Ed. Note: We at Algora have always thought that it was/is the Anglo-American power that is the Master, using Jews as their remote infiltrators throughout world to further the Anglo-American interests, and NOT the other way around. Not a popular view these days. That is the historical background of the Anglo-Zionist alliance.

These days the Anglo-Saxons have managed to find and prop up that ultimate eschatological maniac Netanyahu and his gang of settlers as the perfect irresponsible, suicidal war criminals hell-bent on all-out war in the Middle East.

Now, we have Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, a rare voice, arguing the same. Contrary to the boring group of “dissidents”, Judge Napolitano, Gen. Macgregor, Prof. John Mearsheimer, Scott Ritter,  etc., Doctorow’s position is rather more credible.

Gilbert Doctorow

Today I was given the opportunity to set out a very different explanation of U.S. policy in the developing regional war in the Middle East/West Asia from what my peers are saying, or from what I myself would have said two weeks ago.

The generally accepted view on the U.S.-Israeli relationship in this war was repeated earlier today by Colonel Douglas Macgregor, a widely watched military expert. He said that it appears the U.S. is now flying blind in the region, or to put it another way is on auto-pilot, following two steps behind Israel.

However, by his own acknowledgment, the successful Israeli bombing of the Hezbollah headquarters and decapitation of its leadership in downtown Beirut was made possible only by direct United States support. The 86 two-ton bombs dropped on the residential buildings to tear deep underground and do the job were American supplied. The intelligence on the whereabouts of the intended victims was provided by the United States, which also brought its AWACS into play off the coast of Lebanon long enough to provide actionable information to the Israelis for their strike.

Let us put it another way: the United States provided Israel with what it needed to do what the United States wanted done. After the confirmed killing of the 30 years plus leader of Hamas, US. officials said the dead man had the blood of American servicemen on his hands and it was good that he had been eliminated.

Then let us consider what Western media are reporting about the limits that Washington is putting on Israel’s coming retaliatory strike at Iran for the ballistic missiles that Iran fired at military targets in Israel a day ago. We are told that Joe Biden has warned Netanyahu against hitting any nuclear sites in Iran. That radical solution to the Iranian nuclear weapons program would surely bring the Russians directly into the conflict given that they are about to sign a comprehensive cooperation agreement later this month with a defense component that effectively makes the countries allies. Since the Americans are duty bound to defend Israel, they would then be fighting Russia, the nuclear superpower, something that the Biden administration is loathe to do. The Israelis are also being instructed not to hit oil and gas installations in Iran since that would drive up global energy prices and do great harm to the chances of the Democratic candidate Kamala Harris.

Does this not sound like Washington’s prohibition on Kiev’s use of ATACMS, Storm Shadow and other long range Western supplied missiles against the heartland of Russia? In both cases, the beneficiary of U.S. military support is being deprived of the possibility of doing great harm to its enemy in a war for survival. The explanation for this similarity is ready to hand: the Israeli rampage in the Middle East is being directed from Washington in the same way as Kiev’s invasion of Kursk and other military operations against Russia are directed from Washington.

Washington is now ready to see Netanyahu fight to the last Israeli to tame the neighborhood for the sake of its Big Brother across the Atlantic. The destruction of the neighborhood by ‘our boy’ in Jerusalem is surely seen by the Neocons who still control the levers of power in Washington as suitable retribution for the humiliations the United States experienced in each of the wars it has ignited or joined in the Middle East over the past two decades. Clipping the wings of Iran has been not only an obsession of Netanyahu; it has been an obsession of successive U.S. administrations since that of Jimmy Carter. Let us remember that the USA is a vengeful and cruel superpower.

I say the Jewish State is being asked to fight to the last Israeli in the knowledge that Israel is being destroyed economically and politically while committing genocide in the neighborhood. The Israeli economy is taking enormous losses from this war which has barely begun, not from destruction of infrastructure by the enemy, as in the case of Ukraine, but by loss of access to shipments of essential raw materials inputs for production, in loss of manpower to operate production since the Israeli army is a nation at arms.

*****

I take the analytical approach to the Middle East conflict set out above following the logic that the Kremlin used to explain its decision to change its nuclear doctrine a week ago. They have lowered the threshold on use of nuclear weapons and specifically state that they may respond with nuclear arms if attacked by a non-nuclear power that is assisted in the aggression against Russia by a nuclear power. That overturns the normal prohibition on use of these weapons against non-nuclear states and moves the threat also to the nuclear co-belligerent, meaning the USA.

The reason for this change is that the Kremlin sees that the United States has moved away from its longstanding doctrine of global nuclear attack using its triad. With the advances of Russian weaponry, the States understand that an attempted decapitating blow would not prevent Russia from still launching a massively destructive counter blow using unstoppable hypersonic missiles. So, instead, Washington is pursuing proxy wars aimed at decapitating the nuclear capabilities of an adversary like Russia but leaving the States at one remove and claiming to be uninvolved.

*****

I fully understand that the contrarian view of the relationship between Israel and the USA set out above will meet objections from those who insist that Israel has bought up Congress through its lobbying activities. Reconsidering the actual relations today is only held up by the vanity of these objectors.

There are also other objectors to what I have proposed who ask incredulously how the USA could approve of the Israeli genocide in Gaza which has killed over 40,000 civilians, mostly women and children. To this I answer firstly that the continued supply by Washington to Israel of the munitions necessary to carry out the genocide speaks for itself.

But I have another argument to add to this. I ask the objectors to open their minds to the reality of a vengeful superpower that has itself committed mass murder of civilians on a far vaster scale. We may put to a side the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima as something from the distant past. But what about the entirely illegal invasion of Iraq undertaken by George Bush which killed perhaps as many as 1,000,000 civilians when the American forces stormed through the country on a wave of ‘shock and awe.’ Or what about the way tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq were allowed to die in the decade before the invasion for lack of medicines caused by U.S. sanctions on the Hussein regime?

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

Full transcript in English

Nima R. Alkhorshid: 0:02
So nice to have you back, Gilbert.

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
Well, it’s good to be back.

Alkhorshid:
And let’s get started with Russia’s policy in terms of the new strategy, the new nuclear strategy of Russia and how it sees the United States policy in this new strategy. What’s your take on this?

Doctorow:
Well, there has been a lot of commentary in Western media about the changed Russian nuclear doctrine. There are those like Stoltenberg, who would have you believe that nothing has changed and that Russia’s red lines are meaningless. There are others who are a bit more insightful and a bit more honest, who see a dramatic change and who understand the Russians are saying their red lines will be honored or there will be a war.

0:58
But very little attention has gone into why. Why did this come up now? Other than some need to be tough, Mr. Putin was under pressure, and so he responded to domestic pressures by toughening the Russian stance on use of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. There’s something else that was available to us all, but very few of my colleagues have used it. And that was the clear indication when Russia and Mr. Putin rolled out the new doctrine. But it’s based on a new evaluation of the threat from the United States.

1:40
The longstanding threat was a global strike. The United States had set up various satellites and missile systems to stage a global strike that would be decapitating against its enemy and had invested heavily in this. The Russians in the meantime had invested not so heavily but still substantial resources to frustrate such an attack if it were made.

However, what Russia is saying now, looking closely at American and NATO behavior in Ukraine, is that the United States has moved away from that, because what the United States had built up, in many respects was bypassed by latest Russian strategic offensive and defensive systems, weapon systems. And the United States has moved into a new strategy for holding its global dominance and for crushing the most important adversaries that it has, as it sees it, Russia and China.

