellen Unterstützer in den Vereinigten Staaten und der NATO nicht von Belang.
2:13
Die Anschaffung dieser F-16 steht also in dem Gesamtzusammenhang, dass es immer zu wenig, zu spät und zu wenig ausgerüstet ist, denn der Sieg der Ukraine ist nicht das Ziel. Es geht darum, den Konflikt in die Länge zu ziehen, Russland ausbluten zu lassen und es hoffentlich in einen Sumpf langfristiger Kriegsführung mit der Ukraine zu bringen, der Russland von den anderen geopolitischen Herausforderungen ablenkt, mit denen es weltweit konfrontiert ist.
WION: 2:49
Dr. Doctorow, was nun die größere Vision hinter diesem Russland-Ukraine-Krieg angeht, von Seiten der NATO oder des Westens, so gibt es natürlich unterschiedliche Meinungen. Wenn Sie jemanden aus dem Westen oder eher aus den USA fragen, oder jemanden, der das Verständnis der NATO versteht oder unterstützt, wird er vielleicht sagen, dass sie versuchen, Russland von einer Invasion abzuhalten, und dass sie Russland aus der Ukraine herausholen wollen, und dass sie deshalb die Ukraine mit den F-16 bewaffnen. Aber die Ukraine wird aus deren Sicht die F-16 so gut wie möglich einsetzen. Meinen Sie, dass die Ukraine die russische Luftabwehr zerstören muss, um die F-16 effektiv einzusetzen? Und wenn ich von russischer Luftabwehr spreche, dann meine ich damit, dass die F-16 an Russlands S-300, S-400 und S-500 vorbeikommen können, also an deren beeindruckenden Luftabwehrsystemen.
Doctorow: 3:37
Nun, ich denke, Sie kennen die Antwort darauf, und sie ist negativ. Natürlich können sie das nicht. Wie ich schon sagte, ist es für die Ukraine eine unmögliche Mission. Wenn diese Flugzeuge jemals abheben, wäre das ein Wunder. Die Russen wissen sehr genau, wo die verbleibenden Luftwaffenstützpunkte auf ukrainischem Boden sind, auf denen sie stationiert werden können. Die meisten Leute zeigen auf den äußersten Westen der Ukraine, das Gebiet nahe der rumänischen Grenze. Die Russen können auch die Karte lesen, und sie wissen sehr genau, welche Stützpunkte sie noch angreifen können, um es den Ukrainern physisch unmöglich zu machen, diese Flugzeuge von ihrem eigenen Territorium aus zu fliegen.
Was bedeutet das? Es bedeutet, dass sie diese Flugzeuge von Rumänien oder Bulgarien oder Polen aus fliegen würden, und es lädt dazu ein, den Konflikt zu einem direkten Krieg zwischen Russland und der NATO zu eskalieren. Ich bezweifle jedoch, dass es zu dieser kritischen Situation kommen wird, denn die Welt hat mehr als einen Herd für Konflikte und militärische Auseinandersetzungen. Und es könnte durchaus sein, dass er von einem regionalen Krieg im Nahen Osten oder in Westasien überholt wird, der zum neuen Zentrum der Aufmerksamkeit und aller militärischen Bemühungen der Vereinigten Staaten und ihrer Verbündeten wird, wobei die Ukraine ins Hintertreffen gerät und weniger Unterstützung und weniger globale Medienaufmerksamkeit erhält als jetzt. Wir werden sehen. Aber alles wird sich in den unmittelbar vor uns liegenden Wochen abspielen. Was ich jetzt prognostiziere, ist also nicht etwas für die ferne Zukunft. Es ist etwas, das wir alle in den kommenden Tagen genau beobachten werden.
WION: 5:27
Dr. Doctorow, ich entnehme Ihren Ausführungen, dass Russland genau weiß, wo sich die Luftwaffenstützpunkte befinden, und dass Russland diese Stützpunkte, auf denen die F-16 stationiert sein könnten, ins Visier genommen und versprochen hat, sie zu treffen. Glauben Sie, dass es sich hierbei um eine Präventivmaßnahme Russlands handelt, um Schäden zu vermeiden, die die F-16 den russischen Streitkräften zufügen könnten, wenn sie abheben und eingesetzt würden?
Doctorow:
Nun, auf russischer Seite gibt es mehrere Ziele. Eines davon ist, was Sie sagen. Das andere ist, die Vereinigten Staaten zu demütigen und zu zeigen, dass die russische Ausrüstung, einschließlich Flugzeuge und Luftabwehr, allem überlegen ist, was die Vereinigten Staaten ins Ausland zu verkaufen versuchen. Ich denke, diese Botschaft hat sich in der gegenwärtigen Phase des Konflikts bereits bei den weltweiten Beschaffungsbeamten für militärische Ausrüstung, einschließlich der indischen, durchgesetzt. Die Errungenschaften der russischen Waffenentwickler und die Fähigkeit Russlands, sich mit neuer Ausrüstung, mit Drohnen und anderen Geräten, die vor zwei, drei Jahren in der Kriegsführung noch unbekannt waren, sehr schnell an die sich verändernden Herausforderungen auf dem Schlachtfeld anzupassen, sind offenkundig geworden. Russland hat bewiesen, dass es in der Lage ist, diese Fähigkeiten zu beherrschen und Ausrüstung, die diesen Herausforderungen gerecht wird, einzuführen und in großen Stückzahlen zu produzieren.
7:00
Russland hat also in jeder Hinsicht das übertroffen, was das Pentagon und seine Verbündeten in Westeuropa für Russland angenommen haben. Was den weltweiten Verkauf russischer Militärtechnik angeht, so sprechen die Experimente auf ukrainischem Territorium, einschließlich der wahrscheinlichen Zerstörung von F-16-Kampfflugzeugen am Boden, wenn nicht sogar in der Luft, für Russland.
Was die Veränderung des Krieges anbelangt, so sind sich Militärexperten einig, dass 10 oder gar 50 Flugzeuge in dem laufenden Konflikt bedeutungslos sind. Die Russen verfügen über Hunderte von Flugzeugen, viele davon Hochleistungsflugzeuge, die in der Lage sind, die F-16 abzuschießen, falls es jemals zu einem Luftkampf kommen sollte. Aber ich glaube nicht, dass es so weit kommen wird. Ich denke, dass diese Flugzeuge eher durch Schläge von Iskandar oder notfalls durch Hyperschallraketen wie Zircon oder noch wahrscheinlicher Kinzhal zerstört werden, bevor sie überhaupt den Flughafen verlassen. Ich weiß sehr wohl, dass die Vereinigten Staaten und die Ukrainer auf die robuste Beschaffenheit der Luftwaffenstützpunkte zählen, die die Ukraine von ihrer sowjetischen Vergangenheit geerbt hat. Diese waren ungewöhnlich gut verteidigt und verfügten über Betonbunker und Betonhangars für Flugzeuge. Dennoch ist Russlands Feuerkraft mit diesen Hyperschallraketen in der Lage, jeden der bestehenden Luftwaffenstützpunkte in der Ukraine zu zerstören, ganz zu schweigen von den benachbarten Luftwaffenstützpunkten in Rumänien oder Moldawien.
WION: 8:59
Herr Doktor, Sie sagten, dass es ein Wunder wäre, wenn diese Kampfjets überhaupt abheben würden. Ich verstehe, dass Sie nicht glauben, dass es ein Wunder wäre, wenn sie überhaupt innerhalb des Landes fliegen. Aber im Moment ist noch unklar, mit welchen Raketen die F-16 ausgestattet sein werden oder welche Raketen in die Ukraine geschickt werden, mit denen die F-16 ausgerüstet werden sollen. Und was noch wichtiger ist: Welche Reichweite werden sie haben? Glauben Sie, dass die Ukraine diese F-16 für Ziele innerhalb Russlands einsetzen würde, wenn sie starten und sich im ukrainischen Luftraum befinden?
Doctorow: 9:33
Ich denke, das ist das einzige Interesse, das die Kiewer Behörden an diesen Flugzeugen haben. Es ist unsinnig, wieder von Selbstverteidigung zu sprechen oder davon, dass sie damit die russische Luftabwehr zerstören wollen. Aber die Ukrainer hoffen, diese Flugzeuge für den Einsatz von Langstreckenraketen zu nutzen, was die Vereinigten Staaten unseres Wissens nach noch nicht für die Ausrüstung der F-16 genehmigt haben. Wir werden sehen. Alles ist immer ein wenig verspätet.
10:05
Der Punkt mit der Zerstörung dieser Flugzeuge am Boden ist – wir müssen uns nur daran erinnern, was in der vergangenen Woche geschehen ist. In den großen Medien des Westens wurde dies nicht thematisiert, aber in den russischen Medien wird über den zerstörerischen Angriff mit Kinzhal-Raketen auf einen umgebauten und neu gestalteten Stützpunkt westlich von Lemberg, ganz in der Nähe von Lemberg, gesprochen, der zahlreiche, Dutzende, wenn nicht Hunderte von NATO-Offizieren beherbergte, die mit der Ausbildung und Führung der ukrainischen Streitkräfte beschäftigt waren. Wenn dieser Stützpunkt so vollständig zerstört wurde und dabei, wie es heißt, 200 oder 300 Offiziere, darunter viele hochrangige NATO-Beamte, ums Leben kamen, wie groß ist dann die Chance, dass irgendeine F-16, die irgendwo auf ukrainischem Gebiet stationiert ist, den Racheangriffen der Russen entgeht? Ich glaube null.
WION: 11:18
Vielen Dank, Dr. Doctorow, dass Sie all Ihre Erkenntnisse mit uns teilen und uns Dinge mitteilen, die die normale Öffentlichkeit vielleicht nicht zu hören bekommt, weil der Großteil der Berichterstattung aus dem Westen kommt. Aber das ist eine Erzählung, die auch die Ohren der Menschen erreichen muss, die an der Sache interessiert sind und sehen wollen, wohin der russisch-ukrainische Krieg wirklich führt. Im Moment hat die Ukraine 10 F-16. Bis Ende des Jahres werden weitere erwartet, und im nächsten Jahr sollen es noch mehr sein. Welche Auswirkungen wird das haben? Wie Sie bereits sagten, werden wir nicht allzu lange warten müssen, um zu sehen, wie sich das tatsächlich auswirkt. Vielen Dank für Ihre Teilnahme an der Sendung “Game Plan”. Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, Analyst für internationale Angelegenheiten, Autor und Historiker, aus Brüssel zugeschaltet. Es ist immer ein Vergnügen, mit Ihnen zu sprechen, Sir.
We are now entering the second week of August and, looking at the reduced numbers of views to my own recent interview with Judge Napolitano on Judging Freedom compared to several weeks ago, as well as the comparatively reduced numbers of other interviewees with one or two exceptions (John Mearsheimer, in particular) it is manifestly obvious that the concerned citizens who constitute our audience have called it a day and are now at the beach somewhere or at another vacation getaway where they are trying to enjoy life. That means putting aside all concern about why and how the end of the world is nigh.
I say ‘god bless’ to them all and, for my own part, am trying to do the same. I am spending some weeks at a rented apartment on the Belgian coast, where rain or no, everyone is determined to have a good time.
Knokke is the preserve of Belgium’s upper middle class-lower upper class strata. It is where they wisely lock away their savings in residential real estate that has appreciated 800% or more in the past 25 years and is likely to continue to soar in decades to come, far outpacing the stodgy growth rates in the rest of the country. You can exchange a 10,000 or 15,000 euros per meter apartments in Paris for a similar surface area in Knokke and have no cash left over.
When I brought my 16 year old grandson here for a couple of days a month ago, he asked in all seriousness: what do people do here? And he was left perplexed by my answer: ‘they live here,’ meaning that you have to spend your days somewhere and this is an agreeable place to do that even if there are no exciting water sports, glitzy movie theaters or other entertainments that a 16 year old might think of first. I explained that they come to enjoy a beer seated at a brasserie by the paved walkway abutting the beach or to enjoy fine dining at some of the country’s best gourmet restaurants, like Olivier’s, host to ‘millionaires craving love’ as a 1990s issue of Het Laatste Nieuws printed, quoting the owner-founder Philippe Moffaert. Olivier’s is just a 5 minute walk from our apartment. Alternatively, they spend their time with close relatives and friends from elsewhere in Belgium who own or rent apartments or villas just near their own. feasting on restaurant quality take-out food from local caterers.
