Transcription submitted by a reader

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alkhorshid:
Al-Fasal al-Assad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                                                     *****

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

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

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

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                                                     *****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                                           *****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                                           *****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcription submitted by a reader

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doctorow: 10:09
Thanks for the invitation.

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

Transcript submitted by a reader

http://www.urmedium.net/c/presstv/131888
PressTV: 0:01
Iran’s foreign minister in a trilateral meeting with his Syrian and Iraqi counterparts says the situation in Syria is a threat to the whole region, which requires regional and international action to resolve it.

Abbas Araghchi: 0:16
The trilateral meeting of the foreign ministers of Iran, Iraq and Syria had three messages. First, a message of support to the nation and government of Syria in their fight against Takfiri terrorist groups, which are carrying out attacks in Syria as part of an American-Israeli conspiracy. Second message is that the threat of terrorism in Syria is a threat to the whole region and resurgence of terrorist groups like Daesh can endanger other regional countries.

Third message is that there should be no discrimination in fighting terrorism and fighting terrorists in Syria is an international obligation. Therefore, countries that are silent regarding the spread of terrorism in Syria are supported, are responsible and must answer why they only fight terrorists where it serves their interests and ignore them at other places.

PressTV: 1:07
Abu Sadaf said Iran believes that to safeguard its own security, it needs to help neighboring countries to safeguard their security. He said the Islamic Republic will provide whatever assistance it can to the Syrian government The three top diplomats emphasize that their countries will work together to fight the common threat of terrorism They said the armed groups opposing the Syrian government [enjoy] the support of some hostile countries and are part of a plot to reshape the map of the region.

For more insight on that story, we’re now joined by independent international affairs analyst Gilbert Doctorow, who’s joining us from Brussels. We also have journalist, author and activist, Fra Hughes, who’s with us from Belfast. Let’s start off with Mr. Doctorow in Brussels. Sir, give us your perspective on the violence that’s unfolding right now in Syria. And what has led to this point where we are right now?

Doctorow: 2:07
Well I don’t think my personal perspective is of particular value to your viewers, but I would like to tell you the perspective coming from Moscow, how they’re viewing it, and contrast it with mainstream Western media like the BBC or CNN. The Russians take this new challenge very seriously. They have great interests in Syria, not only to protect what they achieved between 2015 and 2017 when they were very active together with Iran in saving the government of [Bashar Assad] in Damascus.

2:53
What we have now is a great threat to those achievements. If you listen particularly to the BBC and CNN, who are cheerleaders, and they’re cheerleaders for good reason: because the United States and the British governments are both evidently heavily involved in this. When it first started, it was common to say among observers in American alternative media that this was an Israeli project because Israel has long had a desire to keep, to maintain chaos in Syria and to thereby interrupt supplies of munitions to Hezbollah that were coming from Iran via Syria. However, it’s apparent that there’s– from the Russian standpoint, this was an American project, an American project to weaken Russia and Iran. And Syria is an incidental factor.

3:49
The regime in Damascus is incidental. The fact is that the Russians have an important naval base in Syria, in Tartus. They have an important air base in Khmeimin, in Latakia province. And these are put in jeopardy when you have the cutoff of strategic routes leading to the interior of the country performed by these HTS rebels. So the Russians have their own interests, both to protect what they achieved at great expense in two years of fighting together with Iran to save the government, and they have a present concern that they not lose the naval base of great importance to them in Eastern Mediterranean, and that they not lose their regional presence in Northeast Africa as a result of the pressure that they’re experiencing from the rebels who are otherwise threatening Damascus.

4:55
The cheerleading in Britain is clear on today’s BBC. You would hear from them that Homs has virtually fallen. By your own reporting, this is inaccurate. And another factor, another straw in the wind that tells you about the big British presence is the reappearance of something we all should have thought– we forgot about. That is the white helmets. They’re back. The white helmets who were so active in the middle of the Syrian civil war and who were bringing false-flag charges against the Damascus government, saying that it was responsible for chemical attacks and so forth, which were all very nicely staged with British intelligence connivance. The white helmets are back; they are now being reported by BBC for what they’re saying about civilian casualties due to bombing in Syria.

5:58
Well, we know who’s doing the bombing. It’s the Russians and the Syrian air force. So this is anti-government propaganda being spread by the white helmets who are agents of British intelligence. These are the perspectives that I bring to your audience today.

6:15
All right, let’s bring in Fra Hughes from Belfast. Mr. Hughes, would you like to add anything to what Mr. Doctorow just mentioned in terms of who is involved with the resurgence of violence and who is to benefit here? And just looking At the trilateral meeting that was held in the Iraqi capital Baghdad, the three foreign ministers of Iran, Iraq, and Syria in a joint press conference said basically that the armed groups opposing the Syrian government, they do enjoy the support of some countries and they’re actually part of a plot to reshape the map of the region. Do you see it in that light as well?

Hughes: 6:54
Yes, a hundred percent. I’d like maybe to start off by saying I’ve actually been in Syria on five different occasions from 2010 up to 2019. And I had the honor to meet President Bashar al-Assad on two occasions. The first thing I maybe want to say is, well, I have to mention Turkey here. I mean, Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood and everything that’s associated through British intelligence have had a long-standing relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood.

They’re being used in separate areas across the Levant at times when it suits the intelligence agencies to take someone off the shelf, bring a group onto the battlefield and help destabilise a country where they’re looking for regime change. What we’re witnessing now is American, British, I’ll say EU NATO as well as Israeli plot to destroy the Syrian Arab Republic because it’s the only real bulwark of the Arab countries that are standing against in this genocide in Gaza and against the neo-fascist regime in Tel Aviv.

8:05
And I was at a meeting when President Assad told the people in attendance that he was approached before 2011 by the American administration, asking him to basically toe the line to American foreign policy and how this would be in the interests of the Syrian government, the Syrian people, Syrian business and financial institutions. And because he refused to basically bow the knee to Zionism and to condemn and to abandon the people of Palestine and the wider West Asia region, that is why you had this undeclared war on Syria which started in 2011.