3:06
And that is using hybrid wars, using proxy wars. And we know that, everyone has acknowledged, that the war in Ukraine is a proxy war of the United States in brackets NATO against Russia. But now, let’s add to that, what’s going on in the Middle East is also a proxy war by the United States. I was listening a few minutes ago to the latest interview that Colonel McGregor has given on the situation in the Middle East. I have the highest respect for the expertise, the military expertise, that he brings to his commentaries.

And I gather from his interviews useful material for my own work, just as I gather useful material from the work of Scott Ritter, although I make critical comments on these and other of my peers. We are all operating out of our own methodologies, and there is no need to look for identical conclusions if we’re using different methodologies for our analysis. Now, Colonel MacGregor was saying that the United States seems to be flying blind in the Middle East. It is not leading events, it is following events, and this is very dangerous for the American people. On reconsideration, I think he’s wrong.

4:38
I think the United States is fully in command of what’s going on, because they are using Israel the same way they are using Ukraine. And they will fight in the Middle East to the last Israeli. The Israeli economy is wrecked, just as the Ukrainian economy is wrecked. To a lesser extent by any externally administered infrastructure damage; that hasn’t happened yet. But as we know, the war has taken a very big toll on the Israeli economy, not just because its men at arms are essentially the managers and the workers of its industry and economy, but because its ports have been made unsafe, because supplies of vital hydrocarbons and other resources have been endangered by strikes from Houthis and other adversaries.

5:34
So the Israeli economy is suffering. But I don’t want to get distracted by that. The main point is that the United States was behind the attacks, the latest attacks in Lebanon. They were impossible without the American inputs. And so these were American planes. These were American intelligence AWACs off the coast, supplying the Israelis with all they needed to know of where to drop the bombs.

And the bombs themselves, the two-ton bombs, 86 of which were dropped on six apartment buildings downtown Beirut, one after another, going through layer and layer till they reached the “safe havens” of their enemies in Hezbollah. Those bombs were American. And of course, what we’re talking about is, as I see it, a kind of revenge by those same people in the deep state who gave us the war in Iraq, which was a disaster at the end, who gave us the Afghan War, which was a humiliation at the end. And these same neocons have not left the power levers in Washington, the influences in Congress. And they are looking for, and they are now achieving, their revenge for the humiliations that the United States has experienced in the last 20 years as a result of their policies, of the never-ending wars that they have inflicted on others for the purpose of maintaining American global dominance.

7:17
Well, this reality struck a chord in Moscow. The Russians understood this perfectly. They seem to have understood it better than Colonel McGregor, although he was rather disparaging of Moscow’s ability to interpret events in his latest remarks. So the United States is behind the war in the Middle East, and it is using Israel to maintain its global dominance throughout the Middle East and to recover its stature from the, as I say, series of xxxxxx invasions in the recent wars that the United States instigated illegally and lost in a quite ugly manner.

So the Russians have understood this, and therefore they have changed their nuclear doctrine to accommodate to the new facts. The new facts are that the United States will stand back, will use its allies, its proxies, to do whatever it wants to do against Russia or China and to stand back with clean hands and say, “Oh, don’t touch us. We weren’t involved in this”, as you see from all of the latest denials coming out of Mr. Kirby and his fellow spokesman for one or another group in the United States leadership.

8:42
No, the United States is in it up to its neck, and It has taken great pleasure in facilitating the Israeli reign of havoc and destruction in this neighborhood.

Alkhorshid: 8:56
And the question is: to what extent do they want to continue the conflict in the Middle East? Because with this ground offensive on the part of the Israelis, it doesn’t seem that would be successful. And are they willing to sacrifice Israel the way they have been sacrificing Ukraine?

Doctorow:
You answered your own question. Yes, of course they are. The United States is very selfish and very cruel. And despite all of the talk about the brotherhood with, relations with Israel, how we stand up for them and we don’t forget the Holocaust and the rest of it, still they’re not us, they’re not the United States. The United States will sacrifice them, without a moment’s hesitation, to achieve what it believes to be its supreme objective of global domination.

Alkhorshid: 9:53
Yeah. And do you think that the way that they’re trying to attack Russian base in Syria, do you find it related to what’s going on between Iran and Hezbollah, or it’s something else, it’s totally different aspects?

Doctorow:
There are assets of the major powers in West Asia. The biggest assets, of course, are American assets. And I think that any American encouragement of or facilitation of attacks in Syria are in this, must be seen in this context, because American assets have been struck by the allies of the axis of resistance that Iran maintains. So it’s tit for tat. That being said, Iran has much greater capability, both itself and through its fellow fighters in the region, to damage the vast resources that the United States has sitting there as sitting ducks.

11:18
The most obvious sitting ducks, of course, are the aircraft carrier task force in Eastern Med, but there are the bases, the fifth fleet base in the region. There are American troops almost everywhere in those countries. And all of them can be struck by missiles from the Houthis, not from Hezbollah so far, but certainly from Iran. And everyone’s taking their time.

What’s going on in the Middle East is also a confirmation of conclusions that I reached with respect to the Ukraine war. That is, why is Mr. Putin so slow to react? Why has he allowed so many red lines to be crossed? Why did it take till now before the Russians have drawn a line in the sand and said, “Definitely, we will attack you, the United States, if you cross this line”?

12:30
I think what we have to consider is that both on the Russian side and on the United States side, there’s a very– it’s like two scorpions that are circling one another. Both these parties do not want to be drawn into a World War III. That being said, the Russians have a greater restraint on them than the Americans do.

The Americans are the unchallenged leader of NATO and of another 20 countries that have joined in, for example, on the anti-Russian campaign in Ukraine. The Russians don’t have that kind of dominance among their sympathizers, let’s call it. China, India, the global south. Russia does not have that dominance. It’s gaining that dominance.

Thanks to American, very ill-advised, very stupid, very ignorant American policies that have pushed China into Russia’s arms and have just pushed Iran into Russia’s arms. Now, what I’m saying now may sound like the unusual understanding of the man biting the dog. The dog usually bites the man, and the dog biting the man is the assumption throughout Washington, that the Ukraine war has forced Russia into China’s arms, and that they have made rather expensive for themselves deals on raised exports of hydrocarbons to China. That they have, they are dependent on China for various commercial assistance, which makes them a junior partner in the relationship.

14:28
That’s what we usually hear from everybody else. I’m saying now the situation is exactly reversed because of what Washington has done, because of the efforts to build a Pacific NATO, because of the agreements with South Korea, Japan, Australia, and hope for other members in an anti-China coalition, right at the borders, and to station these medium-range nuclear-armed missiles against China there.

Before, when we said that the Chinese didn’t want Russia to go under because they would be next, it was a statement of a general observer of what we supposed could be going on. What we see now is not a question of somebody’s arbitrary interpretation. The United States, by leading a trade war against China, by forcing allies to restrict or prohibit sale of advanced chip-making equipment to China, and by encouraging the EU to follow quickly with similar anti-Chinese trade measures, is trying to strike at the jugular of the Chinese economy and of the Communist Party rule in China.

16:15
And that cannot go on without China changing its policies towards the United States now, not five years from now. That’s going on as we speak. And the result, as I say, is that China needs Russia more than Russia needs China right now. Russia has solved its trade problems out of sanctions with India more than with China.

The Chinese, though, need the defensive systems, like the S-400 or S-500, that the Russians have developed, and other weapons that China has that will always charge potential to maintain Chinese defense against a very aggressive neighborhood led by the United States. Iran, under the newly elected moderate reform-minded prime minister, was speaking two weeks ago about wanting to reopen the talks with the signatories to the comprehensive agreement on a nuclear settlement and relaxing the sanctions on Iranian economy.