In keeping with the often glum, rainy weather of my home city, Brussels, the predominant mood there is almost always restrained and inward looking. But here in Knokke the mood is a direct continuation of those cheery faces you see in Rubens paintings: this is Flemish camaraderie and exuberance at its most traditional. It is family life with lots of little kids to be seen as well as heard on the walkway for strolling along the beach, the digue or zeedijk, if you will.
This town was once famous for its Casino. Times change, and the Casino is now slated for demolition and rebirth, they say, in a more contemporary form. Its many summer events have been reduced to just one month long Gala Show which promises three hours of Moulin Rouge type entertainment, featuring dancing girls in elaborate plumed costumes and bare asses. My wife and I went there the other night and were very pleasantly surprised by how well the management understood the needs and desires of its mixed audience which ranged in age from 18 year olds to grandmas and grandpas in their late sixties to early eighties.
If most of the dancing girls were overweight and more representative of 19th century demi-monde than of the sleek long-legged Slavic gals on the French stages, there was good reason: the audience is not 40 year old purchasing executives being hosted to a sexy evening out by French corporate sales people but retired Flemings looking with greater interest at the singers providing renditions of ABBA and Elton John songs or world class variety show jugglers and magicians, who also appeared on stage. And they came in groups of family and friend s, taking tables for six to ten for themselves.
Midway through the 3 hour show, the audience was already warming up. Hands were swaying in the air to some of the songs. By the last 45 minutes, even the oldest and least stable on their feet among the audience threw away their canes and were shuffling- dancing between tables. The management had very wisely provided an ambiance where their aging audience could shed decades, shed self-consciousness and enjoy some moments of youthful ‘shaking a leg.’
Here on the coast, French is a disappearing language spoken only by ever declining numbers of Walloon and Brusseler visitors from the south of the country who remain loyal to this territory year after year despite national ethnic divisions and political wrangling. The locals remain competently bilingual, but it is now English and Flemish that they speak. Nonetheless, the Flemings clearly remain appreciative of the achievements of French civilization, such as the butter laden croissants they line up to purchase at the better Knokke bakeries. In the same spirit nearly half of the songs we heard from the stage in the Casino were French chansons.
Were any of those folks around me in the Casino thinking about the war in Ukraine or of the about to start regional war in the Middle East? I very much doubt it. For them, like for the members of the prestigious royal social club of which I am a member in Brussels, the wars are just an inconvenience, a nuisance, and everyone responsible for them in their eyes, like Vladimir Putin or the Iranian leadership, is a pest. If you were to tell them that we are hair’s breadth away from a Third World War, they would consider you mentally unbalanced.
I easily imagine that the situation is the same if you visited the New Jersey shore these days. The insouciance, the willful ignorance of the unpleasantness and outright mortal dangers of current international politics is a commonality that binds together those enjoying prosperity on the two continents, of whom there are vastly greater numbers than those of us in the Opposition to the American led permanent wars and chaos.
All of the foregoing brings me back to my own explanation of how we may all be delivered from well-earned destruction: divine intervention. Watch for it!
Wir befinden uns jetzt in der zweiten Augustwoche, und wenn man sich die im Vergleich zu vor einigen Wochen gesunkenen Zugriffszahlen auf mein eigenes Interview mit Judge Napolitano auf Judging Freedom ansieht, sowie die vergleichsweise gesunkenen Zugriffszahlen auf andere Interviewpartner mit ein oder zwei Ausnahmen (insbesondere John Mearsheimer), dann ist es offensichtlich, dass die besorgten Bürger, die unser Publikum ausmachen, Feierabend gemacht haben und jetzt irgendwo am Strand oder an einem anderen Urlaubsort sind, wo sie versuchen, das Leben zu genießen. Das bedeutet, dass sie alle Sorgen darüber, warum und wie das Ende der Welt naht, beiseite schieben.
Ich sage ihnen allen ‘Gott segne Sie’ und versuche meinerseits, dasselbe zu tun. Ich verbringe einige Wochen in einer gemieteten Wohnung an der belgischen Küste, wo jeder, egal ob es regnet oder nicht, entschlossen ist, sich zu amüsieren.
Knokke ist die Domäne der belgischen oberen Mittelschicht und der unteren Oberschicht. Hier haben sie ihre Ersparnisse klugerweise in Wohnimmobilien angelegt, die in den letzten 25 Jahren einen Wertzuwachs von 800 % oder mehr erfahren haben und in den kommenden Jahrzehnten wahrscheinlich weiter steigen werden, weit mehr als die schwerfälligen Wachstumsraten im Rest des Landes. Sie können eine 10.000 oder 15.000 Euro pro Quadratmeter teure Wohnung in Paris gegen eine ähnliche Fläche in Knokke eintauschen und haben kein Geld mehr übrig.
Als ich vor einem Monat meinen 16-jährigen Enkel für ein paar Tage hierher gebracht habe, fragte er allen Ernstes: Was machen die Leute hier? Und meine Antwort verblüffte ihn: “Sie leben hier”, was bedeutet, dass man seine Tage irgendwo verbringen muss, und dies ist ein angenehmer Ort, um dies zu tun, auch wenn es keine aufregenden Wassersportarten, glitzernde Kinos oder andere Unterhaltungsmöglichkeiten gibt, an die ein 16-Jähriger vielleicht zuerst denkt. Ich habe ihm erklärt, dass sie hierher kommen, um ein Bier in einer Brasserie am gepflasterten Strandweg zu trinken oder um in einigen der besten Gourmet-Restaurants des Landes zu speisen, wie z.B. im Olivier’s, das “Millionäre auf der Suche nach Liebe” beherbergt, wie es in einer Ausgabe von Het Laatste Nieuws aus den 1990er Jahren hieß, in der der Eigentümer und Gründer Philippe Moffaert zitiert wurde. Olivier’s ist nur 5 Minuten zu Fuß von unserer Wohnung entfernt. Oder sie verbringen ihre Zeit mit engen Verwandten und Freunden aus anderen Teilen Belgiens, die Wohnungen oder Villen in der Nähe ihrer eigenen besitzen oder mieten, und schlemmen in Restaurantqualität, die sie von lokalen Anbietern erhalten.
Passend zu dem oft trüben, regnerischen Wetter in meiner Heimatstadt Brüssel ist die vorherrschende Stimmung dort fast immer verhalten und nach innen gerichtet. Aber hier in Knokke ist die Stimmung eine direkte Fortsetzung der fröhlichen Gesichter, die man auf Rubens-Gemälden sieht: das ist flämische Kameradschaft und Ausgelassenheit in ihrer traditionellsten Form. Es ist ein Familienleben mit vielen kleinen Kindern, die man auf dem Spazierweg am Strand, dem digue oder zeedijk, wenn man so will, sehen und hören kann.
Diese Stadt war einst für ihr Casino berühmt. Die Zeiten ändern sich, und das Casino soll nun abgerissen und in einer zeitgemäßeren Form wiederaufgebaut werden, heißt es. Die vielen Sommerveranstaltungen wurden auf eine einmonatige Gala-Show reduziert, die drei Stunden Unterhaltung im Stil des Moulin Rouge verspricht, mit tanzenden Mädchen in aufwendigen Kostümen mit Federn und nackten Hintern. Meine Frau und ich waren neulich eines abends dort und sehr angenehm überrascht, wie gut das Management die Bedürfnisse und Wünsche des gemischten Publikums verstanden hat, das im Alter von 18 Jahren bis zu Omas und Opas in ihren späten Sechzigern bis frühen Achtzigern reichte.
Wenn die meisten Tänzerinnen übergewichtig waren und eher der Demi-Monde des 19. Jahrhunderts entsprachen als den schlanken, langbeinigen slawischen Mädels auf den französischen Bühnen, so hatte das einen guten Grund: Das Publikum besteht nicht aus 40-jährigen Führungskräften aus dem Einkaufsbereich, die von französischen Vertriebsmitarbeitern zu einem sexy Abend eingeladen werden, sondern aus Flamen im Ruhestand, die mit größerem Interesse den Sängern zuschauen, die ABBA- und Elton-John-Songs vortragen, oder den Weltklasse-Varieté-Jongleuren und Zauberern, die ebenfalls auf der Bühne stehen. Und sie kamen in Gruppen von Familie und Freunden und nahmen Tische für sechs bis zehn Personen für sich allein.
Nach der Hälfte der dreistündigen Show war das Publikum bereits aufgewärmt. Zu einigen Liedern wurden die Hände in der Luft geschwungen. In den letzten 45 Minuten warfen selbst die ältesten und unsichersten unter den Zuschauern ihre Stöcke weg und schlurften tanzend zwischen den Tischen hin und her. Das Management hatte in weiser Voraussicht für ein Ambiente gesorgt, in dem das alternde Publikum die Jahrzehnte hinter sich lassen, sein Bewusstsein seiner selbst ablegen und einige Momente des jugendlichen “Beineschwingens” genießen konnte.
Hier an der Küste ist Französisch eine verschwindende Sprache, die nur noch von einer immer geringer werdenden Zahl wallonischer und brüsseler Besucher aus dem Süden des Landes gesprochen wird, die diesem Gebiet trotz nationaler ethnischer Spaltungen und politischer Querelen Jahr für Jahr die Treue halten. Die Einheimischen sind nach wie vor kompetent zweisprachig, aber sie sprechen jetzt Englisch und Flämisch. Nichtsdestotrotz wissen die Flamen die Errungenschaften der französischen Zivilisation nach wie vor zu schätzen, wie etwa die mit Butter gefüllten Croissants, für die sie in den besseren Bäckereien von Knokke Schlange stehen. In diesem Sinne waren fast die Hälfte der Lieder, die wir auf der Bühne des Casinos hörten, französische Chansons.
Hat irgendjemand von den Leuten um mich herum im Casino an den Krieg in der Ukraine oder an den bevorstehenden regionalen Krieg im Nahen Osten gedacht? Ich bezweifle das sehr. Für sie, wie auch für die Mitglieder des angesehenen königlichen Gesellschaftsklubs, dem ich in Brüssel angehöre, sind die Kriege nur eine Unannehmlichkeit, ein Ärgernis, und jeder, der für sie verantwortlich ist, wie Wladimir Putin oder die iranische Führung, ist in ihren Augen eine Plage. Wenn man ihnen sagen würde, dass wir um Haaresbreite von einem Dritten Weltkrieg entfernt sind, würden sie einen für geistig verwirrt halten.
Ich kann mir gut vorstellen, dass die Situation die gleiche ist, wenn Sie in diesen Tagen die Küste von New Jersey besuchen. Die Sorglosigkeit, die vorsätzliche Ignoranz gegenüber den Unannehmlichkeiten und offenkundigen tödlichen Gefahren der gegenwärtigen internationalen Politik ist eine Gemeinsamkeit, die diejenigen verbindet, die sich auf beiden Kontinenten ihres Wohlstands erfreuen, von denen es weitaus mehr gibt als diejenigen von uns, die in der Opposition zu den von den Amerikanern geführten permanenten Kriegen und dem Chaos stehen.
All das bringt mich zurück zu meiner eigenen Erklärung, wie wir alle von der wohlverdienten Zerstörung befreit werden können: göttliches Eingreifen. Haltet Ausschau danach!
JAfter the two fallow weeks when Judge Andrew Napolitano was away on vacation, it was very good earlier today to resume our weekly online chat about developments in global politics as seen from the Russian perspective.
Our discussion topics included how the war in and about Ukraine has transformed the Russian nation as its military successes against the whole of NATO and the growing prosperity of its working and middle classes in the face of the ‘sanctions from hell’ imposed by the United States and its allies overcame a decades-long inferiority complex that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Among other topics was the current official Russian position with respect to the American presidential election in November now that Joe Biden, Putin’s originally preferred candidate has bowed out and Kamala Harris has become the presumed candidate of the Democrats.
We talked about Putin’s ‘mirror image’ plans for countering American installation of Tomahawk cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles in Germany in 2026.
I am hopeful that viewers will find value in these various information points and come back for more next week.
Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus) followed by full transcript in English
Judging Freedom: Hat der Krieg Russland verändert?
Nach den zwei ruhigen Wochen, in denen Judge Andrew Napolitano im Urlaub war, war es heute sehr gut, unseren wöchentlichen Online-Chat über die Entwicklungen in der Weltpolitik aus russischer Sicht wieder aufzunehmen.
