Putin and Lukashenko to Sign Agreement on Security Guarantees
Vladimir Putin (L) and Alexander Lukashenko (R) X/ @MarioNawfal
December 6, 2024 Hour: 8:38 am
The agreement would allow for the possibility of Russia using atomic weapons in the event of a threat to Belarus’s security.
On Friday, Presidents Vladimir Putin (Russia) and Alexander Lukashenko (Belarus) will sign an agreement on security guarantees during their meeting in Minsk as part of the Russia-Belarus Union State framework.
The agreement will include “mutual obligations to ensure security. This is, perhaps, the highest degree of alliance,” said Dmitry Peskov, the Russian presidential spokesperson.
He emphasized that the agreement’s priority will be to strengthen the defense of the shared space and added that the two leaders will also approve a Union State Security Concept.
“A unique document will be signed… It is the first regulatory document stating that, if necessary, the two states will mutually guarantee each other’s security if one country turns to the other,” Peskov explained.
Strategic partnership between Russia and Belarus built on friendship – Putin pic.twitter.com/Ec5Eail9dl
— RT (@RT_com) December 6, 2024
The Kremlin spokesperson noted that this document is “explicitly based on Russia’s policy in the realm of nuclear weapons,” a doctrine recently approved by Putin. This doctrine allows the use of nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack that threatens the existence of either nation.
“Russia ensures that, in the event of a threat to Belarus’s security, it can also use nuclear weapons to protect the national interests of Belarus,” Peskov stated, while clarifying that the documents do not automatically imply Belarusian troops’ involvement in Russia’s military campaign in Ukraine.
Two years ago, Putin approved the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus as a deterrent against NATO’s advance. On Friday, both Putin and Lukashenko will also address the Supreme Soviet of the Union State.
Interpreting Lavrov’s Assessment Of Events In Syria From His Interview With Tucker
Andrew Korybko
Dec 07, 2024
If Putin hopes to reach a deal with Erdogan on Syria, then it’ll require keeping up the pretense (however unbelievable it is to objective observers) that Turkiye no longer backs terrorists, thus accounting for Lavrov’s diplomatic assessment of events there.
Lavrov’s interview with Tucker mostly saw him elaborate on Russia’s stance towards the proxy war with NATO in Ukraine, which built upon what he shared during his earlier and more concise interview with Newsweek in early October that was analyzed here at the time. He was also importantly asked about the latest events in Syria, the assessment of which hasn’t received much international media attention, at least not yet. The present piece will therefore review and interpret what he said about that.
He began by describing the Astana process between his country, Iran, and Turkiye as being driven by the need to contain US-backed Kurdish separatist threats in Syria before expressing hope that he’ll meet with his counterparts over the weekend during the Doha Forum to discuss the latest developments. Lavrov then said he’d also like to “discuss the need to come back to strict implementation of the deals on Idlib area, because Idlib de-escalation zone was the place from where the terrorists moved to take Aleppo.”
According to him, Turkiye must continue separating Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) from the non-terrorist opposition, and he also wants the M5 highway between Damascus and Aleppo reopened after that group just captured its northern half over the past week. When asked by Tucker about who’s backing HTS, he interestingly didn’t mention Turkiye but instead speculated that it could be the US and the UK. Lavrov also remarked that there’s speculation about how Israel could benefit from the latest tumult too.
Interpreting his assessment, the first point that stands out is his insistence on returning to the agreements that were reached throughout the course of the Astana process. This chiefly concerns jointly containing US-backed Kurdish separatist threats, strictly implementing the Idlib de-escalation deal that also calls for separating HTS from the non-terrorist opposition, and reopening the M5 highway. All three are Turkiye’s prerogative, which could explain why he declined to accuse it of backing HTS.
After all, if Putin hopes to reach a deal with Erdogan on Syria, then it’ll require keeping up the pretense (however unbelievable it is to objective observers) that Turkiye no longer backs terrorists. This could take the form of the one that was proposed here with regard to radically decentralizing the country as an alternative to HTS marching into Damascus to carry out regime change against Assad like founder Jolani told CNN that he wants to do. Russia wants to avoid what might soon be a Libyan-like scenario in Syria.
To that end, it’s willing to cut deals with the proverbial devil so as to reduce the chances that this country turns into a black hole of regional chaos and instability, which could lead to ISIS’ revival. If everything once more spirals out of control, then radical Russian and former Soviet nationals might travel there yet again for terrorist training, which is what prompted Russia’s intervention in Syria in 2015. It could no longer fight against them as effectively as before though since it’s now prioritizing the special operation.
It's therefore imperative that this be prevented from happening, thus accounting for Lavrov’s diplomatic assessment of the latest events in Syria. Russia is keenly aware of its current military limitations in this theater and the possibility of overstretching its Aerospace Forces by suddenly redirecting them away to Syria from Ukraine precisely at the moment when it must achieve a breakthrough before Trump returns to office. That’s why Russia appears to be going all in on a political solution instead of a military one.