17:43
That was two weeks ago. What the United States has done by facilitating the Israeli attacks in Lebanon on Hezbollah is– by the decapitation strike in downtown Beirut, was to leave the new president and his advisors with no choice, but to respond in a way that heads towards a regional war and that makes essential the close military assistance that Russia is giving to Iran in the defense weapon systems. This is something that Scott Ritter has spoken about extensively, and I salute his remarks, particularly the notion that the advanced fighter jets that Russia is giving to Iran may very likely be piloted by Russians, and that the S-400s that are now in Iran, to protect them against Israeli strikes, are very likely manned by Russians, or very least have Russian technicians and advisors next to the Iranian crews who are operating systems.

19:04
Why? Well, the very same reason why there are Americans operating the Patriot systems in Kiev. These systems are very sophisticated. They take a long time to train qualified staff. And the time isn’t there. So the manufacturers of the systems have to be present to ensure that they will function properly on the ground. So we can assume safely that if there is going to be an Israeli air attack on Iran, the Israeli planes will be shot down by Russians. That’s where things stand now.

Alkhorshid: 19:47
Yeah. And the other thing in the Middle East would be other countries. How do you see Turkey and Saudi Arabia in terms of what’s going on? Do you find it that they’re getting what’s going on the way that you were describing it, or they’re seeing something else?

Doctorow:
Well, the predicaments of these countries are specific to the countries. Turkey is the most complicated, because of its NATO membership. I think that very quickly its continued presence in NATO will become impossible for Turkey. If that’s– the closer we come to a regional war, less tenable is Turkey’s membership in NATO, because NATO, or the leaders of NATO, are driving the attack on Turkey’s allies in the neighborhood by their blood and religious brothers. Now, will Turkey take part actively now? I don’t think so. Are they going to become co-belligerents? I don’t think so.

21:05
Mr. Erdogan talks big, and does very little. He is sitting on the fence for obvious reasons. But I think: let’s wait until the dust settles. As for Saudi Arabia, they are on the sidelines. They have changed their fundamental policy from being in favor of the Abraham Accords and reaching a settlement with Israel. They have the latest statements. They deny that they will make any peace with Israel until there is a two-state solution in place. But will Saudi Arabia engage in the war? Their defenses, even with American systems, the Houthis–

I apologize for this noise. I’m in my apartment; some neighboring apartments have decided to do renovations, but I hope that my voice nonetheless carries over this background. The Houthis demonstrate that Saudi Arabia was vulnerable in its most sensitive place, in its oil processing facilities. So, if a group as poorly equipped as the Houthis could achieve that, it’s clear that the Saudis are not going to go up against Israel. However, I’d like to call out the more important fact, as I see it.

23:02
Though these countries, the neighborhood of the conflict, will not sign up with Iran today against Israel, states in general go for winners and abandon losers. And if the conflict ends, as it may very well end, with serious damage to Israel’s war reputation, military reputation, I do not say defeat, because the defeat in the obvious terms will be prevented at all costs by the United States. But if Israel takes a beating in this conflict, then the neighborhood will move against Israel in its geopolitical positions, meaning in every international forum. This cannot be underestimated.

Russia has picked up friends and friends. The BRICS is going from strength to strength because of Russia’s apparent victory against all of NATO in Ukraine. As I said, states are not unlike individual humans in this respect. They all want to be on the side of a winner.

Alkhorshid: 24:32
We know that there would be a comprehensive military agreement between Russia and Iran. How do you see this agreement going to a security agreement between these two countries? Because the way that we are witnessing what’s going on in the Middle East and how is it connected to the conflict in Ukraine, it seems that would be the case at the end of the day.

Doctorow:
Well, as others who are more competent than I am to judge the military capabilities of Iran are saying, Iran is doing quite all right with offensive weapons. Their missiles seem to include Mach 10, which is really fully hypersonic missiles that you cannot, you can’t even detect them when they’re coming in. And so in that respect, Iran doesn’t need help.

25:29
But on the defense side and on the air force side, Iran is deficient, and Russia is by no means deficient. This is why the dispatch of these highly advanced air defense systems to Iran is of major importance. And clearly the Russians could not supply enough of their systems to cover all of the assets and infrastructure that are of value, of great value to the Iranian economy and state. So there’s plenty of room for further development of this, once the security agreement is signed and implemented. It is expected that the signature will take place during the BRICS summit in Khazan, which is 25th, 24th, 26th of this month.

Alkhorshid: 26:30
Yeah. And talking about the conflict in Ukraine right now, we had Zelensky was in the United States talking with Biden and then with Donald Trump. Two different meetings totally in terms of the concept and the way they were talking about the conflict. How did you find it?

Doctorow:
Well, I have not much to say about Mr. Biden and his people around or about Kamala Harris. They are all-in on a failed policy of supporting a dictator in Kiev, a dictator who has played a decisive role in military strategy that has not turned out well for his country, most recently the Kursk invasion of Russia that has taken a very bad turn, and been very costly to the Ukrainian military.

27:32
As for Mr. Trump, the situation is a bit more difficult to understand or explain. He is a man known for bluster. He’s a man known for exaggerated statements of one kind or another. He has backed away a little bit from his statements going back a month or more ago that If elected, he would proceed directly to bang heads together and to find a peace in Ukraine in a day’s time.

Well, I don’t hear about a day’s time any more, but he’s still saying that he would be the person to achieve a peace between these parties that escapes Mr. Biden and Kamala Harris because of their ill-informed support for Zelensky and his military adventures. I don’t believe that Mr. Trump has the ability to bang heads together, or to use his charm with Mr. Putin, or threats on Mr. Putin, to bring an end to the war. Nothing of the sort.

28:59
But having said that, Trump does have the ability to end the war in, say, two weeks’ time, simply by pulling the plug on all further U.S. military equipment and financial contributions to Ukraine. In a matter of a week or two, the Ukrainian army would grind to a halt and collapse. In that sense, what Kamala Harris is saying about Trump is correct. Trump would, by withholding support, force a capitulation on the Ukrainians.

Is that a bad thing? No. It’s a wonderful thing for the Ukrainians, because the continuation of this war is a disaster for the nation. They have lost maybe 40% of their population, now refugees abroad,with a very significant proportion going to Russia. Those who went to Europe will not go back. Therefore, the Ukraine, to continue to exist as an independent nation desperately needs an end to the war. That old talk of NATO’s outgoing chief Stoltenberg and incoming leader Rutte that they support the goal of the Ukrainians indefinitely, all of that is very cynical and heartless destruction of Ukraine as a people and as a state.

30:52
So in this sense, the moral high ground is with Mr. Trump. And I hope that that may be appreciated by some of the voters. But to say that his negotiating skills, his art of the deal, will be behind the peace treaty is utter nonsense.

Alkhorshid: 31:16
And the situation in Ukraine and the way that Zelensky is trying to manage the situation if he’s trying to do that. And it seems that right now within the government we had all of Zeluzhny and the foreign minister of Ukraine right now, the head of intelligence is talking about resigning. And how do you see, because at the end of the day, it’s important what’s going on in Ukraine in terms of any sort of equation that the United States is putting on the table?

Doctorow:
Of course there are changes in the Ukrainian ranking and top administration. This is understandable. Mr. Zelensky is trying to find scapegoats for the various failures of his government and of his military. The United States is encouraging this because the United States will want to replace Mr. Zelensky himself at the first opportunity to give a fresh start to the failed adventure in Ukraine. At the end of the day, it is hard to see that Mr. Zelensky will stay in his post. If he were to enter into talks for peace, meaning capitulation, he would be on the first plane out, because he would be a dead man walking in Kiev. The extreme nationalists have said explicitly, they’ll murder him. And I think he is too smart a dude to test that will and ability of his comrade-in-arms.