Zu unseren Diskussionsthemen gehörte, wie der Krieg in der und um die Ukraine die russische Nation verändert hat, da ihre militärischen Erfolge gegen die gesamte NATO und der wachsende Wohlstand ihrer Arbeiter- und Mittelschicht angesichts der von den Vereinigten Staaten und ihren Verbündeten verhängten “Sanktionen aus der Hölle” einen jahrzehntelangen Minderwertigkeitskomplex überwunden haben, der auf den Zusammenbruch der Sowjetunion folgte.
Ein weiteres Thema war die derzeitige offizielle russische Position in Bezug auf die amerikanischen Präsidentschaftswahlen im November, nachdem Joe Biden, Putins ursprünglich bevorzugter Kandidat, nicht mehr antritt und Kamala Harris die mutmaßliche Kandidatin der Demokraten geworden ist.
Wir sprachen über Putins “spiegelbildliche” Pläne zur Abwehr der amerikanischen Aufstellung von Tomahawk-Marschflugkörpern und Hyperschallraketen in Deutschland im Jahr 2026.
Ich hoffe, dass die Zuschauer einen Nutzen aus diesen verschiedenen Informationen ziehen und nächste Woche wiederkommen, um mehr zu erfahren.
Transcription by a reader
Judge Andrew Napolitano: 00:32 Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for ‘Judging Freedom”. Today is Thursday, August 1st — August 1st, where’s the summer going? 2024. Professor Gilbert Doctorow will be with us in just a moment on: is the war in Ukraine transforming Russia?
[Omitted commercial message.]
02:05 Professor Doctorow, good day to you, my friend, and thank you so much for joining us. We have many things to discuss. I’d like to start with Russia. Do you think that the war in Ukraine is transforming Russia, either the government or the people or their relationship to the government?
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 02:24 Well, I’ve started to get my mind around this question because I received an invitation by an academic in Florida to contribute to a book he’s publishing in the UK, and I was given the chapter precisely on this question of Russian self-conception and how wars make nations. In Western media, there has been occasional mention of the new Ukraine, of the Ukrainian national concept that has taken hold as a result of the pressures of the war and the patriotism that war necessarily stirs up. But they have given no attention to the other side of the equation. What has the war done to Russia? And that’s something that I have noted in a variety of ways by visiting Russia and by following their media.
03:15 The biggest change has been a realization of the power and importance of their own country, something about which Russians were skeptical. They had been running an inferiority complex from the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, and it took a long time to recover from that. Just this particular war and the understanding of the military achievements of their country up against not just Ukraine, although that is a formidable enough power as the war started, but against the whole of NATO. They follow the news. The news in Russia is understated, underplayed. They do not behave in a boastful way on Russian news stations or commentary. But there’s enough information in following the daily action on the front for the Russian viewer to understand that his country is achieving something quite remarkable and unexpected.
04:16 I go back to the last presidential election when the the Democratic-Liberal groups, Yabloko is the best known among them, who were opposing President Putin’s re-election and who were saying that what he was trying to do was unrealistic, given that Russia accounts for only 3% of global GNP, and how could it possibly on that basis be, consider itself, a peer of the United States with its vastly greater national wealth. Nonetheless, the reality on the ground in the daily reports proved to the Russian public that their country has possibly the most effective army in the world for the type of fight that’s going on, a land war against Ukraine.
05:05 I don’t say in every sense, of course. Everyone knows, that a country like Russia, I mean every Russian knows, cannot be placed on the same status as the United States with its 900 or whatever military bases around the world. But for the sake of preserving its own sovereignty, I think Russians are persuaded that their country is quite extraordinary, and they are revising their feelings about their homeland. And that comes up in all aspects. Russian culture is changing in many ways before our eyes due to the modernization of transportation, the upgrading of retailing, and other developments that affect everyone every day. I see this, even my last experience a month ago, two months ago, in St. Petersburg, taking taxis.
06:08 Whereas going back, all of my experience for the last two decades was the taxi drivers, I called them the voice of the people, and one of my sources of information about the country, but most of the taxi drivers I took were listening to, shall we call them opposition, if not seditious radio stations. This was a matter of course, when you got into a taxi, you understood that they were probably listening to the equivalent of dozhd’, of rain. These were strictly anti-Putin. Now, the Russian taxis, in line with many other changes in Russian commercial life, are being driven by young ambitious men who don’t talk politics and who certainly don’t listen to seditious radio stations. They instead have their minds fixated on where they’re going to get spare parts for their Chinese imported cars, and they will very happily engage you in discussion of that.
07:11 The negative feeling, the black humor that was so customary in my period when I lived in Russia, which is the 1995-2002, and in the decades since which I visited, that has dried up. Friends and acquaintances whom I would consider an intellectual community– and these were among the majority of our acquaintances, but by no means all– they were always, by nature, very skeptical of their government and very enamored of travel to Western Europe and the world at large. They have changed their mindsets, and the war has been the greatest determinant of that. They understand fully that the West, the United States-led West, is looking for the destruction of their country. And necessarily, they have had to accept somewhat reluctantly that the West that they adored is no longer a friend and was unlikely to be a friend in the generation to come.
Napolitano: 08:14 About a year ago, I interviewed a Russian businessman who himself was a retired FSB agent, and I asked him, what do the Russian people think of Joe Biden? And as soon as the question was translated, I saw a smile on his face from ear to ear, and the answer came back. Judge, when we often walk down the street with each other, we high five and say, thank you, Joe Biden. He has unified the country. He has caused us to become economically independent, and we’re actually more prosperous than we were before the sanctions were imposed. Do you agree with those observations? And again, this is about a year ago.
Doctorow: 09:00 Let me comment on the last sentence you made about more prosperous. I’m asked occasionally when I speak publicly by people in the audience, what do you recommend that we read or listen to in order to be better informed about what is going on in the world and in particular in the East-West confrontation that we see in our newspapers, but which is always colored by the Washington narrative. What do I recommend? Well, some, I usually say, just read what you read, but be more attentive to what’s in front of your eyes. Or watch the BBC, but look for the discrepancy between what the presenter is saying to you and the images that you find in the background.
09:42 This discrepancy tells you that there is a false overlay, an editorial overlay, which is in contradiction with the realities. And so it is– the “Financial Times” three or four days ago had a feature article, must be five or six tight pages, on the prosperity of today’s Russia, which they described in great detail, how incomes of rust-belt towns, in one- industry towns, which had fallen into absolute poverty in the 1990s, these had been revived, and people are now earning 10 times what they did just a couple of years ago. Our truck drivers in Russia are now earning the equivalent of 2,000 euros a month. This is– a great deal of wealth has come into the pockets of working-class and middle- class Russian citizens. And that, of course affects their feelings of patriotism and enthusiasm for the powers that be. Now, this was in the “Financial Times”, and I make that point.
Napolitano: 10:46 Right, right. And the “Financial Times” is not particularly pro-Russian, and not at all, in the war in Ukraine. If anything, it’s one of Kyiv’s cheerleaders, is it not?
Doctorow: Definitely. They like the New York Times. They try to put a spin– that is, the editorial. I don’t distinguish between the journalists, many of whom are excellent professionals, and the people who publish what they write, and the copywriters who put the titles, the headings on their articles, titles which often contradict the content, particularly if you go down three or four pages.
Napolitano: 11:29 I agree, I agree. I read the “Financial Times” every day. I agree with you fully on your analysis of it. I want you to listen to a retired British colonel by the name of Philip Ingram. I really never heard of him before, but this is a contrary view. And I’d be happy to hear your thoughts on a cut number 11.
Ingram: 11:48 It’s costing them over a thousand troops a day. In the past 24 hours, the Russians have lost over 1300 troops. They’ve lost over 28 artillery systems. They’ve lost over 12 tanks. And they’re losing those sorts of numbers on a daily basis. And that is, frankly, unsustainable. No matter how big your military force is, no matter how capable it is.
Napolitano: Is he talking about some other war, or is he talking about Ukraine?
Doctorow: Well, for a liar, he’s being very modest. Generally speaking, if you follow the news over the last two years, whenever the Russians put out some statement about what they have done, what they have achieved, a day or two later, you find the mirror image of this statement made by the Ukrainians who were saying that’s the Russians who have suffered these losses. Now he said the Russians are losing 1,000– my good says the man has no imagination The Russians have been saying daily that the Ukrainians are losing 2,000. So I would take it in that spirit: that he is a disseminator of false news and of propaganda.
Napolitano: 12:55 Here’s President Putin who’s not very happy on July 28, just three or four days ago, commenting on the Western placement or plans to place offensive weaponry in Germany aimed, obviously, eastwar. Cut number one.
Putin: [English voice over Russian] The situation recalls the events of the Cold War era. If the US implements such plans, we will consider ourselves free from the previously imposed one-sided moratorium on the deployment of medium- and shorter-range strike systems. We will take mirror measures for their deployment.
Napolitano: 13:40 There’s that phrase again, “mirror measures”. How do you read this?
Doctorow: I think he’s preparing the public for the Russian rollout of what they already have developed. There’s been discussion in the media, what missiles Russians have. From the rather authoritative commentators that I’ve heard on the program of Vyacheslav Nikonov, “The Great Game”, I take it to understand that these are Kinzhal rockets, which have, which are almost unstoppable. And they, the plans are to extend their range so that they will cover the whole of Western Europe. And that is the Russian response. There is some discussion still about exactly what the Americans are going to put in. The announcement made from Germany that these will be the Tomahawks and also hypersonic missiles, but the United States to date has no hypersonic missiles. So, that is a bit confusing. And also there was mentioned, or so it seemed to be mentioned, the missiles going in being long-range, not just, not short- to medium-range.
14:50 So these discrepancies still have to be clarified. But the notion is that the United States would be putting in place missiles capable of destroying the early-warning systems and the military infrastructure for a effective Russian response to a first strike by the United States.
Napolitano: 15:14 Does the Kremlin perceive this, Professor Doctorow, talking about missiles in Germany, as just a provocation or as a serious threat that must be neutralized?
Doctorow: Oh, it’s both. It is a provocation. The United States is offering what it still doesn’t have. But as a threat, as a real threat, of course, the Tomahawks, as they presently exist, could introduced and would be a serious problem for Russia, depending again on who presses the button first. And that is a subject for discussion. What is Russian predisposition to make preventive attack or to only respond to incoming missiles? Of course, responding to incoming missiles, if there’s a five minute path time between launch and hitting target is a problematic all by itself.
Napolitano: 16:11 Going to the other side of Russia, here is a view of Russian and Chinese fighter jets off the coast of Alaska. Now for what purpose was this done?
Doctorow: The purpose of both the Russians and the Chinese is to counter the notion of an Asian NATO. This has been rolled out by Washington, it has been spoken for by Ian Stoltenberg, and it is– the Russians are concerned, not without reason, that the United States wants to build on AUKUS, that is on the American, Australian, and British alliance that now exists for cooperation in the Asian theater, and to bring in other countries to prepare for a common military force against the Chinese, first by containment, and then for an eventual war in which they would all participate and try to snuff out China.
17:26 The Chinese, for their part, are emphasizing that Eurasia has two ends to it. And if NATO can move east, then China can move west. We saw this three weeks ago, when the Chinese appeared at the Polish and Ukrainian borders within Belarus for what were called anti-terrorist common exercises. We saw this when the Chinese sent two of their naval vessels to St. Petersburg last Sunday to participate in Navy Day, the first time anything like that has happened before. So, the Chinese are making the point, and the Russians are very happy to help them make the point, that if NATO goes global, then the Russian-Chinese alliance, well, it’s not an alliance formally, but cooperation in in mutual defense goes global.
Napolitano: 18:27 Do the Russians have nuclear submarines off the coast of the United States, whether it’s down by Florida or up by the mid-Atlantic?
Doctorow: Yes, they do. But that is not the only threat that they are posing to the United States. We don’t know the status of the Poseidon, a submarine drone or torpedo, which can blow up a city like the size of Washington with a tidal wave. We don’t know the status of that, whether it’s been implemented, where they actually have stationed these invisible because the radar, because they’re such a depth that I say radar– to sonar that you cannot follow them. They exist or not. We do know that the Russians threatened going back to 2018, to station frigates off the US coast, just in international waters.