CNN interview with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov: compelling for those who want to think for themselves
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.
THE RUSSIAN GENERAL STAFF, KREMLIN DISCUSS HOLDING THE LATAKIA SANJAK TO DEFEND BASES — AGREE TO WITHDRAW UNDER TURKISH SAFE PASSAGE
by John Helmer, Moscow @bears_with
When former president Dmitry Medvedev (leading image, left), deputy head of the Security Council; the Russian military bloggers; and the GRU’s favoured journalist are as silent on Russian military action in Syria as they are at the moment, the signal they are sending is unmistakeably loud.
It is the sound of recriminations for President Vladimir Putin (centre); for the commanders of Russia’s forces in Syria; for General Valery Gerasimov (right), head of the General Staff, the GRU, and the Defense Ministry – all for having failed to detect, warn, or act on the Turkish, Israeli and American preparation of the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) forces for their drive to Damascus to replace Bashar al-Assad, and allowing the Israeli Air Force (IAF) to stop Hezbollah from reinforcing its units in Syria from Lebanon, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps from flying reinforcements from Iran.
“Yes,” says a well-informed Moscow source, “what we see in Syria is the sum of the worst misjudgements and mistakes the Russians made in the Ukraine. This is the Kremlin for one hundred percent. But in the Ukraine there has been learning from the mistakes and recovery. I don’t believe the defeat in Syria will lead to Putin making more concessions to Washington on Ukraine. On the contrary, I believe it hardens the positions on the Ukraine and releases the General Staff to wage strategic war with the US.”
There is a line of thinking in the General Staff, hinted in reporting by Russian military bloggers, which has proposed to preserve the bases at Tartus and Khmeimim, and establish a defence in depth between the north-south D35 road and the sea. This territory is west of the M5 highway linking Aleppo, Hama, Homs and Damascus, all of which HTS have captured. This roughly approximates the territory known in the Ottoman Empire until 1914 as the sanjak of Latakia.
A reliable military source says “the Russians would need to hold the north-south M53, D35, and D34 highways. This would give [Syrian Special Forces Commander General Suhayl] Hassan the capacity to maintain the defence all along this new border. This means retaking Masyaf, an important road junction west of Hama, and also Rabu.”
Hassan was last reported to have been headed for Latakia; there is no sign that he and his forces are capable of fight.
Assad and his family have arrived in Moscow with family members, the state news agency Tass has reported. Tass added the hint that negotiations are under way for evacuation of the bases. “Russian officials are in touch with representatives of armed Syrian opposition, whose leaders have guaranteed security of Russian military bases and diplomatic missions on the Syrian territory.”
The tactical and operational difficulties are insurmountable, another Russian source believes. He acknowledges there is no sign of the political will for the fight at the Kremlin. There are more signs, the source adds, that the order has been given to negotiate with the Turks a safe-passage agreement for full withdrawal from the country of all Russians.
Local reports are currently indicating that HTS and Turkish forces have moved west of the M5 highway to take Jebla, a town six kilometres from Khmeimim. If true, this indicates that the fight-back option has run out of opportunity on the ground, and will in the Kremlin.
The only senior Russian official to break the silence has been Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. He was speaking in Doha on Saturday, November 7, before the fall of Damascus and the flight of Assad. The HTS operation was understood in advance, Lavrov admitted. It had been “carefully and long planned and is an attempt to change the situation on the ground, to change the balance of power. We will oppose this in every possible way, support the legitimate Syrian authorities and at the same time actively promote the need to resume dialogue with the opposition, as required by UN Security Council Resolution 2254.”
Lavrov also acknowledged the strategic scale of the defeat Russia has suffered. “Nothing goes smoothly in world diplomacy, but the events which we are witnessing today, they are clearly geared to undermine everything we have been doing during those years.”
MAPS OF THE LATAKIA SANJAK OPTION
According to the military source, “they'll need to hold the north-south M53, D35, D34 highways. This would require retaking Masyaf, an important road junction west of Hama and extend eastwards to Rabu, eliminating the rebels west of that point."
By Sunday evening, Moscow time, Lavrov’s spokesman, Maria Zakharova, announced “Russian military bases in Syria are on high alert. At the moment, there is no serious threat to their safety.” She added that the Foreign Ministry was still hoping “for respect for the opinions of all ethnic and religious forces of Syrian society, and…efforts to establish an inclusive political process based on Resolution 2254, unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council.”
Twenty-four hours earlier in Doha, Lavrov’s face betrayed less confidence. He was asked about the strategic stakes in Russia’s defeat in Syria: “How much of a blow is it to Russia that so much territory has been lost in such a short period of time? Because Russia and the Soviet Union before it has been such a big backer of Syria. How much of a blow is it, and will you intervene further militarily, not just diplomatically?”