Alkhorshid: 33:05
Yeah. And right now in the European Union, recently Macron was talking about the priorities of the United States. He said that the first priority is the United States itself, and then it’s China. And how do you understand what’s going on between the United States considering the conflict in Ukraine, and they know what would be the priority of the United States, why they’re not trying to find a solution for their benefit? And recently they’re talking about that the main threat to France is Russia. How is that, how can we put all of this together?

If the main threat is Russia, and they’re trying to understand the behavior of the United States the way that they’re describing it. And do they have any sort of substantial understanding on what’s going on?

Doctorow: 34:12
I think they don’t. The understanding of what is happening in Ukraine is very limited here. Bad news is considered to be disinformation. There is a lot of censorship in Europe, much more than in the United States. There is no division of the public, by the public I mean the politically active public, in Europe the way there is in the United States. And therefore, there is no big effort to explain the situation variously. It’s all explained in accordance with the Washington narrative here in Europe. There is, of course, a growing skepticism about that narrative, even when you pick up the “New York Times” or the “Financial Times”, and you see very frank and open reporting on the disastrous situation in the front of Ukraine, on the level of deaths of those who were newly recruited and sent to the front.

35:29
This is all frankly stated now. It’s not alternative media that are providing this to the public, but it is not so much in European media. And the European leadership is split, as we know, but not 50-50; it’s maybe 75 in favor of the failing policies of today and 25 percent rising who are opposing it. These 25 percent are generally denounced as extremist rightists, which is a very convenient form of slander against parties that are not extremist at all. They’re simply expressing the popular discontent with the failed policies of existing leadership.

And that is shown in the elections in the two states, well, three states now, of what was East Germany, the latest in Brandenburg. And where the, what they could be called, the traffic light coalition of Mr. Scholz, has failed. The Greens have been thrashed, trashed, and the social democrats have done very, very poorly. The SPD. So there is a movement in the public that finds some expression at the ballot box, but has not been sufficient to overturn the ruling majority and the very censorious policies of the governments, which make it difficult to articulate in public space what you and I are talking about.

Alkhorshid: 37:16
Yeah. And the way, in your opinion, in the eyes of Russians right now, they’re thinking of the conflict in Ukraine as it’s going to continue for years or they know that they can put an end to this conflict as soon as possible?

Doctorow:
Well, it is hard to say with certainty what is a genuine change of policy and what is symbolic. The symbolic part, if you want to call it that, is the increase in the Russian military budget for 2025, I think by around 30 percent. If you look at it, if you look backwards a bit, two or three years ago, the Russian military budget planned for 2025 is double, double the Russian military budget before the start of the Special Military Operation. And of course, the formal Russian military budget does not include a lot of spending on security forces, which one could also consider military spending.

38:30
So Russia now is, I think it’s going to have something like 150, 160 billion dollars allocated directly to the military. It is raising the latest call, the latest numbers put out for the Russian armed forces has been raised by another 180,000 men. Russia is bulking up to do what you just said, to go as long as necessary within this war against NATO on the territory of Ukraine. That is a preparation. Preparation doesn’t mean that you anticipate that it will be used. You are doing that as a deterrent to ensure that it doesn’t have to be used.

Therefore, to say exactly what the Kremlin is thinking would be impossible. Do they seriously intend this war to go on for years in the same way that Mr Stoltenberg does? I doubt it. I think they’re looking to a much earlier solution to this, assuming a collapse of Western will, whether that starts in Europe with the unwinding of the German and French governments and the inability of successor governments to provide any aid of importance to Ukraine, or whether it’s the United States elections which change in the single biggest supporter of Ukraine today, the United States.

40:05
But the Russians have good reason to expect the war to end sooner rather than later. Nonetheless, they do not expect the United States to disappear, to go into hiding, to hide under a rock. They expect the conflict with the United States to emerge and re-emerge in various places, as it’s now doing in the Middle East, where very shortly, if this conflict becomes regional, if Iran becomes genuinely engaged, then Russia will be engaged and engaged against whom? Essentially against the United States again. So the Russian need for a large army is justified by its evaluation of world trends, and not just in the locality of Ukraine.

Alkhorshid: 41:03
Yeah. And do you find it right now on the battlefield? How do you see the situation? Is Russia going to take more territories or they’re just satisfied with what’s already in the hand of Russians?

Doctorow:
I would have a difficult time answering that question if I only based myself on this morning’s “New York Times” or “Financial Times”, because they’re telling you, “Oh yes, the Russians have just taken Uhledar, and they’re moving in on Pokrovsk. And these are very important centers of logistics and support for the Ukrainian forces.
But at the same time, the Russians have had massive losses in this operation. Their army is tired, the same with the Ukrainian army is tired. And so everybody’s looking for an exit.”

41:56
Well, if that’s your news for the morning, then you’d have a hard time answering your question. But if you listen to more generally accepted news of developments, the Russians are rolling on, at great expense in terms of planning, effort, munitions, logistical supplies; as for human lives– it is difficult to judge. I think it is safe to guess still the Russians have a between five and 10 to one advantage in terms of casualties compared to what Ukraine is experiencing. And that is explained by their very cautious approach. Oh, we used to read it in the “New York Times”. They are repeating propaganda from Ukraine, which almost always is a mirror image of what we know from Russian sources.

The Russians are telling us that the Ukrainians are sending human waves into attacks. And then the next day, the Ukrainians are saying the Russians are sending human waves and sacrificing the lives of their soldiers to achieve minimal results. These results are no longer called minimal. Talk about Russian will to take the military action to victory, of achievement of its goals from the outset. I think it’s very clear that is what they’re doing and what they will succeed in doing.

43:29
However, I must caution against the titles that are given to interviews by my peers, not necessarily what my peers are saying, but what those who try to attract, bring attention to what they’re saying, that Russia is steamrolling the Ukrainians and that the end of the war is near. No, the end of the war is not near, except if there is a breakdown in support for Ukraine or if there is, by some weird chance, a coup d’etat in Kiev by the military over the civilian leadership. The war can go on for a long time, in theory, not in practice, because the Russians don’t really intend to go beyond the Dnieper. And they could leave Ukraine as a rump state on the other side of the Dnieper. Perhaps the Russians will, if they have to proceed, at greater length, at more time in this fight, will take Odessa and Nikolaevsk, and they will deprive the rump Ukraine of the sea coast.

44:39
That’s all possible. But the rest of the territory of Ukraine, the Russians have no interest in taking that. They just want to see that that is militarily neutralized. And they may very well achieve that. I expect they will. In what time frame? A bit difficult to say, as they will not be decided on the battlefield. It will be decided in the global capitals.

Alkhorshid: 45:05
It seems that at the end of the day, it would be necessary for Russia to make a buffer zone between what’s the eastern part of Ukraine that’s now part of Russia and the western part of Ukraine, until they get to a political settlement or maybe in the aftermath of any sort of political settlement, they do need a buffer zone between the eastern and the western part. How do you find, do you think, have Russians started thinking about it?

Doctorow:
Well, I think this question would be better posed after November 5th, because the, how the American elections go will have a decisive say in whether the war ends very quickly or not so quickly. Buffer zone would be necessary if the war were to go on. It would not be necessary if Ukraine is facing an imminent capitulation.

Alkhorshid: 46:03
Yeah. And just to wrap up this session, yesterday there was an article in “The Hill”, and it says that why do Russians appear so satisfied despite the war in Ukraine? And you mentioned “New York Times” and these people who are thinking that Russia is losing and all of that. But there are people who are confused with what Russia is doing and why they’re so satisfied with the situation. What would be your answer to them?