19:24 Frigates carrying these hypersonic missiles and having a five-minute or 10-minute flight time to Washington, D.C. and to other major United States cities and military installations. This has been dismissed by some people, saying that the frigates are visible, they can easily be tracked, then they are not effective. But there’s more to it than that. The missiles that we’re talking about are also capable of being carried by ordinary 40-foot commercial containers. And so theoretically, they could be positioned in third country vessels, which would not necessarily be followed by US reconnaissance. Therefore, the possibility of the two seas, the Atlantic and the Pacific, being not safeguards for America, but being the launch space for deadly threats against America, that remains alive.
Napolitano: 20:26 Wow. Fascinating observations. Since last you and I spoke, there was, of course, the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, and there was, of course, the withdrawal of Joe Biden from the American presidential race. What is the Kremlin’s view of the attempt to kill Trump, the withdrawal of Biden, and the ascendancy of Kamala Harris?
Doctorow: 20:54 Well, as I follow these talk shows, and Viesti, the official state news, I see a distinct picture emerging. One is not the least bit surprised that there would have been an attempt on Trump’s life. Two, simply that is given the way that the deep state and the intelligence agencies, the three-letter agencies in the states operate according to Russian understanding. As for the dropping out of Biden and the ascendancy of Kamala Harris, that has created significant change in Russian official positions with respect to the U.S. elections. We know that Vladimir Putin said months and months ago that his preferred candidate between the two, Trump and Biden was Biden because Biden is more predictable, whereas Trump is really a wild card. They were saying that in 2020 as well, I might say, I might mention, notwithstanding all the Russiagate talk in the States.
22:06 The fact now is that the Russians are trashing Kamala Harris. The most piquant remarks about how she started her career on her back, that Megyn Kelly has been broadcasting recently, they have been picked up by Russian state television and they are fed to the Russian audience. Kamala Harris is not the favorite flavor of the Kremlin, and that leads them to be involuntarily backing Trump.
Napolitano: 22:40 Very interesting. What is the Russian view of what appears to be coming conflagration in the Middle East, particularly the theory that if Israel engages in a full-bore invasion of Lebanon, iran will engage in a full-bore invasion of israel. And if iran is seriously threatened it will look to the Kremlin for assistance. What is your take on that?
Doctorow: Officially, the Russians are being very conservative in describing what’s going on presently in the Middle East. I was watching last night’s program of Nikonov on his talk show that I described as the most authoritative and the most calm and reasonable. There are others that are quite emotional. His is not. And in the sequence of items that they discussed, the number one item was Mr. Putin’s meeting with president of Indonesia, which was highly important, but you would think not more important than the threat of war in the Middle East. So it was number three, only number three item was the assassination of the Hezbollah leader in Tehran and the Iranian reaction. So right now, at the present moment, Russia is not preparing its public for any possible intervention in the Middle East.
24:24 Nonetheless, there are other developments. I’ve pointed out in the past two weeks the surprise visit, a very hasty visit that lasted two and a half hours of direct talks with Putin by Bashar Assad of Syria. They were talking business and they were talking clearly what the tango will be, who’s going to take which stance step as the situation develops in the neighborhood of Syria. Remember that the Russians are there, even without regard to what Israel may do to Lebanon or elsewhere. What they do in Syria brings them into very close proximity with the two Russian bases, one naval base and one air base. I imagine that one discussion point was providing assistance to Syria in defending its sovereignty against Israeli air incursions and bombing, which has gone on without interruption from the time of the Syrian civil war to today. That is now becoming unacceptable to the Russians, that Syria is so vulnerable and that Israel has a free hand, because Syria is an important transit point for Iranian military and other assistance to Hezbollah.
Napolitano: 25:57 Can you foresee Russian involvement either land, sea or air in an effort to repel the IDF from getting too close to Syria?
Doctorow: I think that would be a decision forced on them. It’s certainly not in Russia’s plans. But as one of your recent guests, Colonel McGregor, was saying, and I followed his remarks very closely, Washington would be badly mistaken if it thinks that Russia is tied down by the Ukraine war It is unable or unwilling to intervene in the Middle East to defend its interests and the security of its close cooperation partners of which Iran is the single most important.
Napolitano: 26:51 I want to play for you a clip from the person that I often refer to as the adult in the room, you know immediately who it is, describing the Russian view of the American failures in foreign policy. Cut number three.
Sergey Lavrov: 27:12 [English voice over Russian] When the United States entered the world stage in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, how did it end? What peaceful changes for the better occurred there? Now when they repeat like a mantra, we will support Ukraine for as long as it takes, I’m curious: how long will it take? Like in Afghanistan, where it took 20 years to realize that you lost, or in Iraq, where you also left, although now you are trying to stay despite the Iraqi Parliament’s decision that the US should withdraw its troops. Or like in Libya, where the state collapsed and now everyone is trying to piece it back together. A multipolar world is a reality. It’s not something someone invented.
Napolitano: 27:55 Your thoughts?
Doctorow: Well, the language has changed in Russia. And senior spokesmen, of whom Mr. Lavrov is one of the key personalities, he is saying now, what he certainly knew years ago, but never dared to say. He is naming names, and he is naming specific US failures and their consequences, which mostly were very bloody consequences for the countries that they were going to assist on their way to democracy. So this– what he is saying, you will hear now from other Russian officials, whether they be legislators, as Duma or Federation Council members, who are given the microphone, or if there are other spokesmen from within the government. And of course, the most open and strongest critic of the United States is his own deputy, Mr. Epcof. It’s a new language from Russia, which is refreshing, because for so long, for more than a decade, they were speaking about their colleagues in the United States. And it took a while to progress to something close to calling them the enemies.
Napolitano: 29:15 Professor Doctorow, it’s a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you for sharing the breadth of your knowledge. I hope you can come back with us again next week and continue with us on a regular basis. Those two vacation weeks of mine were an aberration. We’re we’re back in the saddle. Thank you so much.
Doctorow: Well, thanks for the invitation.
Napolitano: Of course, great conversation and I’m privileged to have a very, very intelligent person willing to share everything with us. Coming up later today at 9 o’clock Eastern, Tony Schaefer. At 3 o’clock this afternoon Eastern, Professor John Mearsheimer. At 4 o’clock this afternoon Eastern, Aaron Maté.
I take pride in being among a prestigious group of regular interviewees for Nima Alkhorshid’s Dialogue Works broadcasts on youtube.
The title (above) which he gave to yesterday’s 45 minute chat is revealing about the art: a certain amount of hype is essential to catch the interest of an audience that has many alternative expert discussions on line to choose from.
To be sure, the daily advances of Russian forces all along the line of confrontation in Ukraine are being recognized even by Kiev’s cheerleaders in Western media, like The Financial Times and The New York Times, although they wishfully attribute this to Moscow’s willingness to take heavy losses, something which is scarcely believable if you follow closely the methods that the Russian high command puts in place before every attack on the Ukrainian positions, namely devastating aerial bombing, rocket, artillery and drone strikes that destroy the defenses of the enemy well before the Russian storm brigades move in for the kill.
On the other side, some of our most respected military commentators, like Colonel Douglas Macgregor and Scott Ritter are describing the daily Russian advance in such glowing terms that one may well expect the Ukrainian military to capitulate in a week or two, an eventuality which I believe is highly unlikely, precisely because of the deliberateness and caution of the Russian high command, as well as the appearance on the Ukrainian side of ever new schemes to escape their fate, such as the cutthroat mercenaries from Colombia who were shown for the first time by Russian television tonight.
In this interview, I put the battlefield situation in the frame of what I see each day on Russian state television, meaning the Vesti news bulletins and the most authoritative and sober talk show and commentary, Bolshaya Igra (The Great Game) hosted by Vycheslav Nikonov . Russian television reporting still plays down what is happening at the line of confrontation. It is being spoken of in terms of improved positioning, presumably for a major offensive still to come. The reporting from each area of the front calls out the settlements that are being fought over, what parts have already been taken by Russian troops, what parts are held by the enemy. But the war correspondents intentionally do not give you a sense of their strategic importance or of how Russia will move not a couple of kilometers forward per day but the many dozens of kilometers that must be covered to completely liberate the Donbas, not to mention reach the Dnieper river, the midway point in what was Ukraine in 1991.
Nonetheless, as I point out in this interview, there is a very significant change in what the front line soldiers are saying to the reporters today compared to several months ago. Back then it was clear that the Russians were heavily stressed from dodging the drones and return artillery fire. They faced multiple daily counter attacks here and there which they had to snuff out. Now these soldiers are clearly very confident of their superiority in terms of arms, tactics and strategy. They are, as Donald Trump told Zelensky in their recent phone call, ‘a killing machine’ that is prevailing.
*****
Those of you who watch this interview will appreciate that it also covers a variety of topics from current international developments, beginning with a discussion of the Navy Day celebrations in St Petersburg this past Sunday. Navy Day 2024 was notable for showing off some of the latest additions to the Russian fleet, for the foreign vessels participating in this event for the first time in my decades long experience, for the foreign, mainly BRICS delegations of high navy officers who flew to Russia to take part and for a very important speech by Vladimir Putin on Russia’s response to US plans to install in Germany in 2026 long range nuclear capable Tomahawk cruise missiles as well as still to be manufactured American hypersonic missiles.
As regards the foreign participation, I hasten to add here what I did not say in the interview: that this is yet another proof that Russia’s dramatic successes on the battlefield and the obvious superiority of its weaponry compared to what the United States and NATO are supplying to Ukraine create the conditions for many countries from the Global South to show solidarity with the winner. That is simply a basic law of human behavior.
In our chat, we also touched upon the question of how Russians view Kamala Harris now that she is the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for President, what to make of Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski’s call for conscription age Ukrainian males in the EU to be sent home to join Zelensky’s army and several other noteworthy news items of the past 10 days since my last time on his program.
Translation into German below (Andreas Mylaeus) followed by full transcript in English
‘Dialogue Works’: Russland setzt unerbittliche Truppenwellen ein und überwältigt die ukrainischen Streitkräfte!
Ich bin stolz darauf, zu einer angesehenen Gruppe regelmäßiger Interviewpartner für Nima Alkhorshid’s Dialogue Works-Sendungen auf youtube zu gehören.
Der Titel (oben), den er dem gestrigen 45-minütigen Chat gegeben hat, sagt viel über die Kunst aus: Ein gewisses Maß an Hype ist unerlässlich, um das Interesse eines Publikums zu wecken, das viele alternative Expertendiskussionen online zur Auswahl hat.
Zwar werden die täglichen Vorstöße der russischen Streitkräfte entlang der Konfrontationslinie in der Ukraine selbst von Kiews Befürwortern in westlichen Medien wie der Financial Times und der New York Times anerkannt , doch schreiben sie dies wehmütig der Bereitschaft Moskaus zu schweren Verlusten zu, was kaum zu glauben ist, wenn man die Methoden genau verfolgt, die das russische Oberkommando vor jedem Angriff auf die ukrainischen Stellungen anwendet, nämlich verheerende Luftangriffe, Raketen-, Artillerie- und Drohnenangriffe, die die Verteidigung des Feindes zerstören, lange bevor die russischen Sturmbrigaden zum Einsatz kommen.
Auf der anderen Seite beschreiben einige unserer angesehensten Militärkommentatoren wie Colonel Douglas Macgregor und Scott Ritter den täglichen russischen Vormarsch mit so glühenden Worten, dass man durchaus erwarten kann, dass das ukrainische Militär in ein oder zwei Wochen kapituliert, was ich für höchst unwahrscheinlich halte, gerade wegen der Besonnenheit und Vorsicht des russischen Oberkommandos und weil auf ukrainischer Seite immer neue Pläne auftauchen, ihrem Schicksal zu entgehen, wie zum Beispiel die Halsabschneider-Söldner aus Kolumbien, die heute Abend zum ersten Mal vom russischen Fernsehen gezeigt wurden.