8:47
So you have Turkey. There are quite likely to be Turkish special forces involved in these attacks upon Syrian civilians and Syrian towns. It seems to be a pincer movement coming from the south, sorry, the east and the north of Syria. There are many, many disparate groups who may not be politically or ideologically aligned together, but they’re fighting in the one cause which is the destruction of the Syrian Arab Republic.

9:18
The reason why Iran and Iraq want to defend Syria, apart from an international obligation, perhaps, to come to the aid of a country suffering from external terrorism that has been imported into the country. They know, as indeed a retired general of the IRGC [Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps] tweeted about six weeks ago, basically that if they’re allowed to destroy Gaza on the West Bank and then they’re allowed to intimidate and destroy Lebanon, They will then go on to Syria, and then go on to Iraq, and then go on to Iran.

9:52
So you can see that this is an attack on the axis of resistance. This is moving from one faction to another. Israel de facto has a ceasefire with Hezbollah, which means no Hezbollah rockets going into northern occupied Palestine, even though the Israelis continue to break their ceasefire day and day, murdering Lebanese civilians. So the Turks and Erdogan have stuck a knife in the back of the Syrian people.

10:20
And personally, I always believed that the Russians went into Syria apart from the longstanding relationship between the Arab Republic and the Soviet Union. This was to prevent ISIS winning in Syria and then going into Georgia, where we witnessed today another regime change sponsored by the Americans.

PressTV: 10:39
Thanks a lot, gentlemen. We’re going to leave it there. Independent international affairs analyst Gilbert Doctorow joining us from Brussels. Thanks to journalist, author and activist, Fra Hughes, speaking to us from Belfast.

This ten-minute segment from last night’s Press TV news round-up at a little after midnight Iranian time opens with statements from the Iranian Foreign Minister at the end of consultations with his counterparts from Iraq and Syria on how to deal with the HTS rebel advances in the northwest of Syria these past several days.

I was kindly given the microphone to present the Russian perspective on the military and geopolitical situation in Syria amidst a surprise rapid attack that has already captured Aleppo and Hama and is threatening Homs. The Islamic extremists of HTS are being encouraged and assisted by the US, Israel and Turkey.

http://www.urmedium.net/c/presstv/131888

Later today I will be with the Indian broadcaster WION in a televised discussion of the most recent developments on the ground in Syria, and of reports in the UK press that Bashar al-Assad’s family has fled to Moscow now that Damascus itself may be threatened.

According to TASS, Tucker Carlson’s interview with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov released a couple of days ago has already been seen by more than 2 million viewers on the social network X alone, with presumably a great many more who watched it on Carlson’s own TCN network and on other media outlets.

That was, by Tucker Carlson standards, an important media exercise. For Carlson, it refreshed his seeming relevance to international developments that he established ten months ago by his interview with Vladimir Putin (21 million views on Youtube), still earlier by his interview with Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orban (884,000 views on Youtube), an interview that also dealt largely with the Ukraine war and how to manage relations with Putin.

For Vladimir Vladimirovich, the Carlson interview was a rare opportunity to make his views on the Ukraine war and other key issues known directly to the American and global public. It was also a missed opportunity as I wrote at the time, because he was evidently very nervous, was uncertain how to deal with the intellectual lightweight Carlson, and wasted audience time with historical narrative, getting around to the present and future only towards the end of their hour-long chat when he surely had lost most of his audience.

I mention this shortcoming of the Putin interview, because it is also somewhat relevant to the new Carlson interview with Sergei Lavrov. Too much of it is backward looking. We come away impressed by Lavrov’s vast command of the subject matter, by his intellectual acuity and diplomatic skills, all of which one would expect from the world’s doyen among foreign ministers. But it is less effective than it might be in providing a glimpse into what may come next in Russian-American relations. In that sense it is also a missed opportunity in the ongoing multi-layered Russian information offensive directed at shaping expectations of the Americans and Europeans in particular over what may be achieved to bring an end to the Ukraine war at the start of the incoming Trump administration.

As another example of this ‘multi-layered information offensive,’ I call out the public statements by a leading nationalist Russian businessman and media personality, owner of the Tsargrad internet platform, Konstantin Malofeyev, in which he trashes the salient points in the published peace plans of General Kellogg, Trump’s nominee emissary to Ukraine and Russia. Malofeyev may be said to be close to the Putin entourage via his marriage to the official who oversaw the removal to Russia of orphaned Ukrainian children from war zones that brought indictments against her and Putin by the ICC. Malofeyev’s views on how the war may end were set out in a feature article of The Financial Times in the past week.

Within the context of Russia’s ongoing information offensive, we now have the 30-minute CNN interview with Russia’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergei Ryabkov which came out a day ago in its full version.

This interview is outstanding in every way. It is especially valuable for explaining Russia’s disparagement of what we know of Trump’s plans for ending the war very quickly by use of threats and blandishments to the leaders of Russia and Ukraine. Per this official Russian position, a settlement is possible only if the core security concerns of Russia are addressed, meaning a settlement addressing the European security architecture and not merely a ceasefire, a frozen conflict, and other nonsense contained so far in what the Trump entourage is touting.

In what follows, I will not reconstruct Ryabkov’s talking points. I leave that to my readers to do for themselves. The interview is short and merits your time.  Instead, I use this space to bring out some relevant facts about who is who in the interview, about how it has fared so far in viewer numbers and why you should spread the word to raise its public impact around you.

First, let me remind you that Sergei Ryabkov is a fluent English speaker who spent more than three years in Washington as an advisor to the Russian ambassador (2003-2005). As his career progressed, he served as director of the ministry’s department on cooperation with Europe. Later as Deputy Minister from 2008, Ryabkov has had responsibility for arms control and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This is to say that his long-time work experience is directly relevant to the present crisis situation between Russia and the Collective West that is being played out in Ukraine.

Ryabkov is the official who crafted and presented the ultimatum to NATO in December 2021 over the need to roll back the NATO European presence to what it was at the end of the Cold War, before the alliance expanded eastward under Bill Clinton. The refusal early in the new year by Washington and Brussels to enter into negotiations over the Russian demands led directly to the launch of the Special Military Operation and invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, with Russia determined to win by force of arms what it could not achieve by diplomacy.