Doctorow:
The answer to that came out about a month ago in the “Financial Times”, of all places. As I indicated, “Financial Times” is very deeply committed to the Ukrainian victory and to Russian defeat, but not all their journalists are on side of that. And they had a very lengthy article on why life is so good in Russia now, the prosperity that this war has brought to the Russian working class. That is, where salaries have spiraled, have gone up very rapidly, where they enjoy a great many benefits and subsidies from the government, subsidized mortgages.

47:15
We all know that Russia has an 18 to 19 percent interest rate set by the Russian National Bank. But mortgages to young families or to privileged professions like school teachers or medical workers– these are just a few percent a year. The shopping basket of the Russian middle class and working class, more importantly the working class, has been doing very well since the start of this war.

There’s a labor shortage. The people in menial jobs, people who are truck drivers or taxi drivers, they are earning several times what they were making before this war began. And so that gives you a feel-good factor, which is also adding to patriotic fervor that the invasion of Kursk sparked. It’s one thing for Russians to be sent for geopolitical interests abroad across the frontier into Ukraine. It’s another thing for Russians to be fighting on their own soil. And that has been a great spur to national patriotism.

48:46
So between the patriotism coming out of defending your own country and the feeling of prosperity, that’s not a feeling but a reality, is detailed in the “Financial Times”. That explains the phenomenon that you were asking about.

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

Doctorow: 49:11
Thanks for having me.

Ed. Note: We at Algora have always thought that it was/is the Anglo-American power that is the Master, using Jews as their remote infiltrators throughout world to further the Anglo-American interests, and NOT the other way around. Not a popular view these days. That is the historical background of the Anglo-Zionist alliance.

These days the Anglo-Saxons have managed to find and prop up that ultimate eschatological maniac Netanyahu and his gang of settlers as the perfect irresponsible, suicidal war criminals hell-bent on all-out war in the Middle East.

Now, we have Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, a rare voice, arguing the same. Contrary to the boring group of “dissidents”, Judge Napolitano, Gen. Macgregor, Prof. John Mearsheimer, Scott Ritter,  etc., Doctorow’s position is rather more credible.

The Friday prayer sermon delivered yesterday by Iran’s Supreme Leader Seyyed Ali Hosseini Khameneh in a central square of Teheran which drew an audience of hundreds of thousands chanting ‘death to Israel’ was the first of its kind in more than four years. Later in the day, the country’s English language global broadcaster Press TV reached out to foreign talking heads for comment on what he said. I and Yves Engler, a political activist in Montreal were brought on air for a 25-minute round of questions and answers.

https://www.urmedium.net/c/presstv/131140

Put in brief, the Supreme Leader directed his attention exclusively at the crimes Israel is perpetrating in the neighborhood, for which it will be properly punished by Iran and its allies. He called upon the entire Muslim world to unite in support of this just fight.

What I found most striking in the report on the Ayatollah’s speech and in the formulation of all questions for our discussion by presenter Bardia Honardar is that all attention is directed solely against Israel; hardly a word is said about the United States’ role in the unfolding catastrophe in Gaza and Lebanon.

What I make of this is the following: Israel as the clearly visible perpetrator of the ongoing genocide and atrocities in the region is a country generally reviled at the popular as well as state level throughout the Muslim world. The enabler of Israel’s crimes, or, as I suggest, the power guiding Israel’s rampage for its own purposes, the United States, presents a more divisive issue for Muslim countries worldwide, since so many of them are embedded with U.S. joint defense agreements and are host to American military bases.

Support for Iran’s defense against Israel by these latter states and peoples who are embedded with Washington is being ‘requested’ by Teheran in an entirely separate way from the Ayatollah’s outreach to co-religionists. This took place at a meeting with the Gulf States in which Iran threatened to attack their oil rigs and refineries in case Israel attacks Iran’s hydrocarbon industry, which would be done with the approval and likely the military support of Washington. So much for ‘Muslim unity’ as an abstract concept.

Of course, none of the latter was put on air by our host.

I call attention to the mini-debate I had with Mr. Engler over whether Washington is just ‘complicit’ in Israel’s atrocities, as he believes, or is guiding the rampage, as I believe, following my concept of a US proxy war in which Israel is the proxy, carrying out the U.S. mission of kicking ass in the region and reinforcing American global hegemony within its assigned territory of West Asia.

I also call attention to the time lag in consciousness of what is going on by our Press TV interlocutor. His question at the conclusion of the program about U.S. ‘hypocrisy’ with respect Israel’s conduct sounds today like it comes from another planet. Hypocrisy is, as I say, the small change of diplomacy everywhere. Of far greater concern to us all should be Israeli practice of genocide that is enabled by Washington’s delivery of weapons and intelligence.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

Postscript: The Ayatollah delivered his sermon in both Farsi and Arabic, and I am told that the Arabic version was very good indeed. Note that the source of my information on the sermon and on the meeting that Iranian officials had with leaders of the Gulf States to deliver their threats was a Russian Orientalist who spoke in Part One of yesterday’s ‘Great Game’ hosted by Vyacheslav Nikonov on Russian state television.

A debate with John Mearsheimer about the US-Israeli relationship via ‘Judging Freedom’

Yesterday afternoon, on my first day ‘back on the job’ following a two week vacation, I appeared on two of the widely viewed interview programs to which I have been privileged to be invited these past several months: ‘Dialogue Works’ hosted by Nima Alkhorshid and ‘Judging Freedom’ hosted by Judge Andrew Napolitano.

My discussion with Alkhorshid was an hour long and dealt with many issues. However, the key issue was how to understand the relationship between Joe Biden’s America and Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israel in the developing regional war in West Asia. This is what I focused attention on in my article on these pages yesterday presenting the link to the show.

It is commonplace to say that U.S. policy is being guided by the Israeli lobby and that Netanyahu is leading Collective Biden around by the nose. My counter-intuitive argument was that the reverse is true, and that this is not the result of arbitrary factors of their respective personalities or of the alleged Israeli AIPAC control of U.S. foreign policy. No, what we are witnessing is a second current example of U.S. striving to maintain its global hegemony by provoking and fueling proxy wars against its main adversaries with the help of nominal allies who are being destroyed in the process.

Case Number One of such a proxy war has for the past two years been U.S. assistance to Kiev in its delusional pursuit of a war to reconquer the Crimea and Donbas, which are now in Russian hands. This war was fueled by Washington to deal a humiliating strategic defeat on the Kremlin and, hopefully, to so stoke domestic discontent as to bring down the ‘Putin regime.’ So far, the war has only strengthened Russia, as its military has become battle hardened and victorious, suffering casualties that are most likely one fifth to one tenth those that Russia has inflicted on the Ukrainian forces and their NATO advisers. This war has cost the United States well over one hundred billion dollars in financial and military equipment deliveries to Kiev. On the positive side of the ledger, the proxy war approach has kept Washington at arm’s length from what is in effect a war on the state leading the Global South in opposition to U.S. worldwide hegemony.

Now we see same game plan being pursued by Washington in West Asia/the Middle East, to hammer at Iran and its Axis of Resistance allies, who pose the greatest regional challenge to U.S. dominance there and to retaliate for the series of humiliations that Washington has experienced in the region over the last two decades. Israeli claims following their successful attack on Hezbollah headquarters in Lebanon last week that they now see a once in fifty years opportunity to reshape the politics of the entire Middle East reflect precisely the delusional thinking of Dick Cheney, George Bush and others responsible for unleashing the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The present day U.S. proxy in the Middle East is the state of Israel and Washington is providing its most advanced defensive (anti-missile systems) and offensive (mega-bombs) weapons plus essential real-time satellite and AWACS reconnaissance data enabling Israel’s genocide in Gaza and its assassination bombings in Lebanon. Now the United States is about to enable some kind of escalatory attack by Israel on Iran itself that may lead to all-out regional war.