In diesem Interview habe ich die Situation auf dem Schlachtfeld in den Rahmen dessen gestellt, was ich jeden Tag im russischen Staatsfernsehen sehe, d.h. in den Vesti-Nachrichten und in der maßgeblichen und nüchternen Talkshow und Kommentarsendung Bolshaya Igra (Das große Spiel), die von Wjatscheslaw Nikonow moderiert wird. In der russischen Fernsehberichterstattung wird das Geschehen an der Konfrontationslinie immer noch heruntergespielt. Es wird von einer verbesserten Positionierung gesprochen, vermutlich für eine noch bevorstehende Großoffensive. Die Berichterstattung aus den einzelnen Frontabschnitten nennt die umkämpften Siedlungen, die bereits von den russischen Truppen eingenommenen Teile und die vom Feind gehaltenen Teile. Aber die Kriegsberichterstatter vermitteln absichtlich kein Gefühl für die strategische Bedeutung dieser Orte oder dafür, wie Russland nicht nur ein paar Kilometer pro Tag vorrücken wird, sondern die vielen Dutzend Kilometer, die zurückgelegt werden müssen, um den Donbas vollständig zu befreien, ganz zu schweigen vom Erreichen des Dnjepr, der 1991 die Mitte der Ukraine bildete.
Wie ich in diesem Interview darlege, hat sich jedoch das, was die Soldaten an der Front den Reportern heute sagen, im Vergleich zu vor einigen Monaten deutlich verändert. Damals war klar, dass die Russen durch das Ausweichen vor den Drohnen und den Artilleriebeschuss stark beansprucht waren. Sie waren täglich mit mehreren Gegenangriffen konfrontiert, die sie abwehren mussten. Jetzt sind sich diese Soldaten ihrer waffentechnischen, taktischen und strategischen Überlegenheit ganz offensichtlich sehr sicher. Sie sind, wie Donald Trump in seinem jüngsten Telefonat mit Zelensky sagte, „eine Tötungsmaschine“, die sich durchsetzt.
*****
Diejenigen unter Ihnen, die sich dieses Interview ansehen, werden es zu schätzen wissen, dass es auch eine Vielzahl von Themen aus der aktuellen internationalen Entwicklung abdeckt, beginnend mit einer Diskussion über die Feierlichkeiten zum Marinetag in St. Petersburg am vergangenen Sonntag. Der Marinetag 2024 war insofern bemerkenswert, als einige der neuesten Ergänzungen der russischen Flotte gezeigt wurden, als zum ersten Mal in meiner jahrzehntelangen Erfahrung ausländische Schiffe an dieser Veranstaltung teilnahmen, als ausländische, vor allem BRICS-Delegationen hoher Marineoffiziere nach Russland flogen, um daran teilzunehmen, und als Wladimir Putin eine sehr wichtige Rede über Russlands Antwort auf die Pläne der USA hielt, 2026 in Deutschland atomar bestückte Tomahawk-Marschflugkörper mit großer Reichweite sowie noch zu produzierende amerikanische Hyperschallraketen zu installieren.
Was die ausländische Beteiligung anbelangt, so möchte ich hier hinzufügen, was ich in dem Interview nicht gesagt habe: dass dies ein weiterer Beweis dafür ist, dass die dramatischen Erfolge Russlands auf dem Schlachtfeld und die offensichtliche Überlegenheit seiner Waffen im Vergleich zu dem, was die Vereinigten Staaten und die NATO an die Ukraine liefern, die Voraussetzungen dafür schaffen, dass sich viele Länder des globalen Südens mit dem Sieger solidarisieren. Das ist einfach ein Grundgesetz des menschlichen Verhaltens.
In unserem Gespräch ging es auch um die Frage, was die Russen von Kamala Harris halten, da sie nun die voraussichtliche Präsidentschaftskandidatin der Demokratischen Partei ist, was von der Forderung des polnischen Außenministers Radoslaw Sikorski zu halten ist, dass ukrainische Männer im wehrpflichtigen Alter in der EU nach Hause in die Ukraine geschickt werden sollten, um sich Zelenskys Armee anzuschließen, und um einige andere bemerkenswerte Nachrichten der letzten zehn Tage seit meinem letzten Auftritt in seiner Sendung.
Transcription below by a reader
Nima R. Alkhorshid: 00:05 Let’s start with the Navy Day Parade in St. Petersburg. You want to share something with us.
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: From time to time, from year to year, I attended this Navy Day Parade, which was really just a parade of ships, as they say, going back to the early 1990s, maybe even the late 1980s. I’m married to a Russian and her father was a rear admiral, not manning a ship, but teaching at various Navy institutes, lecturing. And so he would go every year to that Navy parade. He got privileged access to the banks of Neva. And when we were in Petersburg, every few years, we would join him. And then, of course, in this millennium, I’ve gone on my own whenever I was in Petersburg in July.
01:11 However, what happened this past Sunday was, to my knowledge, quite novel. There were never, in the past, participation of foreign vessels in this naval parade. This time, you had definitely two Chinese ships, and I understand one Indian ship, perhaps something from Algeria, though it’s not entirely clear. There were always foreign delegations, but of a very specific kind. They were in the past the naval attachés in the embassies of all accredited countries in Russia. So, they would send one or two officers or just general purpose diplomats who were not necessarily all expert in questions of naval matters.
02:07 And what happened this year was not just the participation of these several vessels, but a very large delegation, primarily from BRICS countries, but not only, who came from the country of origin. That is to say, they flew in precisely to participate in this event. That never happened before, to my knowledge. And it had a very clear purpose. And that was to demonstrate the fact that these countries are on the side of Russia in the present confrontation with the collective West. The Indian presence was of course most remarkable because Modi has been always careful treading a narrow path between East and West and that he demonstrated his solidarity with Russia in a military activity is worthy of mention.
03:08 Of course the other item, which was picked up by major media in the West, was the speech that Vladimir Putin made, which was very important, and he was setting out Russia’s response to the latest provocation coming out of Washington with the acquiescence of Germany, namely the announcement that the United States would be sending to Germany in 2026 its medium- to long-range cruise missiles with nuclear carrying capability. This, as Vladimir Putin said in his speech, takes us back to the to the Cold War in the 1980s, when the United States, in response to Russian medium-range missiles, mostly SS-20s, dispatched Pershings. Also these are cruise missiles capable of hitting Moscow and other Russian cities.
04:19 There was enormous demonstration in Germany, popular demonstrations against this development, against turning Germany into a potential battlefield between the United States and Russia, because of the basing of these of these missiles so threatening to Russia on German soil. The latest announcement which seems to have been given by the United States telling Scholz what to do without even naming the towns in Germany where the the missiles would be installed. This has so far evoked no response, no critical response in Germany.
05:07 And Putin used the opportunity of this very important Naval Day parade to make a speech of considerable importance. Firstly, that Russia would be responding in a mirror-image way to anything that the United States does, explaining that Russia is prepared to forgo its moratorium on installation of missiles of this kind. In the case of Russia, he’s speaking about medium-range missiles, which would be capable of destroying virtually every city or every military installation all across Europe.
05:52 But what are we talking about? That was not in the speech, but it was on talk shows which followed the speech, in which Russian experts were explaining that what is at issue here is the expansion of the Kinzhal to a much greater range. It has, I think, it will have a 1500 kilometer range, and that will be extended and so that virtually all of Europe is covered by Kinzhals. It is also noted on the talk shows that the American decision to place these long-range missiles, capable of hitting virtually the whole of Russia, in Germany now, was justified in the remark that Russia has missiles in Kaliningrad capable of reaching US bases and other military assets in Europe.
06:54 However, as the same talk shows reminded us, those assets, Russian assets, have been there for five years, and no one said a word about them. So, the decision to now, in 2026, install these missiles from the United States is really an escalation in the war of words and potentially in military confrontation between Russia and the United States, initiated by the United States, and taking place on the territory of Europe and of Germany in particular. So, for these various reasons, his speech [on] Naval Day in St. Petersburg had considerable importance, only part of which has been picked up by the Western press.
Alkhorshid: 07:46 Yeah. In your opinion, when it comes to Europe and their policy right now, do you understand why they’re trying to convince Zelensky to continue the conflict in Ukraine? Because it seems that Zelensky tried to talk with Trump, and Trump was warning him that the conflict, the continuation of the conflict is not working for Ukraine nor for the United States. And right now it seems that Europeans are totally in favor of the continuation of the conflict. Can we understand what’s in their mind?
Doctorow: 08:24 Well, in that telephone conversation between Zelensky and Trump, to which you’re alluding, we only know what one side said, or what one side says that he said, that is Trump’s going to the press and saying that he reminded Zelensky that Russia is a war machine, and that Russia has a history of valor and of successful military missions unequaled by any other country. And he took it back to Napoleon and, of course, World War II. That’s what Trump says that he said. We don’t know what Zelensky said. It may be, as you just suggested, that Zelensky wanted to use this opportunity to establish a tie with Trump and so that he was considering actively Trump’s offer to be a broker in a negotiated settlement of the war.
09:27 But it could also be that Zelensky remains delusional in every way and was trying to persuade Trump to rethink his decision to stop funding the war and to instead to come to Ukraine’s aid should he be elected. So we don’t know what he said, but it is simply interesting that he made the effort to reach out to Donald Trump, and I think that’s explained by the fact that Kamala’s rise in popularity and the funding that she’s gotten in this start of this honeymoon month after locking in the nomination for the Democratic presidential candidate in this period hadn’t yet become apparent, and Trump’s high ratings and high likelihood of election in November was still hanging in the air. So Zelensky was trying to re-insure himself that he had some sort tie with Trump, in the possibility, if not eventuality, that Trump will win the elections.
Alkhorshid:10:55 Do we know what’s the opinion on the part of Russians on Kamala Harris and the way that she’s talking about the conflict in Ukraine?
Doctorow: Just watch Megyn Kelly and you’ve got their take on Kamala Harris. The Russians, on their talk shows, they have taken the gloves off. And they’re saying what they really think about these monstrous people who are considered to be the leaders in the West and particularly in the United States. On the Solovyov show, the host was explaining to the audience that Harris began her career lying on her back. And this, I said, was given in some detail on Megyn Kelly’s program, making reference to her position as a lover of the Black mayor. At the time, he was the head of the assembly, and he went on to become the mayor of San Francisco. And he, in this love relationship with Harris, introduced her to the big donors and all the movers and shakers in California politics, which gave her a leg up, which gave her a big advantage as she proceeded to make a career in California and become the District Attorney and Attorney General.
12:28 So, that aspect reminding us that from the very beginning Kamala Harris made her moves on the most vulgar manner, and not on the basis of merit, not because she was an outstanding law student, or any of the trappings of success that have been earned by merit and talent, which the Democratic Party is trying to put at her feet today.
Alkhorshid: 13:06 Can we say the last objective of the Russian army right now in Ukraine is denazification and demilitarization of the Ukrainian army and how [can Russia] achieve that? is that going to be militarily or politically or a combination of both?
Doctorow: I think it’s a combination of both, but the military is the dominant side. What we’re witnessing now– and even in the “Financial Times”, even in the “New York Times”, there are articles day after day explaining– that the Russian army is progressing, advancing, and is taking advantage of weaknesses in the 1,000- or 800-kilometer line of confrontation. And there are weaknesses, of course, and we know why. It’s not a generalized issue of lack of manpower, though that is significant. It is the fact that the Russians have drawn to the Kharkov region the best brigades, the best-trained and the best-equipped units of the Ukrainian army, and there are necessarily weak spots in that vast line of confrontation, which the Russians are exploiting.
14:28 Our newspapers go on to say that the Russians are throwing waves of troops against the Ukrainians, with the suggestion that the Russians are experiencing heavy losses. Well, I watch the Russian daily news, and I see the interviews with their soldiers in the field. From the past, I can say that those interviews seem to be quite legitimate, to be quite open and honest, because the interviewees were saying things that showed the stress and strain they were experiencing.
And what I see now is a lot of confidence and high professionalism. And yes they are they are destroying the Ukrainian army, and they’re doing it in a way that logically means that the Russians are suffering very small losses. They are using their their three-ton bombs, they are using their heavy artillery, they are using their drones, and first they are demolishing what fortifications the Ukrainians have in the various settlements that are under attack. And only when they have massively destroyed what could have protected the Ukrainian soldiers do they send their shock troops in to finish the job.
16:05 So I would– given all of the equipment and the skills that the Russians have acquired over the last two years, and particularly in electronic warfare, the Russians had zero preparation in drones. And this war has become not only a war of artillery, but a war of drones. The Russians are now catching Ukrainian drones, which are reconnaissance drones, putting bombs on them and sending them back home, which, considering the identification of these drones, they would go back where they came from.