It is also relevant to mention that the CNN interviewer was not some gal or guy from Atlanta who was put on the case thanks to good looks and readiness to read out some aggressive questions prepared for her/him by the CNN editorial board.  No, it was the German jouralist Frederik Pleitgen, who is based in Berlin, who by education and work experience in Europe clearly knew what to ask and how to ask it to get meaningful and relevant answers.

So far, this full version of the show has been seen by 105,000 viewers and has generated 2,295 Comments.

Let me say without hesitation that the audience numbers are pitiful! When I appeared on ‘Judging Freedom’ a week ago, I gathered 120,000 viewers.  When John Mearsheimer opens his mouth before any of the leading interview channels on youtube, he gets half a million views without difficulty even if he has nothing much to say. The same is true of Jeffrey Sachs. And NONE of us is an original formulator and implementer of state policy for the country most deeply involved in the existential struggle between East and West that is going on before our eyes. We are just commentators. Ryabkov is the source and I urge you to take the time to listen to him.

Do note that at 2,295 the number of Comments generated by his interview are a relatively high 3 percent of total views. From my experience, 1 percent is the norm.

 I quote below the first two, which should be all you need to be persuaded that this show is extraordinary:

..

@Traveler_SF

22 hours ago

For the first time in years , respect to CNN. I’m impressed to see no hate from Rusian side. Compare that to USA officials whose blood is boiling when they talk Russia

@pascallefrancq8342

1 day ago

I rarely seen a CNN interview being so respectful in this kind of situation ! Congratulations.

Please ignore the spelling and grammatical errors of these comments which obviously came from viewers from outside the USA. Hopefully native Americans will share this enthusiasm for the Ryabkov interview.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

CNN-Interview mit dem stellvertretenden russischen Außenminister Sergei Ryabkov: fesselnd für alle, die selbst denken wollen

Laut TASS wurde das vor einigen Tagen veröffentlichte Interview von Tucker Carlson mit dem russischen Außenminister Sergei Lavrov bereits von mehr als 2 Millionen Zuschauern allein im sozialen Netzwerk X gesehen, wobei vermutlich noch viel mehr es auf Carlsons eigenem TCN-Netzwerk und in anderen Medien gesehen haben.

Für Tucker Carlsons Verhältnisse war dies eine wichtige Medienübung. Für Carlson hat dies seine scheinbare Relevanz für internationale Entwicklungen aufgefrischt, die er vor zehn Monaten durch sein Interview mit Wladimir Putin (21 Millionen Aufrufe auf YouTube) und noch früher durch sein Interview mit dem ungarischen Ministerpräsidenten Viktor Orban (884.000 Aufrufe auf YouTube) etabliert hat, ein Interview, das sich ebenfalls hauptsächlich mit dem Ukraine-Krieg und dem Umgang mit den Beziehungen zu Putin befasste.

Für Wladimir Wladimirowitsch war das Carlson-Interview eine seltene Gelegenheit, seine Ansichten zum Ukraine-Krieg und zu anderen wichtigen Themen direkt der amerikanischen und globalen Öffentlichkeit mitzuteilen. Wie ich damals schrieb, war es auch eine verpasste Gelegenheit, denn er war offensichtlich sehr nervös, wusste nicht, wie er mit dem intellektuellen Leichtgewicht Carlson umgehen sollte, und vergeudete die Zeit des Publikums mit historischen Erzählungen, um erst gegen Ende ihres einstündigen Gesprächs, als er sicherlich den Großteil seines Publikums verloren hatte, auf die Gegenwart und Zukunft zu sprechen zu kommen.

Ich erwähne diesen Mangel des Putin-Interviews, weil er auch für das neue Carlson-Interview mit Sergej Lawrow von gewisser Relevanz ist. Es ist zu sehr rückwärtsgewandt. Wir sind beeindruckt von Lawrows umfassender Beherrschung des Themas, von seiner intellektuellen Schärfe und seinen diplomatischen Fähigkeiten, die man von dem Doyen unter den Außenministern der Welt erwarten würde. Aber es ist weniger effektiv, als es sein könnte, um einen Einblick in die möglichen nächsten Schritte in den russisch-amerikanischen Beziehungen zu geben. In diesem Sinne ist es auch eine verpasste Gelegenheit in der laufenden vielschichtigen russischen Informationsoffensive, die darauf abzielt, die Erwartungen der Amerikaner und Europäer insbesondere darüber zu formen, was zu Beginn der neuen Trump-Regierung erreicht werden kann, um den Ukraine-Krieg zu beenden.

Als weiteres Beispiel für diese „vielschichtige Informationsoffensive“ möchte ich die öffentlichen Äußerungen eines führenden nationalistischen russischen Geschäftsmanns und Medienpersönlichkeit, des Eigentümers der Internetplattform Tsargrad, Konstantin Malofeyev, anführen, in denen er die wichtigsten Punkte der veröffentlichten Friedenspläne von General Kellogg, Trumps nominiertem Gesandten für die Ukraine und Russland, niedermacht. Man kann sagen, dass Malofeyev dem Putin-Gefolge nahe steht, da er mit der Beamtin verheiratet ist, die die Verlegung verwaister ukrainischer Kinder aus Kriegsgebieten nach Russland beaufsichtigte, was zu einer Anklage gegen sie und Putin durch den IStGH führte. Malofeyevs Ansichten darüber, wie der Krieg enden könnte, wurden in der vergangenen Woche in einem Artikel der Financial Times dargelegt.

Im Rahmen der laufenden Informationsoffensive Russlands haben wir nun das 30-minütige CNN-Interview mit dem stellvertretenden Außenminister Russlands, Sergei Ryabkov, das vor einem Tag in voller Länge ausgestrahlt wurde.