Lavrov replied: “Our country has been a very big backer, not only of Syria, but also of Iraq, of Libya, of Lebanon. And it is not our fault that all the resolutions which were adopted on the Middle East issues (some of them were not adopted, for example, Iraq was bombed out of statehood without any discussion in the Security Council) that the biggest trend of the modern world, namely the fight against those who want to keep hegemony, and on the other hand, those who would like to live in a free world…So the fight of these two worlds, one phasing out and another one emerging, is not going without clashes. And the conflicts which were adventures, aggressive adventures which were launched by the U.S. and its allies in Iraq, Libya, Palestine, because the behavior of the United States on what is going on in Palestine is absolutely unacceptable, invading Syria. All this is the repetition of the old, very old habit to create some havoc, some mess, and then to fish in the muddy waters. And the Middle East and Europe are not enough already.”
On Saturday night Lavrov understood that the military options for Russia were diminishing fast; he did not know what Putin had decided. “Militarily, Russia helps the Syrian army with the air force, which is based at Khmeimim. And we help the Syrian army to counter the attacks of terrorists. What is the forecast? I cannot guess. We are not in the business of guessing…”
He was asked about the future of the bases. “On one side of that will be your big naval base that you were given for 49 years, your sovereign naval base, and also your large air base in Latakia. Is Russia worried about those? Apparently, some analysts say there have been satellite images of Russian vessels already leaving your Tartus naval base.” Lavrov replied: “ Well, there is a naval exercise in the Mediterranean. Maybe your satellite images took this for something different. But, once again. If you want me to say, yes, we lost in Syria, we are so desperate, if this is what you need, let’s continue. But my point is I am not in the business of guessing what is going to happen. We are trying to do everything not to allow terrorists to prevail, even if they say that they are no longer terrorists.”
“This is a strategic defeat”, leading milblogger Mikhail Zvinchuk has conceded. “It is not so important whether everything crumbled there or somewhere there was a betrayal – the fact itself is important…If any help was planned, then it has run out of time – the Syrian army and the state have disintegrated too quickly. Russia has to solve these issues. 1. Conservation of its military bases in Latakia. 2. Evacuation of its citizens and military from Damascus. 3. General minimization of consequences and costs.” — December 7 – 22:19
Blame for Putin for allowing the Israelis unopposed freedom of action in the air above Syria and Lebanon was hinted at by Zvinchuk. “In the case of Iran, everything is very difficult: even if you omit the political timing, the question of logistics arises, namely, how to ensure the transportation of troops and logistics. The land corridor across Iraq is closed – Deir ez-Zor was taken by the Kurds and the track in the desert by militants from [the US base] al-Tanf. To transfer all that is required through the air to Damascus is not allowed by the Israeli Air Force, threatening to simply shoot down the aircraft.”
A Moscow source adds: “the rebels can’t be fought off on the ground. If they gather and storm there will be a massacre. So the only realistic option left is to hit their command and control centres. But if that could have been done, it would have been done sooner. At this point we should conclude the Russians have no cards to play. But will the Turks and Americans play their cards? Gerasimov and the generals have no leverage. They are as much to blame. There are no blameless Russian leaders in this – civilian, intelligence and army.”
In the Moscow military blog, Bayraktar Witnesses (Свидетели Байрактара), Alexander Kharchenko wrote on Saturday evening that since the Syrians saw no future for themselves in fighting for the Assad regime, there was no justification for the Russians to fight in defence of an untenable position.
“It is a mistake to believe the state rests only on the security forces. The population accepts the rules of the game because they have the answer to the question: ‘Why is all this necessary?’ The state is tolerated for the sake of democracy, personal enrichment, security, and hundreds of other reasons…In recent years, the Syrians have fought and died in order to take back the old Syria. They wanted to destroy the jihadists, rebuild the economy and live as before. Bashar al-Assad was a symbol of these processes. Unfortunately, after all their trials, the Syrian people were living worse off. There was no gas, light, or gasoline. All this was multiplied by pervasive corruption. In Idlib [under Turkish control], there was gas and light, and there were no problems with trade.”
“When the militants’ offensive began, the soldiers simply did not understand why they had to die at the front. They had both equipment and ammunition, but why would they shoot at terrorists? Yes, they will stop the militants, yes they will lose a couple of thousand soldiers, but why all this if it gets even worse after the victory?”
“And this article is not written about Syria at all. These mechanisms work equally effectively in any part of the globe. These lessons need to be learned. It’s not for nothing that we say that a fool learns from his mistakes, and a smart one learns from others.”