16:48 So this is a war unlike any other. And I can say that the Russians are not resting on their laurels. They know very well that the present war is new and that they have adapted and learned skills which they never had before and they’re manufacturing or modifying existing weapons to suit the battlefield as it is today. But at the same time, in light of the announcements made by the United States about his intention of putting new weapons systems– and I omtted one fact. I spoke about the cruise missiles, the Tomahawks, but the announcement also stated that the United States will be shipping to Germany hypersonic missiles, which the states practically speaking today don’t have.
17:42 So what the Russians are saying to themselves is that their advantage, the window of opportunity that they exploited in February 2022– when they were, without any question, years ahead of the United States and of any West European country in developing fifth-generation fighter jets, in developing the hypersonic missiles– that is diminishing with time. And they are actively pursuing the creation of yet a new wave of advanced armor and other military equipment for the next confrontation that they expect to have with the United States in Europe and elsewhere.
Alkhorshid: 18:32 Victor Orban just recently said, Russia is different from how we were made to see it. And, in your opinion, is the image of Russia changing in the mind of Europeans or is it just happening in the mind of Orban and Fico?
Doctorow: Well, I think the most important thing is the image of Russia is changing in the minds of Russians. I have been invited to contribute a chapter in a book that will be published in England, a chapter devoted to Russian’s self-perception and how, in the case of Russia, wars make nations. In the West it has come up, and articles have been written about how the war is creating a Ukrainian nation. Well, but not a word has been said about how the war is creating a Russian nation, in a way that didn’t exist before.
So that is the most important thing, how Russians think of themselves. And they do now have a level of patriotism and a level of commitment and a level of self-confidence that did not exist before. In the past you had, I can call them fifth column, but let’s be more charitable and simply say skeptics and doubters of Russia’s ability, based on three percent of the world’s GNP, to be a superpower and to be a rival to the United States. This was the political line, say, of Yabloko, which was the premier liberal democratic party opposing Putin in the last presidential election.
20:21 Now the reality is that they have succeeded and that their economy is now rising faster than the global economy is. Something like five percent or five and a half percent. So on the Russian side, there’s been a very big change. As for European side, I regret to say no. I don’t believe that Europeans, other than Mr. Orban, Mr. Fico of Slovakia appreciate the changes that are taking place in Russia, which are bringing it into a wholly new age of enough sovereignty, as Mr. Putin says, meaning that they are becoming self-sufficient and developing state-financed capital investment in manufacturing, which they could have, should have done for decades past, but never did since they were hoping to have some kind of place in the global economic and trade structures with more limited contribution of their best production and buying in most everything else.
21:48 Well, that model has gone by the boards, and Russia is today following a master plan for increasing its industrial production that Soviet Russia would have been proud of, but was unable to implement for lack of talent at the top. Mr. Putin has an extremely talented and very hardworking team that are achieving miracles for Russia today, unlike Soviet Russia in its last decades.
Alkhorshid: 22:32 Did you [see] the conditions that Mike Pompeo was putting out about a conflict, about having a ceasefire in Ukraine? He was talking about Ukraine being part of the EU and NATO. How realistic are these type of visions right now in the United States and how influential he can be on the future Trump administration?
Doctorow: 22:55 Well, critics of Donald Trump have pointed to this very statement by Pompeo to suggest, “Oh, don’t believe, it’s not a new Donald Trump”, that he puts forward Pompeo, what he did, introduced him at the session of the Republican National Convention, the evening of his, that he accepted the nomination, Pompeo was there. And it’s said, “Oh yes, Pompeo was saying these things, so don’t believe that Trump has changed his politics.”
But I beg to differ. Pompeo is not close to Trump today. Pompeo is, as I understand, on the pay of the Ukrainians. He is doing some consulting or some other contractual work with Ukraine and therefore anything that he says must be construed as Pompeo as an agent of Kiev and not as Pompeo as a past and future colleague of Donald Trump.
Alkhorshid: 23:57 But do you think that Donald Trump is going to be influenced by these kind of– I’m not talking specifically about Pompeo– these people who are more connected with the neocons, with these people with deep state, how can Donald Trump decide not to have them in his administration?
Doctorow: Look, I have identified myself in the past couple of weeks on the side of Donald Trump, certainly in the contest against Biden or now against Kamala Harris, not because I’m a deep believer in the consistency or the intellectual depth of Donald Trump. I have placed great faith in his nominee for vice president as keeping him on the straight and narrow road towards peace. If I had my preference, my preference would be the only candidate who was intellectually committed to finding a peaceful solution, and that is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. And since I made some contributions to him, I have a barrage of emails from him every day, of course, asking for still more contributions, but reminding me that his latest polls showed that in a contest between him and Kamala Harris, or between him and Donald Trump, I should say, he, RFK Jr., would win against Trump handsomely.
25:30 That may be, but it’s never going to happen. I have to be realistic. Third-party candidates never get very far. In American political life, they are no more than spoilers. As much as I admire the integrity and the consistency of RFK on the question of dealing with Ukraine and many other matters, I have to face the realities of political life. And therefore, I have placed my bet on Donald Trump. But as you say, no one and can predict with certainty that he will not make the same disastrous mistakes that he did in his first administration, appointing people who were … persuaded by the policies that contradicted directly what Trump announced his intention to do. Whether it was Tillerson or whether it was Pompeo, these were terrible appointments. So I say that I back Trump with my fingers crossed.
Alkhorshid: 26:41 Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski was talking about creating unbearable conditions for Ukrainians in the EU in order to force them to return home. Do you think these type of policies on the part of European Union would work for Ukraine? Is that possible, logically?
Doctorow: Look, I wouldn’t take seriously anything that Sikorski says. He has said some most outrageous things in the past, including about the relationship between Poland and the United States, which are not to be repeated on air. The remarks that he made about sending Ukrainians back, I think that is simply posturing and trying to curry favor with anti-Russian citizens in Poland, of which there are quite a few. I don’t believe that anyone in Western Europe is going to visit the homes of Ukrainian refugees in their midst and forcibly send conscription-age males back to Ukraine to fill the empty ranks of Zelensky’s army. That is unrealistic.
28:00 Moreover, I think about the very ugly statements that yesterday, the day before yesterday, Sikorski made about Viktor Orban, saying that he should leave the EU and make a security pact with Moscow. This is very unpolitical, very undiplomatic, for– it is political in the sense of currying favor with the anti-Russian contingents within the political elites of Poland. But as something coming out of the mouth of a minister of foreign affairs, it is terrible lack of professionalism. And so I’d say I take with a grain of salt anything that Mr. Sikorski says.
Alkhorshid: 28:57 When it comes to Bashar al-Assad’s visit to Moscow, how is the media in Russia talking about this visit, and how do you find the main objectives of this visit?
Doctorow: Well, the Russian media did not say a great deal about it.They had little to work on, because the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Mr. Putin’s office said very little about it. I have written about it, but I acknowledge that what I said is speculation. That is to say that Assad and Putin were conferring just who does what, what dance steps they’re to follow if the situation explodes in the neighborhood of Syria due to Israeli attack on Hezbollah.
Now, I think from Mr. Putin’s standpoint, that visit was important– of course, Washington knows about it– as a message to Washington to be very careful before it intervenes in the Israeli-Hezbollah or Lebanon war that may be coming soon. The United States has big naval assets, I believe it’s an aircraft carrier or escort that are now very close to Israel with the intent to intimidate Lebanon and to give some assurance to Israel that the United States would back them if they attack. Of course, that’s not what Mr. Blinken is calling it. He’s saying that they’re there to ensure that this does not escalate. But the reality of the presence says otherwise.
30:44 The Russians are there. The Russians have a naval base in Syria. It’s mostly for repairing and refitting and supplying Russian fleet in the Mediterranean. They also have an air base in Syria. And so it was a reminder to Washington that Russia is prepared to intervene if necessary. It’s also a reminder to Israel that their attacks on sites in Syria– particularly repeated attacks near Aleppo, which were directed according to the Israelis against arms caches of Hezbollah in Syrian territory or against goods transiting Syria on their way to Lebanon and Hezbollah– that this has been tolerated. Russia has never in the past given air defense to Syria, but it certainly is capable of doing so. And if it were, it would change entirely the calculations of the Israeli army, or if not the calculations, the possibilities of dealing with Hezbollah for the Israeli army and air force.
32:19 So, it was a reminder that Russia is there and Russia is interested. I think it’s also a signal to Iran of the same nature, because the first country that will have to come to the aid of Lebanon, if there is an attack on Hezbollah, is Iran. And it would give them considerable comfort to know that the Russians may well be at their side.
Alkhorshid: 32:48 And how did you find Netanyahu’s visit to the US Congress and the way that he was changing the rhetoric from Hezbollah to Iran, let’s go after Iran, let’s fight Iran. Is he trying to go to war with Iran or he’s trying to make a war between the United States and Iran?
Doctorow: I think it’s a combination of that. The key has always been after Iran. Iran. This goes back more than a decade. Iran has been the target of all of his addresses on the international arena. Iran was always a week or two away from a nuclear weapon. And this was the red flag that he was holding out in front of the Americans to encourage their support for any attack that Israel would make on Iran. Israel by itself does not have the force to deal with Iran without American support. So he is preparing Congress — and he apparently got their their acquiescence — in proceeding with a war on Hezbollah with a very high possibility, if not probability, that that will progress to a war on Iran.
34:14 However, if he has this IOU or this promissory note in his pocket, it is a promissory note of doubtful value, because there is big debate in the States whether or not the States should get engaged in a war with Iran. In Washington, there are some people who understand very well that the military capabilities of Iran are much greater than Netanyahu would suggest. The ability of Iran, for example, to devastate the many American military installations in the Middle East with missile attacks is something that must give Washington and Mr. Biden’s team pause and limit their enthusiasm for supporting Netanyahu in an attack on Iran.
Alkhorshid: 35:10 But when it comes to Hezbollah, we know that recently before these new tensions coming up, the Biden administration said to Netanyahu, “If you want to fight Hezbollah, you’re going to be alone and we’re not going to be there.” And right now, do you think that they’re changing their mind?
Doctorow: I think so. I think there is a debate which we don’t see on the television screens, but there is a debate in Congress over how far America can or should go. And as I said, there are cooler heads among military who understand that that may be a step too far for the United States to get embroiled in a war with Iran for the sake of satisfying Mr. Netanyahu’s ambitions of long standing to have such support.
Alkhorshid: 36:02 The other part of this policy in the Middle East is what China is doing and what you just mentioned about Bashar al-Assad and maybe Erdogan talking to each other, as Russia wanted to do that. And how do you see the changes that are happening in terms of what Russia and China are doing right now?
Doctorow: Well, the two are not allies in a military sense because China has enshrined policy of not entering into a military bloc and of maintaining its freedom to engage or not to engage in other people’s wars. The Chinese haven’t been in a military conflict for more than 40 years, and that’s not an accident. That was a policy choice. So, they will join the Russians in active combat only if it is utterly necessary to avoid Russian defeat or embarrassment or humiliation that would reflect on themselves. because Russia is a very important support to China logistically, in raw materials and diplomatically.
37:25 So the Chinese could not allow Russia to be humiliated in a way that might lead to political difficulties, political conflict within Russia. They want a stable Russia at their side. The fact that the Chinese sent naval vessels halfway across the world to participate in what is a ceremonial event, this Navy Day in Russia, is an additional point to what we saw a couple of weeks ago, when it was announced that Chinese forces are present at the Polish and Ukrainian borders on the Belarus side in what are called anti-terrorist joint exercises. Well, the anti-terrorists, it’s not a misnomer. What they had in mind is the kind of attacks that took place in Belgorod, province of Russia Federation, when [Ukraine] sent various groups including some anti-Kremlin Russians to attack in a terrorist manner the residential communities in Belgorod. There has been discussion that the Ukrainians and/or the Poles have had similar ideas with respect to Belarus. As we know, Poland, together with Lithuania, has been a very strong supporter of the anti-Lukashenko so-called president of Belarus, who is now in exile.
38:21 And add to this the Chinese-Russian joint patrol in the Bering Sea close to Alaska last week as another demonstration that when it comes to, when push comes to shove, if necessary, China will stand by Russia as a military partner confronting any part of the West as necessary. It is a pushback to Jens Stoltenberg and Washington’s idea of an Asian NATO and the Russians and Chinese were saying that the Eurasian continent has two sides, and if you want to concentrate on the eastern side, we, Chinese and Russians, can jointly concentrate on the western side. So think twice about your idea of an Asian NATO built on [AUKUS].