Dieses Interview ist in jeder Hinsicht hervorragend. Es ist besonders wertvoll, um zu erklären, wie Russland Trumps Pläne zur schnellen Beendigung des Krieges herabsetzt, die darin bestehen, dass die Staats- und Regierungschefs Russlands und der Ukraine bedroht und umschmeichelt werden. Laut dieser offiziellen russischen Position ist eine Einigung nur möglich, wenn die zentralen Sicherheitsbedenken Russlands berücksichtigt werden, d.h. eine Einigung, die die europäische Sicherheitsarchitektur berücksichtigt, und nicht nur ein Waffenstillstand, ein eingefrorener Konflikt und anderer Unsinn, der bisher in den Ankündigungen des Trump-Gefolges enthalten ist.

Im Folgenden werde ich Ryabkovs Argumente nicht rekonstruieren. Das überlasse ich meinen Lesern. Das Interview ist kurz und es lohnt sich, es sich anzusehen. Stattdessen möchte ich diesen Platz nutzen, um einige relevante Fakten darüber zu vermitteln, wer im Interview wer ist, wie es bisher bei den Zuschauerzahlen abgeschnitten hat und warum Sie die Botschaft verbreiten sollten, um die öffentliche Wirkung in Ihrer Umgebung zu erhöhen.

Zunächst möchte ich daran erinnern, dass Sergei Ryabkov fließend Englisch spricht und mehr als drei Jahre in Washington als Berater des russischen Botschafters (2003–2005) verbracht hat. Im Laufe seiner Karriere war er als Direktor der Abteilung für die Zusammenarbeit mit Europa im Ministerium tätig. Später, ab 2008, war Ryabkov als stellvertretender Minister für Rüstungskontrolle und die Nichtverbreitung von Massenvernichtungswaffen zuständig. Das heißt, dass seine langjährige Berufserfahrung direkt mit der aktuellen Krisensituation zwischen Russland und dem kollektiven Westen, die sich in der Ukraine abspielt, zusammenhängt.

Ryabkov ist der Beamte, der das Ultimatum an die NATO im Dezember 2021 ausgearbeitet und präsentiert hat, in dem gefordert wurde, die europäische Präsenz der NATO auf den Stand vom Ende des Kalten Krieges zurückzufahren, bevor sich das Bündnis unter Bill Clinton nach Osten ausdehnte. Die Weigerung Washingtons und Brüssels zu Beginn des neuen Jahres, Verhandlungen über die russischen Forderungen aufzunehmen, führte direkt zur Einleitung der militärischen Spezialoperation und der Invasion der Ukraine im Februar 2022, wobei Russland entschlossen war, mit Waffengewalt zu erreichen, was es auf diplomatischem Wege nicht erreichen konnte.

Es ist auch wichtig zu erwähnen, dass der CNN-Interviewer nicht irgendein Mädchen oder ein Junge aus Atlanta war, der aufgrund seines guten Aussehens und seiner Bereitschaft, einige aggressive Fragen vorzulesen, die von der CNN-Redaktion für ihn/sie vorbereitet wurden, für den Fall ausgewählt wurde. Nein, es war der deutsche Journalist Frederik Pleitgen, der in Berlin lebt und aufgrund seiner Ausbildung und Berufserfahrung in Europa genau wusste, was er fragen musste und wie er es fragen musste, um aussagekräftige und relevante Antworten zu erhalten.

Bisher wurde diese vollständige Version der Sendung von 105.000 Zuschauern gesehen und hat 2.295 Kommentare generiert.

Ich kann ohne zu zögern sagen, dass die Zuschauerzahlen erbärmlich sind! Als ich vor einer Woche in „Judging Freedom“ auftrat, hatte ich 120.000 Zuschauer. Wenn John Mearsheimer den Mund aufmacht, bevor er auf einem der führenden Interviewkanäle auf YouTube zu sehen ist, erreicht er ohne Schwierigkeiten eine halbe Million Zuschauer, auch wenn er nicht viel zu sagen hat. Dasselbe gilt für Jeffrey Sachs. Und NIEMAND von uns ist ein ursprünglicher Formulierer und Umsetzer staatlicher Politik für das Land, das am tiefsten in den existenziellen Kampf zwischen Ost und West verwickelt ist, der sich vor unseren Augen abspielt. Wir sind nur Kommentatoren. Ryabkov ist die Quelle, und ich bitte Sie, sich die Zeit zu nehmen, ihm zuzuhören.

Beachten Sie, dass die Anzahl der Kommentare, die durch sein Interview generiert wurden, mit 2.295 relativ hohe 3 Prozent der Gesamtaufrufe ausmachen. Meiner Erfahrung nach ist 1 Prozent die Norm.

Ich zitiere im Folgenden die ersten beiden, die ausreichen sollten, um Sie davon zu überzeugen, dass diese Show außergewöhnlich ist:

..

@Traveler_SF

22 hours ago

Zum ersten Mal seit Jahren, Respekt an CNN. Ich bin beeindruckt, dass es von russischer Seite keinen Hass gibt. Vergleichen Sie das mit US-Beamten, denen das Blut in den Adern gefriert, wenn sie über Russland sprechen.

@pascallefrancq8342

1 day ago

Ich habe selten ein CNN-Interview gesehen, das in einer solchen Situation so respektvoll war! Herzlichen Glückwunsch.

Bitte ignorieren Sie die Rechtschreib- und Grammatikfehler in diesen Kommentaren, die offensichtlich von Zuschauern außerhalb der USA stammen. Hoffentlich teilen die amerikanischen Ureinwohner diese Begeisterung für das Ryabkov-Interview.

The ongoing political crises in each of these major countries have purely domestic causes, to be sure. But they also have a common foreign dimension due to the contradictory positions in the broad population of each country and in their political parties inside and outside of government with respect to relations with Russia and to the war in Ukraine.

See https://sputnikglobe.com/20241206/how-hardline-pro-us-policies-fuel-political-earthquakes-in-s-korea-france-and-germany-1121108803.html

Translation into German below of the foregoing introduction and of the Sputnik article (Andreas Mylaeus)

Sputnik International: Fokus auf die aktuellen politischen Turbulenzen in Frankreich, Südkorea und Deutschland

Die anhaltenden politischen Krisen in jedem dieser großen Länder haben zwar rein innenpolitische Ursachen. Sie haben aber auch eine gemeinsame außenpolitische Dimension, da die breite Bevölkerung jedes Landes und die politischen Parteien innerhalb und außerhalb der Regierung in Bezug auf die Beziehungen zu Russland und den Krieg in der Ukraine widersprüchliche Positionen vertreten.