My appearance on ‘Judging Freedom’ a few hours later yesterday also devoted a lot of attention to this question of dog wagging the tail or tail wagging the dog to describe Israel-US relations today.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKIaI3CTpVI&t=1392s

The Judge was surprised and skeptical about my reversing the usual reading of leader-follower between Biden and Netanyahu. He hinted before the program’s close that he would take this up with a guest scheduled to appear later on his channel, Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago who came to national prominence back in 2007 when he and Professor Stephen Walt published their ground-breaking study entitled The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Their fame was well earned because the subject was then tabu, and their publication resulted in a stormy controversy that for a time threatened their academic careers before it died down. Now, of course, what they wrote is taken as mainstream by whoever looks into the subject.

Judge Napolitano duly raised the question with Professor Mearsheimer. as you can see starting on minute 14 of their chat:

It is interesting to see how an idea like the Israeli direction of U.S. policy in the Middle East moves from being a scorned dissident notion to becoming the guiding thinking of mainstream. As always, mainstream is intolerant of new nonconformist modeling of state-to-state relationships. That is clearly what has happened to Mearsheimer and his AIPAC certainties. In this interview, Mearsheimer says that Doctorow’s reading is nothing new, that it was set out by Noam Chomsky more than a decade ago and is simply wrong-headed.

What Mearsheimer is missing is an understanding that the world does not stand still. It moves on from what was true seventeen years ago. Other actors come onto the stage and relationships can reverse themselves. I believe that Mearsheimer did not listen to my arguments on air, not to mention my more detailed arguments on paper in my presentation on these pages yesterday evening. When he does so, he will appreciate that it takes more than a flick of the wrist to dismiss what I am saying.

I stand ready at any time to defend my concept of U.S. proxy wars as a necessary analytical tool for understanding what is happening in the Middle East today.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

Transcript from a reader followed by translation into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Transcript below by a reader

Napolitano: 0:30
Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, October 3rd, 2024. Professor Gilbert Doctorow joins us now. Professor Doctorow, always a pleasure, my dear friend, and I thank you for your time. And before we do it, for allowing me to pick your brain.

Before we get into our usual topic, which is the state of affairs, military and political, vis-a-vis the war in Ukraine, I must address issues in the Middle East. Two events caused me to do that. One is an apparent warning reported by TASS by the Kremlin to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu not to invade Lebanon, and another is an apparent warning by the Russian ambassador to Tel Aviv encouraging Russian citizens in Israel to come home and leave Israel. What can you tell us about both of these events?

Doctorow: 1:40
The second one is the easier to address. The Russian ambassador telling Russian passport holders to come back. I wouldn’t read any change in Russian policy towards Israel in that. I think it’s in line with what the British did today when they told their passport holders to take the first plane out from Lebanon. The area is now entering the war, a hot war, and nobody’s safety can be assured.

As for come back home, let’s be open about it. There are a fair number of high-level Russians, high-level in the sense of high net equity, and people with rather clearly defined criminal pasts who don’t dare accept what the ambassador was saying because they’ll be arrested upon arrival. Mr. Nevzlin, for example, is an outstanding case. These people who are multi-billionaires, who took their fortunes and ran to Israel, there are a lot of them. Every scoundrel in Russia got a free pass, so long as he had enough money to contribute to the state’s general welfare. So, the overriding answer is no, it does not indicate a change of policy.

2:58
However, Russia’s policy towards Israel has definitely changed. Russia has changed sides. And the warning to Netanyahu about invading Lebanon is symptomatic of that. The fact– well, it’s not a fact, but it’s an observation that Scott Ritter made in the last few days, that Russian jets that have been given to Iran, advanced jets to make up for their lack of air force, have most likely been piloted by Russians, because those planes require a good training and there’s no time for that. The Russian S-400 air defense systems that have been delivered to Iran and will be further delivered to Iran, because they need a lot of them, will most likely be manned by Russians because they require a great deal of training, just as the Patriot systems in Kiev are being manned by Americans or by other technicians supplied by the manufacturer, since the Ukrainians themselves don’t have the time and the competent people to do that.

4:09
So it is not impossible to foresee that if Israel were to send jet fighters into Iran to strike various targets, they would be shot down by more advanced Russian jet fighters manned by Russians.

Napolitano:
So the “Times of India” is reporting that Russian naval, Russian ships in the Mediterranean A: were fired at by Israeli missiles, it’s obviously a mistake, but maybe you can correct that, what I think is obvious; and B: that they fired back and that they downed 13 missiles. Is this true or is this consistent with your understanding, Professor?

Doctorow: 4:57
No, I would not have an answer to this using the sources that I use. As you are aware, I’m mostly using Russian state news and also Russian talk shows. Russian state news is only talking these days about the war in Ukraine and how they are taking this settlement and that settlement, moving westward and so forth. They give no coverage, almost no coverage to the Middle East, not to mention the kind of event that you just described. Russian talk shows are less restricted in what they’re saying, but what you just mentioned has not yet, to my knowledge, been broached on Russian state television by either news service or the talk shows. So I can’t comment on it. I would–

Napolitano:
Do you, are you in a position to give credibility to a report this morning that Prime Minister Netanyahu quote desperately close quote, sought a phone call with President Putin, which President Putin declined to take.

Doctorow:

I would find that entirely credible. But I’d like to put this again outside the details. though the details are important. I don’t deny it.

Napolitano:
Sure, sure, please do.

Doctorow:
The big picture of this is that it fits entirely into line with the thinking that explains the Russia’s changed nuclear doctrine, the lowering of the threshold for using nuclear weapons, and more specifically the readiness to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state that is being supported in its attack on Russia by a nuclear state. The first half of that, what I just said, is in violation of conventions regarding the use of nuclear weapons by nuclear states. And what this is all about is a changed understanding by the Russians of American nuclear doctrine and of American strategic doctrine from being use of its triads, of its triad to make a global strike against an adversary like Russia that would be decapitating and possibly utterly devastating.

7:12
That policy has been dropped as Putin sees it. The reason why it would be dropped, one reason is that the Russians have vastly superior strike weapons now, so that a decapitating strike would not spare the United States from utter destruction. That realization has surely explained why the United States has changed its policy to proxy wars. Proxy wars. What we are seeing in the Middle East– and nobody to my knowledge has said it yet– is a US proxy war using Israel to do America’s bidding. Not as Colonel McGregor said not long ago, that the United States is lost at sea, acting on autopilot. No, no, no. The United States is not acting on autopilot. The United States is directing the Israeli war, enabling the Israeli war, as the United States wants it to go.

Napolitano: 8:15
Why would the United States want to commit genocide in Gaza and obliterate South Lebanon? What possible American interest is there in that?

Doctorow:
To make up for the humiliation of the last few years in which every war the United States sparked or joined was lost by the United States, often in the most humiliating ways, as an Afghanistan. The answer to your question was given yesterday when Kamala Harris commented– and not just she, others in the administration said the same thing– it’s a good thing that the 30-years-long leader of Hezbollah has just been killed by the Israelis because he had American blood on his hands. Is that an answer?

Napolitano:
No, that’s a political answer. It’s not a realistic answer.

Doctorow:
But does– realism is not part of US foreign policy. Politics is. That’s why politics is saying, “Oh, Israel, you can’t blow up the Iranian oil refineries. You can’t touch their nuclear installations, because that will harm Kamala Harris’s election bid.” Isn’t that politics over reality?

Napolitano: 9:38
Yes, that is. Yes, that is politics over reality. I want to play for you a clip yesterday from John Bolton. He is, of course, the former United States ambassador to the UN under George W. Bush and was the national security advisor to Donald Trump for about a year until Trump fired him for being– in Trump’s view, and in mine, I wasn’t involved in the firing, but I agree with this– far too bellicose. He’s suggesting in this clip, which is dated yesterday, that Israel should attack Iran’s nuclear program. I want you to listen to what he says, listen to his rationale, and then I’ll ask you what you think of it. Chris, cut number six.