Alkhorshid: 40:29 Yeah, just to wrap up this session, we thought that Macron is not going to send French mercenaries to Ukraine, but we’ve learned that they did that. And how [can we] put the picture of these changes that are happening in France, in terms of Le Pen, how they can change the policy when it comes to sending mercenaries to Ukraine, and why they couldn’t do that so far?
Doctorow: 40:57 Well, in the person of Emanuel Macron, we have a very inconsistent, very superficial politician, who, I mean, if we want to say that Donald Trump was transactional and changed his policies very often or too often, one can say certainly the same thing about Macron, who is a different personality from Trump, but nonetheless shares this. He will do anything to get the microphone, he will do anything to present himself as leading Europe and the West either into an agreement with Russia or into a war with Russia. Which it will be depends on the moment, and is not a consistent policy line of the man. I think what the Russians are now saying about Macron bears mention, they’re calling him the Blue Rooster. They have no hesitation to call him out as a homosexual. And they have used the footage, the film footage, from the obscene opening ceremony of the Olympics to demonstrate their point about the corruption, degradation, and likely suicide of France as leading Western Europe to its doom. So Mr. Macron’s sending some mercenaries to help the Ukrainians — it’s a token. These are not massive quantities of men and certainly not normal French soldiers. But his ability to flip-flop according to what he thinks will be, assert his purposes, his opportunism in that respect, cannot be underestimated.
I was delighted to be invited by Sputnik Globe to comment on Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski’s radio appeal to EU member states to ‘encourage’ draft age Ukrainian men living in their midst to go home and fight for their country.
For those who never knew or who have forgotten, Sikorski is a prominent bearer of what I would call the ‘Polish nobility syndrome,’ by which I mean visceral hatred of Russia and less than humane feelings for Ukrainians. He is also the husband of one of America’s best-known Russia-bashers, the historian and journalist Anne Applebaum.
The syndrome can be traced back at least four centuries to the age of nonstop Russian-Polish wars over control of East Central Europe from the Baltic to the Black Sea. There was a brief interlude in 1610-12 when the Poles took advantage of a dynastic crisis in Muscovy and gloried in holding the Russian capital captive, but that joy was short lived. It was followed by periodic outbreaks of warfare which in the mid and late 18th century resulted in Russia’s joining Austria and Prussia in carving up Poland so that the country disappeared from the map for 120 years or so. During that period of non-existence, Poland’s ruling class nonetheless put up 100,000 Polish soldiers and officers to fight within Napoleon’s Grande Arméethat invaded Russia in 1812. Many or most stayed behind in unmarked graves. Then there were several unsuccessful Polish revolts against their fate as subjects of the Russian Empire in the 19th century which led many to spend the remainder of their lives enjoying the very special climate of Siberia. Dostoevsky wrote about them disparagingly in his House of the Dead.
The twentieth century brought back Poland to the European map following WWI and gave it the force to engage the Red Army and fight for its eastern borders with some notable success. But, alas, WWII was very unkind to the Poles and when it ended, they found themselves on the wrong side of what became the Iron Curtain. They were given several decades including a spell of martial law to bite their tongues and suffer the humiliation of Communist rule under Russian sway.
This is the sad background to the revanchism we see in the parties that have run Poland since its resurrection as a sovereign state in 1988-1989. Mr. Sikorski is a proper standard bearer of Donald Tusk’s Civic Platform party that is beloved by the European Institutions for being Europe-friendly in contrast to their main opponents, the Law and Justice Party, who season their Russophobia with a dash of Europe-skepticism. However, I am doubtful that many European member states will heed Sikorski’s call to ship out Ukrainian refugees to Kiev against their will in order to re-fill Zelensky’s depleted army units.
For those who wonder about my remarking the ‘less than humane feelings for Ukrainians’ among Polish leaders, I recommend perusing Gogol’s Taras Bulba or looking closely into the ongoing Polish-Ukrainian disputes over the mass murders of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia committed by Ukraine’s Nazi collaborators during WWII. These spats even get mention in the Western mainstream press if you pay close attention.
Nur „rohe Gewalt“ kann wehrpflichtige Ukrainer in Europa dazu zwingen, nach Hause zu gehen und zu kämpfen: „Sputnik Globe“-Interview
Ich habe mich sehr gefreut, von Sputnik Globe eingeladen worden zu sein, den Radioappell des polnischen Außenministers Radoslaw Sikorski an die EU-Mitgliedsstaaten zu kommentieren, die in ihrer Mitte lebenden ukrainischen Männer im wehrpflichtigen Alter zu „ermutigen“, nach Hause zu gehen und für ihr Land zu kämpfen. https://sputnikglobe.com/20240726/only-brute-force-can-force-draft-age-ukrainians-in- europe-to-go-home-to-face-near-certain-death-1119521472.html Für diejenigen, die es noch nicht wussten oder es vergessen haben: Sikorski ist ein prominenter Vertreter dessen, was ich als „polnisches Adelssyndrom“ bezeichnen würde, d.h., er hegt einen ausgeprägten Hass auf Russland und hegt wenig humane Gefühle gegenüber den Ukrainern. Er ist auch der Ehemann einer der bekanntesten amerikanischen Russland-Basher, der Historikerin und Journalistin Anne Applebaum. Das Syndrom lässt sich mindestens vier Jahrhunderte zurückverfolgen, bis in die Zeit der ununterbrochenen russisch-polnischen Kriege um die Kontrolle über Ostmitteleuropa von der Ostsee bis zum Schwarzen Meer. Es gab ein kurzes Intermezzo in den Jahren 1610-12, als die Polen eine dynastische Krise in Moskau ausnutzten und sich damit brüsteten, die russische Hauptstadt gefangen zu halten, aber diese Freude war nur von kurzer Dauer. Es folgten regelmäßige Ausbrüche von Kriegen, die Mitte und Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts dazu führten, dass Russland zusammen mit Österreich und Preußen Polen aufteilte, so dass das Land für etwa 120 Jahre von der Landkarte verschwand. Während dieser Zeit der Nichtexistenz stellte Polens herrschende Klasse dennoch 100.000 polnische Soldaten und Offiziere auf, die in Napoleons Grande Armée kämpften, die 1812 in Russland einmarschierte. Viele oder die meisten blieben in ungekennzeichneten Gräbern zurück. Dann gab es im 19. Jahrhundert mehrere erfolglose polnische Aufstände gegen ihr Schicksal als Untertanen des Russischen Reiches, was viele dazu veranlasste, den Rest ihres Lebens in dem ganz besonderen Klima Sibiriens zu verbringen. Dostojewski schrieb in seinem Haus der Toten abschätzig über sie. Das 20. Jahrhundert brachte Polen nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg auf die europäische Landkarte zurück und gab dem Land die Kraft, sich mit der Roten Armee anzulegen und mit beachtlichem Erfolg um seine Ostgrenzen zu kämpfen. Aber leider war der Zweite Weltkrieg sehr unfreundlich zu den Polen, und als er zu Ende war, fanden sie sich auf der falschen Seite des späteren Eisernen Vorhangs wieder. Mehrere Jahrzehnte lang mussten sie sich auf die Zunge beißen und die Demütigung der kommunistischen Herrschaft unter russischer Führung erdulden, einschließlich des Kriegsrechts. Dies ist der traurige Hintergrund für den Revanchismus, den wir in den Parteien sehen, die Polen seit seiner Wiederauferstehung als souveräner Staat in den Jahren 1988-1989 regiert haben. Herr Sikorski ist ein echter Bannerträger von Donald Tusks Partei Bürgerplattform, die von den europäischen Institutionen für ihre Europafreundlichkeit geliebt wird, im Gegensatz zu ihren Hauptgegnern, der Partei Recht und Gerechtigkeit, die ihre Russophobie mit einer Prise Europaskepsis würzt. Ich bezweifle jedoch, dass viele europäische Mitgliedstaaten Sikorskis Aufruf folgen werden, ukrainische Flüchtlinge gegen ihren Willen nach Kiew zu schicken, um Zelenskis dezimierte Armeeeinheiten wieder aufzufüllen. Denjenigen, die sich über meine Bemerkung über die „wenig menschlichen Gefühle für die Ukrainer“ unter den polnischen Führern wundern, empfehle ich, Gogols Taras Bulba zu lesen oder sich mit den anhaltenden polnisch-ukrainischen Streitigkeiten über die von den ukrainischen Nazi-Kollaborateuren während des Zweiten Weltkriegs begangenen Massenmorde an Polen in Wolhynien und Ostgalizien näher zu befassen. Diese Streitigkeiten werden sogar in der westlichen Presse erwähnt, wenn man genau hinschaut.
You may be forgiven for not having heard anything about the visit to Moscow of Syria’s President Bashar Assad, because neither Russian nor Syrian official sources published more than a photograph or two of the two leaders meeting and saying a few words to the press. You would know still less about what was discussed between them aside from some generalities. However, for Iran’s global broadcaster Press TV this was possibly a significant event for their neighborhood and they invited commentary, which I and one other invitee sought to provide.
The visit was explained officially as marking the 80th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries. That gave an aspect of normality to what was, in effect, anything but normal.
Indeed, the entire episode was carried out in the greatest secrecy. Assad flew in to Moscow late on Wednesday evening but the news of his visit was released only on Thursday morning, after he had already safely touched down in Damascus from his flight home. He is said to have spent two hours in direct conversation with President Putin, without any time lost to a formal dinner or other ceremonial distractions.
This was Assad’s first visit to Moscow since March 2023 and there surely was a lot for the two leaders to discuss face to face. As my fellow panelist on the Press TV program suggests, one item was surely the possibilities of arranging a three-way meeting with President Erdogan of Turkey, who is said to be ready to restore relations with Assad that were broken when Ankara chose to support the Islamist fighters against his government during the Syrian civil war back in 2015. And in theory that could take place when Putin makes his still unscheduled trip to Turkey later this summer.
However, I think the bigger subject on their agenda was Russian military assistance to Syria in the context of the present Israeli rampage in the neighborhood and most specifically with a view to improving Syria’s ineffective air defenses. On 3 June, Israel made yet another jet fighter attack near the Syrian city of Aleppo. Israeli attacks on Hezbollah arms caches in Syria and on supplies transiting Syria from Iran have been a regular occurrence going back to the civil war. But now, when there is a probability of Israel unleashing all out war on Hezbollah in Lebanon, the military supplies passing through Syria to Lebanon assume critical importance for the Axis of Resistance.
Let us remember that Russian military aid to Syria in 2015 and 2016 saved the Damascus government from being overwhelmed by Islamic fighters that were supported by the United States and its allies. However, Russia, which maintained a naval base in Syrian Tartus and an air base in Khmeimin, has never intervened to stop Israel attacks on Syria that Jerusalem claimed were purely for Israeli defense. Clearly the time has come to help the Syrians protect their air space and their sovereignty. A further context is that Russian-Israeli relations have cooled substantially over Israeli support for Ukraine. Moreover, a higher profile of Russia in Syria would be intended to offset the growing U.S. naval presence in the Eastern Mediterranean, which Washington says is there to prevent an escalation of Israeli-Hezbollah fighting, but objectively speaking, more likely to have the opposite effect.
Finally, it may well be that Russia is about to provide Assad or pro-Iranian militia in Syria with its powerful missiles and drones to raise the effectiveness of their attacks on the illegal U.S. military bases in Syria. This would be entirely in line with Vladimir Putin’s recent threats to engage in the same kind of proxy warfare against the USA that Washington is pursuing in the Ukrainian war against Russia.
Clearly, a two-hour meeting between presidents could not go into the specifics of Russia’s greater assistance to Damascus in the coming days. But it prepares the way for their respective generals to work out the details of who does what now.
Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus) followed by full transcript of the Press TV program
Der Assad-Besuch in Moskau vor zwei Tagen, von dem Sie nichts gehört haben: Iran’s Press TV
Es sei Ihnen verziehen, wenn Sie nichts über den Besuch des syrischen Präsidenten Bashar Assad in Moskau gehört haben, denn weder russische noch syrische offizielle Quellen haben mehr als ein oder zwei Fotos von den beiden Staatsoberhäuptern veröffentlicht, auf denen sie sich treffen und ein paar Worte an die Presse richten. Über das, was zwischen ihnen besprochen wurde, erfährt man außer einigen Allgemeinplätzen noch weniger. Für den iranischen Rundfunksender Press TV war dies jedoch möglicherweise ein bedeutendes Ereignis in der Nachbarschaft, und sie baten um Kommentare, die ich und ein anderer Eingeladener zu liefern versuchten.