Wie die Hardliner-Pro-US-Politik politische Erdbeben in Südkorea, Frankreich und Deutschland schüren

Ekaterina Blinova

Eine Reihe politischer Erdbeben hat Frankreich, Südkorea und Deutschland erschüttert. Obwohl jede Krise ihre eigene Dynamik hat, liegt ihr gemeinsamer Nenner in ihrer pro-amerikanischen Ausrichtung und ihrer anti-russischen Politik, so Experten gegenüber Sputnik.

Die Instabilität, die Frankreich, Südkorea und Deutschland erfasst hat, ist als Reaktion auf die Entwicklungen in den Vereinigten Staaten entstanden, so Dr. George Szamuely, Senior Research Fellow am Global Policy Institute, gegenüber Sputnik.

„Es gibt interventionistische Kräfte in Washington, und zwar viele, auch in der neuen Trump-Regierung. Wenn sich diese interventionistischen Kräfte durchsetzen und die Vereinigten Staaten eskalieren, würde das Engagement der USA in der Ukraine sogar über das hinausgehen, was die Biden-Regierung tut“, warnte Szamuely.

Dem Experten zufolge wird der Stellvertreterkrieg des Westens in der Ukraine in ganz Europa immer unbeliebter. Viele europäische Länder haben erkannt, dass er ihren wirtschaftlichen Interessen schadet. Der Forscher glaubt, dass der Konflikt, wenn er in den nächsten fünf Jahren nicht gelöst wird, eine Volksbewegung innerhalb der EU auslösen könnte.

Der erfahrene Außenpolitikexperte Gilbert Doctorow äußert in einem Interview mit Sputnik ähnliche Bedenken:

• Frankreich: Die „enorme Unbeliebtheit“ von Präsident Emmanuel Macron wurde durch seine entschiedene Pro-US-Politik im Ukraine-Konflikt noch verstärkt, einschließlich der Pläne, französische Truppen in den Kampf gegen Russland zu schicken. Marine Le Pen und ihre Partei, der Rassemblement National, die sich gegen die Militarisierung der Ukraine ausspricht, haben kürzlich Macrons Regierung herausgefordert, was laut dem Experten zum Sturz seines Premierministers Michel Barnier geführt hat.
• Südkorea: Präsident Yoon Suk-yeol hat sich eng mit Washington abgestimmt, um die Abschreckung zu stärken und Druck auf Pjöngjang auszuüben, in Übereinstimmung mit dem Team Biden. Der gegenseitige Verteidigungsvertrag zwischen Russland und Nordkorea hat jedoch die Perspektiven verschoben. Yoons gescheiterter Versuch, das Kriegsrecht zu verhängen, war eine Reaktion auf die Bemühungen der Opposition, das Land von „seinen Kolonialherren in Washington“ zu befreien, so Doctorow.
• Deutschland: Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz steht wegen seiner Ukraine-Politik, die sich an den Vereinigten Staaten orientiert, sowohl vom Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht als auch von der Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) unter Beschuss, die sich für normalisierte Beziehungen zu Moskau einsetzen. Ironischerweise wird er auch von den Grünen und den Christdemokraten dafür kritisiert, dass er zögert, Taurus-Langstreckenraketen an das Regime in Kiew zu liefern.

Auf die Frage nach möglichen Auswirkungen auf die USA antwortete Doctorow: „Es ist viel zu früh, um darüber zu spekulieren. Wir müssen erst die praktischen Folgen der gegenwärtigen Turbulenzen in jedem Land abwarten.“

Doctorow geht davon aus, dass Südkorea sich möglicherweise von der von den USA vorangetriebenen Militarisierung abwenden wird, falls Yoon seines Amtes enthoben wird.

Was Frankreich betrifft, so wird Macron wahrscheinlich versuchen, bis zum Ende seiner Amtszeit im Jahr 2027 zu lavieren, sagte Professor Edouard Husson, französischer Historiker, Mitbegründer und Direktor des Brennus Anticipation Institute, gegenüber Sputnik.

„Immer mehr Franzosen wünschen sich den Rücktritt von [Frankreichs Präsident] Emmanuel Macron. Aber er hält sich an den Wortlaut der Verfassung, und es gibt keinen Artikel, der ihn zum Rücktritt verpflichtet … Die Krise wird also weitergehen“, so Husson.

Mehrere einschneidende Ereignisse könnten die Herausforderungen, mit denen Macron konfrontiert ist, noch verschärfen, so der Professor. Dazu gehören ein möglicher Vertrauensverlust bei globalen Investoren, das Aufkommen einer sozialen Bewegung ähnlich der Gelbwesten, Donald Trumps Ankündigung neuer politischer Maßnahmen in Bezug auf die EU und die Ergebnisse der bevorstehenden vorgezogenen Bundestagswahlen in Deutschland.

„Eine Änderung der Außenpolitik ist nicht zu erwarten, da Emmanuel Macron der Ansicht ist, dass seine Zugehörigkeit zur NATO ihn auch vor dem Misstrauen der Investoren schützt“, so der Experte abschließend.

Transcript submitted by a reader

Napolitano: 0:32
Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for “Judging Freedom”. Today is Thursday, December 5th, 2024. Professor Gilbert Doctorow joins us now. Professor Doctorow, always a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you very much for your time and for your thoughts. The last time you and I spoke, the Russians had recently fired and were overjoyed at the results of the Oreshnik missile. We understood it to be of nuclear quality without the nuclear fallout. Have the Russians been, or is there an argument out there that they have been exaggerating its strength, its efficiency, and its effects?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 1:25
Well, the question is very relevant, because the conduct of Russian policy on the further responses to any provocations from the British, the French, or the United States, their firing additional missiles into Bryansk or Kursk.