Bolton:
It’s very likely that the nuclear program could be a target for several reasons. First, this is something that Prime Minister Netanyahu, beyond any other Israeli politician, has recognized as the existential threat for Israel. And I think the people should understand that with now 300-some ballistic missiles having been fired at Israel since April, they have to worry that the next time they see a ballistic missile aimed at them, it could contain a nuclear weapon under a nose cone. So that is a motivation to solve the nuclear problem now.

Napolitano: 11:00
First of all, do you think that that is a realistic probability that the Iranians would use nuclear material in one of their ballistic missiles? I don’t even know if they have the capability to do that. And secondly, what would happen if Israel attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities, which heretofore have not– as I understand it, correct me if you have a superior understanding– heretofore have not yet been weaponized?

Doctorow:

Well, I think you have to look at it again in the same exact way as Washington is instructing Zelensky that he cannot use long-range missiles to attack the Russian heartland. The American administration, Mr. Biden, is telling the, according to all Western media, is telling Netanyahu that he cannot strike the nuclear installations and that he cannot strike the oil rigs and the refineries. Why– doesn’t this sound a lot the same as what we hear in Ukraine? Because it’s all the policy of the same people in Washington.

They want to remain one remove from the destruction of Washington’s adversaries by its allies. In the case of Ukraine, the ally is Ukraine. In the case of the Middle East, the ally is Israel. So they’re calling the shots on what can– but in the case of Israel, well, the Mr. Netanyahu has been fixed for 15 or 20 years on the nuclear threat that Iran could pose if it ever got a bomb.

That’s one thing. But the Israeli interest in destroying the economy by destroying its hydrocarbon production, that would be very much in Israel’s interests. Washington is saying no. Washington is saying no, because it is very jealous of its interests. And Israel is being used. Let’s get this straight. Mr. Netanyahu is not steering Joe Biden around by the nose. The American administration is steering Netanyahu around by the nose, to the destruction of the state of Israel.

Napolitano: 13:30
Does– what would Russia do if Israel struck Iran in a meaningful way? Are not Russia and Iran about to sign a mutual defense pact?

Doctorow:
They are. The deadline is during, the expected signing is during the summit of BRICS countries in Kazan, October 24th, October 26th. That will certainly include further shipments of Russian defense systems, as primarily the air defense and possibly also more of these jets which American jets are no more capable and are likely less capable than Russia’s fifth generation jets, which they can make available to Iran. In other words, in a dogfight, the Russian jets will down the Israeli jets. And–

Napolitano: 14:25
Russian jets obviously piloted by Russian pilots.

Doctorow:
Right. But that’s nothing new. Russia was doing the same thing in the Vietnam War, so that by itself is not a changed posture for Russia, to have its people engaged in war on behalf of their allies.

Napolitano:
Isn’t the last thing Prime Minister Netanyahu wants, is Russia as an adversary, as a military adversary?

Doctorow: 14:57
That is certainly true, if he were a rational being. There are a lot of signs that he’s not a rational being. So what he really thinks about the Russians, maybe he thinks, maybe he believes what a great many former Soviets were saying, going back 10, 15 years ago, that all the Russian military developments are Potemkin Village, that all of them are ineffective, don’t worry about it. It’s possible that he gets that kind of advice. But if he gets serious advice from people– and yes, he would be worried about the Russians, but he’s got the Americans on side, so he thinks.

Napollitano: 15:36
Here’s the most bellicose and in my view least credible member of the American Congress when it comes to encouraging Israel to attack Iran. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham is often mocked on this show because of the absurd statements he makes, but here’s one of them, cut number four.

Graham:
Well, we’re one missile away from civilians getting killed in Israel and maybe Israel having to hit Iran. Blinken said the Iranian nuclear program was weeks away from having a weapon, potentially.I think what Iran’s learning from all this: it’s probably better to have a nuclear weapon than not.

Napolitano: 16:18
He’s encouraging the United States to attack Iran. To me that’s inconceivable. What do you think?

Doctorow:
I think that the way the administration is handling it, they might just be drawn into the conflict, but they will try like hell to say that they are not co-belligerents. The Russians, on the other hand, will probably be co-belligerents with Iran, with whom they have, are about to sign this comprehensive defense pact or general cooperation pact, including detailed defense provisions. The Russians would be able to declare the Americans as co-belligerents on the Israeli side if indeed– because this mission against the nuclear plants in Iran could never be realized without American technical assistance. And everyone-

Napolitano: 17:15
Say that again. The development of nuclear weaponry in Iran could not be realized without American technical assistance?

Doctorow:
No, no, no. I, perhaps I wasn’t clear what I was saying. I’m saying that the Americans are able to provide to Israel the necessary support for a strike on installations in Iran that are used for developing their nuclear program. Without that American support, it will not happen.

Napolitano:
I want to get back to your statement earlier that Netanyahu is not leading Biden. Biden is leading Netanyahu, and Israel is a surrogate for America, much as we have argued that Ukraine is a surrogate for America. What possible national security threat does Iran pose to America and what possible reason would America have … morally or even practically, for attacking Iran, directly or through its surrogate?

Doctorow: 18:26
A rising Iran is a threat to American interests in the whole Middle East. That has been the case for the last, what, 40 years? Iran is a big country, a large population, with a big industrial base, and it has been hanging in the balance between pro-Western and anti-Western political factions domestically. For me, it is amazing that the United States has destroyed its last chance to reach an accommodation with Iran by enabling the Israeli strike on the Hezbollah headquarters in Beirut. The new prime minister of Iran two weeks ago made it plain in his statements to Western reporters that he wanted to open negotiations with the signatory countries of the general comprehensive agreement that was to control or prevent Iran getting nuclear weapons and was to rescind the economic sanctions on Iran.

19:39
He wanted to make a new approach to the West. And then comes this bombing of Hezbollah, top leadership in Beirut, which forced him to turn on his heel and to go– and to make this rather impressive strike of 180 ballistic missiles against Israel and to be ready for a lot more. He’s ready for a lot more, because he has the Russians at his back. Let’s get something straight. This takes us to the bigger question within Russia: why has Mr. Putin been so slow? Why didn’t he– why did he turn the other cheek when Russia [was] slapped? Why did it take till now for Mr. Putin to roll out the hard line and to declare the new nuclear doctrine?

Napolitano:
All good questions.

Doctorow:
He was acting in concert with India and China. Russia could never in 2022, [have] expected to survive US sanctions if it did not have on board China and India and other countries of the global south. They’re all moving in tandem. They’ve all had it up to their necks with American domination and American-sponsored terrorism.

Napolitano: 21:00
Are you telling me that he’s about to get more aggressive?

Doctorow:
He is, he’s gotten more aggressive. And this would be in line with what you asked me two minutes ago. Did Putin take this phone call from Netanyahu? He said he didn’t. Did Netanyahu feel desperate and want to reach out to Putin? He did, because somehow or other he got the message that the Russians have changed sides.

Napolitano: 21:29
What is the state of affairs in Kursk now, Professor Doctorow?

Doctorow:
Well, it’s more than 16,000 Ukrainian casualties in Kursk since this month-long incursion or invasion of the Russian Federation. That’s a big number. The Russians remain concentrated on the border, that is to make it impossible for Ukraine to substantially reinforce the manpower and the supplies needed to keep what is left of their military forces going, within Kursk. So they– it is really just a bedraggled group that is left in Kursk.