Der Besuch wurde offiziell mit dem 80. Jahrestag der Aufnahme diplomatischer Beziehungen zwischen den beiden Ländern begründet. Dies verlieh dem, was in Wirklichkeit alles andere als normal war, einen Anschein von Normalität.
In der Tat wurde die gesamte Episode unter größter Geheimhaltung abgewickelt. Assad flog am späten Mittwochabend nach Moskau, aber die Nachricht von seinem Besuch wurde erst am Donnerstagmorgen veröffentlicht, nachdem er bereits sicher in Damaskus gelandet war. Er soll zwei Stunden lang direkt mit Präsident Putin gesprochen haben, ohne dass die Zeit durch ein formelles Abendessen oder andere zeremonielle Ablenkungen verloren ging.
Dies war der erste Besuch Assads in Moskau seit März 2023, und es gab für die beiden Staatsoberhäupter sicherlich viel zu besprechen. Wie mein Kollege in der Press TV-Sendung andeutet, ging es unter anderem um die Möglichkeit, ein Dreiertreffen mit dem türkischen Präsidenten Erdogan zu arrangieren, dem nachgesagt wird, dass er bereit ist, die Beziehungen zu Assad wiederherzustellen, die unterbrochen wurden, als Ankara sich entschloss, die islamistischen Kämpfer gegen seine Regierung während des syrischen Bürgerkriegs im Jahr 2015 zu unterstützen. Theoretisch könnte dies bei Putins noch nicht geplanter Reise in die Türkei in diesem Sommer geschehen.
Ich denke jedoch, dass das wichtigere Thema auf ihrer Tagesordnung die russische Militärhilfe für Syrien im Zusammenhang mit dem derzeitigen israelischen Amoklauf in der Nachbarschaft und insbesondere im Hinblick auf die Verbesserung der unwirksamen syrischen Luftabwehr war. Am 3. Juni führte Israel einen weiteren Kampfjetangriff in der Nähe der syrischen Stadt Aleppo durch. Israelische Angriffe auf Waffenlager der Hisbollah in Syrien und auf Nachschub aus dem Iran, der durch Syrien transportiert wird, sind seit dem Bürgerkrieg regelmäßig zu beobachten. Aber jetzt, wo die Wahrscheinlichkeit besteht, dass Israel einen totalen Krieg gegen die Hisbollah im Libanon entfesselt, werden die militärischen Lieferungen, die durch Syrien in den Libanon gelangen, für die Achse des Widerstands von entscheidender Bedeutung.
Erinnern wir uns daran, dass die russische Militärhilfe für Syrien in den Jahren 2015 und 2016 die Regierung in Damaskus davor bewahrte, von islamistischen Kämpfern überwältigt zu werden, die von den USA und ihren Verbündeten unterstützt wurden. Russland, das einen Marinestützpunkt im syrischen Tartus und einen Luftwaffenstützpunkt in Chmeimin unterhält, hat jedoch nie eingegriffen, um die israelischen Angriffe auf Syrien zu stoppen, die laut Jerusalem ausschließlich der israelischen Verteidigung dienten. Es ist eindeutig an der Zeit, die Syrer beim Schutz ihres Luftraums und ihrer Souveränität zu unterstützen. Ein weiterer Hintergrund ist, dass sich die russisch-israelischen Beziehungen wegen der israelischen Unterstützung für die Ukraine erheblich abgekühlt haben. Darüber hinaus soll ein stärkeres Auftreten Russlands in Syrien die wachsende US-Marinepräsenz im östlichen Mittelmeer ausgleichen, die nach Angaben Washingtons eine Eskalation der Kämpfe zwischen Israel und der Hisbollah verhindern soll, objektiv gesehen aber eher das Gegenteil bewirkt.
Schließlich könnte es durchaus sein, dass Russland im Begriff ist, Assad oder pro-iranische Milizen in Syrien mit seinen leistungsstarken Raketen und Drohnen zu versorgen, um die Wirksamkeit ihrer Angriffe auf die illegalen US-Militärstützpunkte in Syrien zu erhöhen. Dies stünde ganz im Einklang mit den jüngsten Drohungen Wladimir Putins, die gleiche Art von Stellvertreterkrieg gegen die USA zu führen, die Washington im Ukraine-Krieg gegen Russland verfolgt.
Natürlich konnte bei einem zweistündigen Treffen zwischen den Präsidenten nicht auf die Einzelheiten der größeren russischen Unterstützung für Damaskus in den kommenden Tagen eingegangen werden. Aber es bereitet den Weg für die jeweiligen Generäle, um die Details auszuarbeiten, wer jetzt was tut.
Transcription below by a reader
PressTV 0:00 And now joining us for the program is Julia Kassem, journalist and political analyst from Moscow; and Gilbert Doctorow, independent international affairs analyst, joining us from Brussels. Hello, and I’d like to welcome you both to the program.
Julia, I guess we’ll start with you. And the significance, your initial thoughts on the significance of this trip, what good could possibly result from it, and the fact that Recep Tayyip Erdogan just a couple weeks ago actually alluded to the fact that if the three men sit down together, there could possibly be a normalization of ties between Ankara and Damascus.
Julia Kassem 0:35 [technical deficiency compromises transcription] Yeah, absolutely. That’s one of the main agenda items in this meeting between President Putin and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. That’s countering a lot of the terrorist forces that have strongholds in the north, the east of Syria, many who have been financed or supported by Turkey. So part of the– reaching some arrangement with Turkey between, you know, and normalizing relations between Turkey and Syria a bit involved, of course, some initiatives on Ankara’s part to stop funding and supporting these terror groups and to end its occupation of northeast Syria. And, of course, Moscow is going to be the site where any agreement between that is to take place.
1:28 The other, of course, most important point discussed in the meeting between Putin and Assad is the Zionist entity’s continued aggression. Right now, the backdrop of this meeting that kicked off yesterday in Moscow has been the ongoing visit by Netanyahu to the US to beg for more money to destroy and continue his genocide in Gaza, and to basically absolve himself of his war crimes, thinking that the US just, you know, basically doing his– having a standing ovation in Congress and getting the unconditional support that he has been getting from the Americans throughout this genocide would continue to solve the problem for a time, that reached international condemnation. Of course right now his coming here insures that the US is building up the Zionist entity. And constant granting of immunity in an international and bilateral context is slowly eroding away.
2:48 First the meeting of the Palestinian factions to reach some kind of community consensus with China. And now, between the meeting of Hu and his active player in the Middle East and Bashar al-Assad. Those are the main two points which were concerning mainly the Middle East. And of course, Syria has been also facing constant Israeli bombardment, which has massacred Syrians as well. And the Golan remains occupied by the Golan-resisting forces, an ally of Syria. It has the Zionist occupying positions in the Golan. So, of course, without any kind of, you know, any kind of initiative towards stopping the Zionist threat, as they continue to pump weapons and strike them and inject, any kind of signature initiative. Now, countries like Russia and China are basically stepping up and showing that —– eastward in terms of diplomacy, the U.S. has to have the final say in how conflict resolution can take place in the region. So, hopefully, yeah.
PressTV: 4:20 I didn’t mean to cut you off, sorry, but let me just, like, Mr. Doctorow showed a lot of patience. Let me just bring him in the conversation. I’ll come right back to you. Welcome to the conversation. Gilbert Doctorow, thanks for your patience. Hope you’re doing well out there in Brussels. Your initial thoughts, if you could, please, on the sit-down between these two gentlemen and why you feel Vladimir Putin has this perception that Syria’s health is vital for regional stability.
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 4:49 The meeting took place in the greatest secrecy. It was announced that it took place this morning, though the meeting actually took place last night. Mr. Assad flew into Moscow late at night. He spent two hours in a conversation with President Putin. They didn’t have a dinner. There were no formalities about this. It was a working meeting, and then he flew out. And the the Russians and Syrians announced the visit only after Assad was back in Damascus.
5:21 So, one may assume that something quite important was going on. Perhaps it has to do with the relations with Turkey. Perhaps it has to do, I think more likely, with the military situation in the neighborhood. On the 3rd of June, Aleppo was struck by Israeli jets, and several people were killed. This type of attack by Israel has gone on repeatedly, without any effort by the Russians to help the Syrians defend their sovereignty. The Russian intervention in Syria in their civil war was enormously important. It saved the Assad government. It managed to crush the Islamic extremists who were receiving support from the United States and other Western powers. But it did not mean, it did not entail the security against Israel. The attacks by Israel on Syrian territory were primarily aimed at supplies coming from Iran into Syria, and coming into Syria and going further.
6:30 Well, where is further? Going to Lebanon, obviously. That was not so important in months past as it is today, because of the possibility of a full war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. In this case, the transit of Iranian weapons and other support to Lebanon is of vital importance, and I would imagine that one of the subjects for discussion was how the Russians can help protect Syrian airspace and prevent further Israeli attacks on weaponry that’s entering from Iran and is directed to Lebanon by way of Syria. That could be a subject.
7:18 Otherwise, they certainly have to consider the overall regional situation, the possibility of American intervention in support of Israel when Israel should decide to make an all-out strike on Lebanon, and to do to Beirut what it has done to Gaza, as Mr. Netanyahu has threatened. So these certainly were subjects for a two and a half hour discussion, I think mostly about the military situation in the neighborhood.
PressTV: 7:49 And Julia, thank you Gilbert, and Julia, how ironic is it that we never sit down and hear a conversation which refers to instability in the region without Washington and Tel Aviv being dragged into the forefront?
Kassem: 8:06 Yeah, absolutely. When it’s, we were talking back then, and this was said by Foreign Minister Lavrov at meeting that the U.S. and the Zionist entity are constantly prolonging this conflict by continuing to pump weapons towards the Zionist entity, just like the U.S. is prolonging the conflict in Ukraine by continuing to supply them with weapons as well and blocking any chance at a resolution there. So, of course, I’d imagine the talks between Syria and Russia definitely would involve a conversation on air defenses, which Syria has been weak in being able to protect itself for years, as Israel has constantly struck at Syria, struck at what it considers Hezbollah targets in Syria, striking at supply routes, which also have included not only weapons, but also just Iranian food supplies and aids that have gotten, that have traveled through Syria and were going to Lebanon and to Syria in the past few years. So that’s definitely an important agenda item that I imagine were discussed, but there wasn’t–
PressTV: 9:32 Julia, I don’t mean to cut you off. We only have about–
Kassem: –points that were that were released yet in terms of like the entirety of what they were talking about. But that’s exactly what what we can speculate. But given the timing that this conversation took place, of course, with Netanyahu’s visit to U.S. Congress and the–
PressTV: 9:57 Mr. Gilbert-Doctorow, I mean, and you refer to Putin sitting down with possibly the Turkish leader and Assad. How would that look? We don’t have much time left. You know, we kind of got into our news review quite late, so I want to apologize to both of you. And I have to cut you off, Julia.
But, Mr. Gilbert-Doctorow, in less than a minute and 20 seconds, sir, what are the dynamics of that, when you have two heavily sanctioned men sitting down with a NATO member and a possible enhancing of ties between the three of them. How would the dynamics of that look, and how would that impact the region and their friends and foes?
Doctorow: 10:36 Mr. Erdogan is sitting on two stools. And this is something that will have to be resolved in the near future if he wants to join the eurasian club that the Russians and the Chinese have set up in two organizations, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS. In this case, I would say that Mr. Erdogan is tilting towards the east and is likely to cut some of his ties in the west. But that is something we’ll have to watch closely. Nonetheless, it’s understandable that he wants to re-establish relations with Syria if the neighborhood, the Arab League, is also considering warming relations with Syria, then Turkey should not be far behind. So this makes a lot of sense.
PressTV: 11:26 All right. Thank you both for joining us. Time has gotten the better of us, and I want to thank you both for your patience and being with us. Julia Kassem there, journalist and political analyst joining us from Moscow; and Gilbert Doctorow, independent international affairs analyst, joining us from Brussels. And viewers, this brings us to the conclusion of this segment of your PressTV News Review program. Thanks for tuning in and goodbye for now.
Gilbert Doctorow 