The Russian response to that is predicated on their shock and awe developed from the test firing, the test attack on the Ukrainian city of Dnipro. They believe it was effective and that it should have put the fear of God into Mr. Zelensky and into the Americans, so that they would refrain from further provocations. This was a decision taken after Mr. Putin had already made clear days earlier when he spoke at a press conference in Astana at the end of a two-day state visit, he spoke then about possibly using these missiles against Western targets.

And of course, the “Western targets” raises a lot of fear, justified fear, in all of us, whether we’re mainstream or we’re alternative media: are we on the way to World War III? Mr. Putin had clearly turned the other way. He’d gone down the road of putting all possible pressure on the Ukrainians and not responding to the, their “curators”, as the Russians like to say, to their sponsors in the West who are supplying them with these missiles that the Russians find so unacceptable.

3:19
Well, so that leaves us with the question, what did really happen at Dnipro? And there have been several authorities, several experts who have come forward to address that question. I was tipped off on this two ways. One was a letter, a comments letter on one of my websites, which informed me that I and almost all other commentators on the Oreshnik issue are inexpert, don’t know our ass from our elbow, and should more or less shut up, because the Oreshnik, according to laws of physics, is a nothing rocket, a nothing missile.

It doesn’t pack an explosion greater than would be the case with a standard two-ton bomb, which as the author also indicated, is only a slight fraction of the strength of some American super bombs. Well, that caught my attention, particularly since the author of that rather vicious comment made reference to recent articles and video appearances by Ted Postol, who is a well-known authority on missiles, explosives and related issues.

4:45
Then there was a second point of contact that caught my attention. This was on the Russian news, the Russian talk show, I think it was “The Great Game” a day ago, in which they called attention to an article in “Forbes” magazine, an article I have in front of me, “Oreshnik Threat, Rods from God, Are Not as Dangerous as Putin Thinks”. And this was by a journalist, technical affairs journalist, in London.

5:08
I’d call attention to this last one first, because it explains very much what Ted Postol explained, that the laws of physics tell you that the actual impact value of the munitions– or not munitions, of the metal on board the nose cone in these 36 sub munitions that were sprayed across Dnipro– that the net impact of these munitions, sub munitions, would be equivalent to a two-ton bomb, which isn’t a great deal. However, in the middle of that article, he mentions, “Ah, and the Oreshnik, you know, it doesn’t have much lateral damage. It just goes straight down.” Well, straight down is what Mr. Putin had in mind. The Russians were saying that the unarmed version of the Oreshnik, which is what they used in Dnipro, is a bunker buster, that it can do damage to 200 meters down by shock waves equivalent to an earthquake.

6:24
I don’t think– Mr. Putin likened it to meteorites. And for every Russian, now this doesn’t say much to the American or global audience, but Russians all know about the Tunguska, it’s in Eastern Siberia, meteorite, it was called meteorite, that struck there and was seen, the impact was seen 20 kilometers away. Very bizarre impact which knocked down trees in circular pattern for several hundred meters.

Anyway, there were peculiarities about the strike. It created a big crater and so forth. Well, that Tunguska affair is very much on the mind of Russians, well-read Russians of whom Mr. Putin is one, although he may be wrong about its cause. Later, researchers are saying that it was a comet, not a meteorite, but that’s not important.

7:23
The point is that this is the language he used, and he assumed that Mr. Zelensky would be scared out of his wits because his refuge under a possible Russian attack is a deep bunker. And American and other NATO generals operating in Lvov and in Kiev to direct the military operations are in similar bunkers. So Mr. Putin, did he have something real or not? From this article in “Forbes”, you wouldn’t know.

From the article or the interview of Mr. Postol, you would assume that this missile doesn’t have an impact greater than two or three meters, in which case really what are we talking about? So the–

Napolitano: 8:07
Aren’t we talking about a missile that is faster than anything created by man and that effectively cannot be shot down, disabled or neutralized?

Doctorow:
That is all true. And the value of that is clear if it is nuclear-armed. And the Oreshnik can be nuclear-armed, so that if it is carrying nuclear warheads it would be a game-changer all by itself. But that’s in a different game. What the Russians would say, it’s from a different scene, from a different opera. The opera–

Napolitano: 8:44
Here’s President Putin talking about it. So Chris, cut number 13, and you can cut it off, Chris, if it’s a little too long and if President Putin goes into other subjects. But he begins by talking about the Oreshnik.

Putin: [English voice over]
The Oreshnik missile system isn’t simply an efficient hypersonic weapon system. Thanks to its power, particularly in the case of its massive use, in combination with other precision long-range weapons that Russia has, the results of its use against enemy targets would be comparable in effect and its power to strategic weapons. Although, in fact, the Oreshnik system is not a strategic weapon. In any case, it is not an intercontinental ballistic missile.

No one in the world has such weapons yet, as we know, as you know. Sooner or later other leading countries will also get them. We are aware that they are already under development. But this will not happen tomorrow, or in a year, or even two years, while we have this system now. I will add that there are no means of counteracting such a missile, no means of intercepting it in the world today. They don’t exist.

And I will emphasize once again, we will continue testing the latest system. Considering the special strength of this weapon, its power, it will be put into service in the Strategic Missile Forces. In addition to the Oreshnik system, several similar systems are currently being developed in Russia for further testing.

Napolitano: 10:31
Is any of that inaccurate?

Doctorow:
Yes, there are bits and pieces here that are probably inaccurate. For one thing, it actually is an intercontinental ballistic missile. It all depends on where you launch it from. If you launch it from Astrakhan, well, then it just is within the Eurasian land mass. But if you launch it from Kamchatka, it is down in the South of Montana.

Napolitano: 10:55
Aside from his terminology, is there anything inaccurate in there about its strength and invincibility?

Doctorow:
We don’t know. Frankly speaking, I have seen nothing to suggest that anyone knows what the real power of that missile is on impact.

Napolitano:
Why is the West attempting to discredit this weapon? And why are the Americans and the British continuing to assist the Ukrainians in using ATACMS and Storm Shadows to reach into Russia?

Doctorow:
Because–

Napolitano:
Those are different questions. I apologize.