And The Russians are in no great hurry to mop that up, because every action that is dramatic and makes good news costs many lives of their soldiers. This was said two weeks ago by General Alaudunov, the commander of the Chechen troops who has forces active now in Kursk to fight the Ukrainian invaders. The Russians are winning on the Donbas front. They are making significant progress in capturing the logistical centers that are essential for Ukraine to maintain its front in the Donetsk region. That is the capture of Vuhledar, which took place yesterday, and is acknowledged by the Ukrainians as well as the Russians, and the impending capture of Pokrovsk. So the Russians are very happy to concentrate their mind and their manpower where the Ukrainians are weakest and where they are making steady gains of several kilometers a day.

Napolitano: 23:23
Does President Putin have all the time in the world, or is there pressure on him from within the Kremlin and from without?

Doctorow:
This question is very timely. I’m engaged in a public discussion with a journalist who’s well known in Russia, to Russia followers, John Helmer, who was saying just what you were asking about, that he is under great pressure and that Putin’s backbone, his willingness to defend Russian state interests is called into question by some military commanders and that there was a kind of standoff between civilian and military leadership in Russia, with Mr. Putin being, of course, on the civilian side and being on the side of those baddies, the oligarchs.

24:11
I do not accept this as a workable explanation of what is going on in Russian politics today. I think Mr. Putin has certainly turned the corner and has given satisfaction to those who have been most critical among my peers of his ability to defend Russian interests, like Paul Craig Roberts. They are satisfied. I think that the new Russian nuclear doctrine shows that Russia is toughened up and that the time when one could be mistaken, will they just give us rhetoric or will they give us kinetic war? That moment is long past.

Napolitano: 25:01
Is there any consensus on the part of the people with whom you confer or whose views you respect as to when the military operation will have achieved its goal and the fighting can stop?

Doctorow:
Well, nobody knows, but I think that we’re all looking at the same date. We’re looking at November 5th. That is the most obvious date for the possible end of this war. Not because Mr. Trump, if he wins, will use his superior negotiating skills and the art of the deal to knock heads together and to solve this in one day. I think in Moscow that’s just laughable. And I think the reality is he would end it in two weeks, doing exactly what Kamala Harris has said by stopping the flow of weapons and money to Kiev. And in two weeks, it all dries up and they capitulate.

26:02
I think, indeed, this is not a criticism of Mr. Trump. It’s a statement of the obvious fact. His policy will lead to a capitulation, which will be a great moral benefit to the Ukrainian nation, which is being bled white right now.

Napolitano:
Professor Doctorow, thank you very much for your comments, your views on Israel and Russia and the relationship of President Biden to Prime Minister Netanyahu are fascinating and I think newsworthy, and I’m sure we’ll revisit them with you soon. Thanks for coming to the show. I hope we can see you again next week.

Doctorow
Thank you.

via Sputnik

The EU and Russia could face one other on the battlefield in less than a decade, MEP Andrius Kubilius, the newly appointed EU Commissioner for Defense and Space said this week. The former Lithuanian prime minister has been known for his hardline stance on relations with Moscow.

The bloc must ramp up its defense production and stock up reserves to be able to “defend itself,” said Kubilius, who is currently a member of the European People’s Party group in the EU Parliament, which presented its strategic paper on defense on Wednesday.

“If you want peace, prepare for war,” the MEP said, commenting on his group’s initiative calling for a “European Defense Union” and encouraging investments in the “defense technology of the future.”

“We must be ready to meet Russia militarily in six to eight years,” Kubilius maintained. “The EU, in complementing NATO and together with its Member States, must boost defense production, stock up reserves and continue helping Ukraine,” he added.

According to the MEP, Brussels’ adversaries were “watching … closely” whether the bloc was going to “succeed or fail” in this endeavor.

Kubilius led Lithuania’s government twice: between 1999 and 2000 and between 2008 and 2012. Since 2019, he was an MEP and a member of the EPP group. The politician has repeatedly called on Brussels to adopt a tougher stance in relations with Moscow and to slap Russia with additional sanctions.

In 2021, even before the start of the conflict between Moscow and Kiev, he prepared a report on relations with Russia, which called for sanctions, the reduction of trade and other measures, including going as far as to not recognize the Russian parliament that was elected that year. Moscow slammed the report as nothing but an attempt to meddle in Russia’s internal affairs, adding that the document was biased and factually wrong.

In 2023, Kubilius penned another document suggesting the EU adopt a new sweeping strategy to pursue a “change of power in Russia,” saying it would work with “democratic forces” in and outside the country to topple the current leadership and establish a “transitional government.” The report also proposed issuing a new “democracy passport” and “special visa arrangements” for Russian opposition activists residing in the EU.

Moscow blasted the special passport initiative as a move resembling Nazi practice dating back to World War II. At that time, those willing to cooperate with the occupying force were granted special documents that served as passports.

Kubilius was not, however, the only EU politician to claim that the EU could find itself in a state of war with Russia in the coming years. In February, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius claimed in an interview with Bloomberg that Russia may attack NATO “in five to eight years.”

German chief of defense General Carsten Breuer also highlighted the “paramount” importance of making the country’s military ready within the next five years. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated that Russia has never had plans to attack NATO.

IGOR STRELKOV (letter fragment):
Regarding the question of assessments/analysis of the situation — I still receive too little information for reliable “tactical” forecasts. “Strategically” “everything is bad” — if the “bet on Trump” (in my opinion — initially a failure, but I do not insist on 100% reliability of my opinion) “does not work out”, — then the next year (or even the end of the current one) will become a very serious test for our state.

I have repeatedly voiced the reasons for this even before my arrest (and long before it):

— the “imitation” style of leadership and state administration led to the fact that “on paper” the Russian Federation looked extremely impressive in all respects (including in terms of military power). In reality, a significant part of our power (in some places — very significant) turned out to be “inflated”. And now the needs of the war far exceed the capabilities of our military-industrial complex, and the war has long ago “eaten up” or is “eating up” all the reserves of new weapons.

The same applies to trained human resources, which for 2.5 years were spent (and are still being spent) as if they were endless and inexhaustible. While the main “ready” (and relatively painlessly torn away from the economy) war has already “eaten up” without a trace.

— the wretchedness (to the point of complete absence) of strategic planning and the lowest quality of tactical planning have already led us to a complete impasse (both in strategy and tactics), loss of initiative to the state of “amoebic reaction to irritants” — i.e. The military and industrial machines react to problems that have arisen only at the moment when these problems have already become critically dangerous.

— There was no talk of making any long-term forecasts 2.5 years ago, and there is none now (which is not surprising, given the “amazing preservation of old reliable personnel” in all the main VIP positions, except, perhaps, (and even then, only partially) the Ministry of Defense. There is either no search for a way out of the impasse at all (which is logical, since the level of necessary intelligence and competence significantly exceeds that available to the said VIP officials), or we are simply unable to discern it (due to the lack of visible results, even preliminary ones.

— The time to correct the grossest mistakes (which our enemies in the West and the so-called “Ukraine” kindly provided us with due to their own incompetence and degradation) was not even “wasted” — it was simply “missed.” And now it is practically gone. The general systemic military-political crisis will very soon turn into a military-economic one. Perhaps — following the example of 1917, and on it will be “superimposed” by the growing fatigue from the senseless and unclear (in terms of goals) war on the part of the population. And without real strategic (and not tactical – carried out according to the principle of “Trishkin’s caftan”, as now) changes and measures – we will face extremely unpleasant consequences, the quantity and quality of which will constantly increase (in terms of negative consequences for the state and the country as a whole).

This is all I want/can write for now.

With respect, I am waiting for letters and reports,

I. V. Girkin
09/28/2024, Kirovo-Chepetsk