Doctorow: 11:31
No, no. They refuse to accept that the Russians, on a budget 10 times less than theirs in the States, could achieve a technical breakthrough that is not in the grasp of the United States today. That is, a hypersonic missile that cannot be shot down. And so they look for reasons to say that Russia is basically weak, that this is misleading, that it just creates a little crater, like a 2,000-pound bomb of TNT would create, and they don’t want to accept that there could be something very, very serious here. Nobody has shown what the real destruction there was or wasn’t inside the underground factory that the Russians were aiming to destroy.

12:20
Nor has anybody concentrated on the level of precision of this. This is a very critical issue. When you come in at Mach 10 or Mach 20, it should be extremely difficult to keep that missile and the payload onto a precise target. And Mr. Putin was saying that this is a precision striking missile. They hit that factory, after all. The question is what did they do to it? And we don’t know. Nobody seems to know.

Napolitano: 12:57
What will the Russians do, Professor Doctorow, to prevent, retaliate, or punish for the persistent use of ATACMS and Storm Shadows landing inside Russian territory?

Doctorow:
Well, because of the premises in Mr. Putin’s appreciation of this missile– that it is precise, that it is devastating on impact at great depths, and that it does no collateral damage in a city. That is, it’s not a great threat to civilians or to valued cultural city infrastructure– we can expect he’ll do what he said he would do. The next step is to use the Oreshnik against decision-making centers and command and control centers in Kiev and elsewhere. So that’s the next step.

Napolitano: 14:01
Well, command and control centers for the United States would be Langley, Virginia or Washington, D.C. Or, are we talking something more modest like the new American air base in Poland and a more traditional-style American storehouse of weapons in Romania?

Doctorow:
No, Judge, none of the above. He’s limiting himself to Ukraine, and there are two reasons. I gave one of them, that this missile is most threatening to Mr. Zelensky and the people in his regime, because if it does what Putin says, it will kill them wherever they’re hiding, at whatever depth. There’s a second reason, which is probably as important or more important. The second reason is that Putin has no trust in Trump’s ability or willingness to aid the resolution of the war with Ukraine. He believes that the peace plans that Kellogg has put forward are irrelevant to the present situation, and therefore there is nothing to expect in waiting to January 20th, and there’s nothing to expect by responding directly to the States and destroying any possibility of dialogue with the Trump administration when it comes in.

Napolitano: 15:30
Is, to your knowledge, Professor Doctorow, General Kellogg talking to people in the Kremlin?

Doctorow:
No, he isn’t. According to the Russians, officially speaking, they have had no contact.

Napolitano:
What kind of peace proposals has General Kellogg even proffered, whether directly to the Kremlin or indirectly through the media?

Doctorow:
Well, it goes back to June, when he was in charge of this America First think tank, and he then put out ideas for how the war could be ended quickly. These ideas apparently have not been altered since then, although the Russians say they’re not relevant to the present situation, nor are they germane to what the Russians seek to justify ending this war. And those terms were set out earlier this week in an interview or in a feature article in the “Financial Times” about a certain Malofeyev who is close to the Kremlin, close to Putin, who runs an ultra-nationalist news journal online called “Tsargrad”. “Tsargrad” is the old Russian term for Istanbul pre-revolution.

Napolitano:
And who speaks to General Kallog.

Doctorow: 16:51
And who critiqued the terms of Kellogg’s settlement, the basic idea being, let’s do this quickly. We will cut off arms to Ukraine if they don’t agree to sit down and talk to the Russians about a peace treaty.

We will raise the level of support to Ukraine if the Russians refuse to sit down and negotiate a settlement. We want to have an immediate ceasefire before anything happens. Those terms– oh yes, and the outcome would be, Ukraine would not be eligible for admittance to NATO for 10 years, and we will lift our sanctions, for example, on oil, gas, and so forth– these terms, they’re the only terms that have been published relating to General Kellogg, they are, according to Malofeyev, utterly unacceptable to the Russians. And although Kellogg will be admitted to Moscow and they will sit down and talk, the result will be zero. What are their basic reasons for going to war to be addressed?

Napolitano: 18:07
Right, right. Here’s President Zelensky just six days ago expressing a willingness quote “to stop the hot stage of the war”. You’ve got to tell me if this is rational or not. Chris, cut number one.

Zelensky: [English voice over]
If we want to stop the hot stage of the war, we should take under NATO umbrella the territory of Ukraine that we have under our control. That’s what we need to do fast. And then Ukraine can get back the other part of its territory diplomatically.

Napolitano:
That’s delusional, isn’t it?

Doctorow:
Completely. He is losing the war badly, and his army may be overrun and forced to capitulate in a matter of weeks. And he’s talking as if he’s winning the war, or as if the United States can step in and freeze the conflict so that he can then at his leisure negotiate away what the Russians have gained on the ground. This is delusional.

Napolitano: 19:11
Here’s someone else whose comments are delusional, even though he will soon no longer be in office. Secretary of State Blinken earlier today at a meeting at which apparently, as you’ll hear from the Secretary, Russian defense minister Lavrov was there and left before Secretary Blinken began to speak. Cut number 12.

Blinken:
I regret that our colleague, Mr. Lavrov, has left the room, not giving the courtesy to listen to us as we listened to him. And of course, our Russian colleague is very adept at drowning listeners in a tsunami of misinformation. So I won’t parse everything that he said, but I will just note two things.

19:55
First, he speaks of the indivisibility of security. That’s right, but it cannot be and must not be a one-way street, good for Russia, but not Ukraine. But let’s not fool ourselves and let’s not allow him or anyone else to fool us. This is not about and has never been about Russia’s security. This is about Mr. Putin’s imperial project to erase Ukraine from the map.

Napolitano: 20:20
I mean, he sounds like Senator Graham, “imperial project to erase Ukraine from the map”. There’s never been that articulated nor has there been behavior from which that can rationally be drawn, but I’ll let you take it from there.

Doctorow:
No, I agree with you completely. This man cannot leave office soon enough. He is a danger to everyone around him. And by that I mean to every American, by his totally irresponsible propaganda.

Napolitano: 20:51
Before we go, what are the Russians doing in [Syria]? Are there land ground troops– excuse me, in Syria? Are there ground troops in Syria?

Doctorow:
There are ground troops in Syria. The Russians, again, they take this very seriously, although there are many commentators among the alternative media, including some very responsible ones, who are saying that this is an Israeli project, that the Israelis have long had their objective to create [chaos in] Syria because it thereby disrupts the main channel of supply of Iranian weapons to Hamas and to Hezbollah. All of it transits in Syria. And this is why the Israelis have been attacking by air for the last several years, attacking what they say were arms caches in Syria. But the Russian perspective is this is an American project. And here we come back to this old question that you and I have discussed in the past: which is the head and which is the tail of a dog?

21:54
The Russians are saying clearly that the head of this dog is in Washington, DC. And the ambition of this project is to make Russians pay a price for their absorption in the Ukrainian war and for their winning the Ukrainian war.

And the price would be to jeopardize and perhaps to force out the Russian base, naval and air bases on the coast of Syria, thereby depriving Russia of its naval support in the Eastern Mediterranean and of its influence in greater Africa.

So this is what’s in play for the Russians, say, “Don’t kid yourselves, we have the means, we have the men, and we will fight to keep the Assad government in place.”

Napolitano: 22:43
Well, you read my mind. Will Russian troops be fighting IDF, Israeli Defense Forces and others financed by the US, aligned against President Assad?

Doctorow:
I believe they will. But I wouldn’t put the emphasis on boots on the ground. Participation was, from 2015 on, primarily air power. And the air power is there and is being used today. I’d like to point out that, listening to the BBC, they assume that their audience is mindless and has no recollection whatsoever, because they’re reporting on the “white helmets”, daily reports on deaths of civilians from bombing in this area of Idlib and northwestern Syria. Sounds familiar, “white helmets”, hmm. They’re all British intelligence people. So the Brits are in it up to their necks, not just the Israelis and the Turks and a few other opportunists.

Napolitano; 23:52
What conceivable threat to national security of the United States of America or the United Kingdom is the presidency of Bashar al-Assad in Syria?

Doctorow:
This is big geopolitics. It’s like asking what was the threat to American security of Vietnam. Nil. But it was the old domino theory which explained the presence. And we have a new version coming from the likes of Blinken and Sullivan. They don’t call it a domino theory, but if you follow their words carefully, that’s what they’re talking about.

“If we let Russia win in Ukraine, then Poland comes under threat, then the Baltics disappear and so forth.” This is a new version of the domino theory, without those little pieces of wood.

Napolitano; 24:41
You know, Senator Graham has made this argument. I don’t know if Senator Rubio, the incoming Secretary of State, has made the argument. Representative Congressman Walz, who is the incoming national security advisor, has made this argument. Will these insane domino arguments be whispered into the ears of and resonate with President Trump? You can’t answer that, but you must be fearful of it, as am I.

Doctorow: 25:11
Yes, he is a loose cannon on the deck, and that characterization will not go away. Exactly how he will come down on any given issue is unpredictable. And some of your other guests are saying very much the same thing. We’re hopeful that reason will prevail and he will not fall for these cheap tricks like the domino theory. But time will tell.

Napolitano:
Here’s Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Rabkov mentioning Oreshnik.

Rabkov:
Oreshnik is not a strategic ballistic missile. It’s an intermediate-range missile which was tested in combat, and the results are known for people in Kiev, for people in Washington, in Brussels, and of course in Moscow. We use this as not just a messenger [in] a sense, But we use this to test what we really have in terms of our growing and additional capabilities in this very crucial area. Let me tell you that if not for the Trump-1 administration that simply destroyed the INF Treaty, which served well interests of both the US and Russia for several decades, then there would be no Oreshnik in our hands.

26:40
We would still be restrained from our capability to develop such weapons. But okay, it’s gone, and now we have what we have. We do not complain about missed opportunities. We look forward. We’re very sure that we will reach all our goals and objectives through our action on the ground, and all the objectives of the Special Military Operation will be achieved.

Napolitano: 27:09
One thing that he said is absolutely true, and that is: President Trump abrogated a treaty which had succeeded in restraining the development of this kind of weapon while the treaty was being enforced. Your thoughts on what the Deputy Foreign Minister said?

Doctorow:
Well, let’s consider who he is. He is surely the most strong-willed and most free in expressing his thoughts of any of Lavrov’s deputies. This is the man– “We will achieve all of our objectives.” Let’s remember who he is. He is the man who rolled out in December of 2021 the demands on NATO, that it roll back its presence to where it was at the end of the Cold War. That is before all the NATO expansion. So which of the objectives he expects to achieve remains to be determined. I found his language was done in this video to be quite moderate, considering, as I say, that he is a tough, very tough guy. He’s certainly the toughest senior representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Napolitano: 28:29
Where do you see all this going? How is Ukraine going to come to an end? The government will collapse, Zelensky will flee, either alive or dead. The military will probably collapse before Trump becomes president of the United States, no?

Doctorow:
I agree with that scenario. There are those of my colleagues were speaking as if this can happen tomorrow. Well, maybe it won’t happen tomorrow, but it can certainly happen in the coming weeks. The Russians have shown on the latest television, finally, some diagrams, moving diagrams, showing what they’ve achieved in the last month, or six weeks. Because you listen to the daily news accounts, and this town is under fire, and that, and you can’t make any sense of it, frankly speaking. But they made sense of it. Their role, their move westward towards the Dnieper is dramatic, and the likelihood [is] a collapse of the Ukrainian forces when the Russians bring in 150,000 or more men that they have waiting and prepared for a major offensive, I don’t see how the Ukrainians could withstand that.

Napolitano: 29:45
Professor Doctorow, it’s a pleasure to chat with you, my dear friend. Thank you very much for your time and for your thoughts. And of course, I hope you’ll come back again and visit with us next week.

Doctorow:
Very kind of you, and I appreciate the offer.

Napolitano:
Thank you. Coming up later today at two o’clock this afternoon, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson. At three o’clock this afternoon, Professor John Mearsheimer.

30:09
Judge Napolitano for “Judging Freedom”.