On Sunday evening Zvinchuk concluded in Rybar: “As of 19 o’clock, one can, alas, draw disappointing conclusion: Russia’s military presence in the Middle East region is hanging by a thread. Seeing the lack of activity of the Russian forces in Syria, the Kurdish formations began to block certain objects of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in the Trans-Euphrates. Jebla is under the control of armed groups. The Khmeimim base has been cut off. Russian warships have been withdrawn from the port of Tartus in order to reduce the threat from stray gangs deciding to fire at them. The positions at the oil plant in the Homs desert are also blocked.”
Breaking the public media silence in Moscow, Zvinchuk reported there is now nothing left to say “about the plans of the Russian military leadership: what was decided by someone in high office is absolutely irrelevant simply because there was no initiative. Waiting for instructions from Moscow on Sunday, not understanding that it was necessary to act outside the framework of the system — to attempt another attack on Pristina or to rush to the defense of South Ossetia did not work. At one time, these were the very events that went down in history and glorified Russia precisely because people on the ground acted on their own initiative, taking on much more than their orders allowed. This time everything was done correctly by the book. In other words, inert and indifferent.”
Ya gotta like John's work, for good and ill he pulls no punches.
******
Intellinews: Syrian opposition captures key port city of Tartus (Home to Russian Naval Base)
December 8, 2024
Intellinews, 12/8/24
Opposition forces have seized control of Syria’s strategic Mediterranean port city of Tartus, consolidating their grip on the country following the dramatic fall of Damascus and President Bashar al-Assad’s departure.
The capture of Tartus, home to a significant Russian naval facility, marks another milestone in the opposition’s swift campaign that has seen them secure control of most major Syrian cities in less than two weeks.
Syria’s Prime Minister Mohammed Ghazi al-Jalali, who remains in the country with several cabinet members, confirmed he has established contact with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham leadership, the group that led the advance into Damascus. However, he said he has lost contact with both the president and former defence minister.
“The prime minister, along with key ministers, remains in Syria, though we have no information about the whereabouts of the president or defence minister”, a government spokesman told state media, which is now under opposition control.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry earlier confirmed that Assad had left Syria after negotiations with conflict participants, though Moscow stressed it was not involved in these talks.
Moscow’s Kremlin later confirmed he had arrived safely in Moscow, Tass later reported.
As bne IntelliNews was first to report on December 7, Assad fled Syria to Abu Dhabi before flying on to Moscow, where the rest of his family had already been in exile for a week and where his eldest son was studying at Moscow State University.
The ministry said Assad had ordered a peaceful transfer of power before his departure.
The fall of Tartus raises questions about the future of Russia’s naval facility in the city, which has served as Moscow’s sole Mediterranean naval base.
The Russian Foreign Ministry has previously stated its military installations in Syria remain secure, though the rapidly evolving situation may present new challenges.
Earlier in the day, Syrian opposition forces claimed the television station of the state broadcaster SANA and began producing updated news bulletins under the new rule.
What are the Russians saying about the fall of the Assad regime?
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.
I'm transporting nuclear warheads to Belarus
December 10, 17:36
Lukashenko on how he transports nuclear warheads to Belarus.
"I brought nuclear warheads here. Not a few dozen of them. Many people write: "Oh, this is a joke, no one brought anything in." They brought them in. And the fact that they say it's a joke means they missed it. They didn't even notice how we brought them in here" (c) Lukashenko.
Where do you say you're bringing nuclear warheads?
This isn't some fucking bunch of keys...
2020. Lukashenko is doomed. His departure is inevitable.
2024. Lukashenko brings Russian nuclear warheads to Belarus and looks for places for "Oreshnik."
Go ahead, laugh at the "stupid collective farmer."
The man is accused of literally saving the Russian chip industry on his own shoulders by systematically leaking ASML and Mapper Lithography documents. Today, the hero is due to appear before a Rotterdam court for a preliminary hearing, where the court will consider the issue of pre-trial detention.
Not all heroes wear capes, some have engineering overalls.
@exploitex - zinc
If everything is as described and if possible, then the unknown hero of industrial espionage should be exchanged.
‘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?
On American Bomber Flights to Scandinavia
December 9, 2024
Rybar
American B-52H strategic bombers were once again active in the last days of November and early December, visiting Scandinavia as part of their mission to Europe.
In the past few days, in addition to the standard flights to the North Sea , B-52H aircraft have also been spotted over Norway twice . Once they flew with Norwegian aircraft in the central part of the country.
But the second time the B-52Hs flew to the Varanger National Park , which borders the Kola Peninsula . There they practiced simulated launches of bombs and missiles at the Northern Fleet base .
After this, the American bombers flew towards Finland, flying 160 km from the Kaliningrad region and 110 km from Karelia and the Murmansk region over Finland itself, where they trained at the Rovaniemi training ground .
The purpose of such flights is to demonstrate the priorities of American foreign policy. At present, the Arctic and the confrontation in this region are increasingly coming to the fore , which the US demonstrates with such maneuvers.
What are NATO planes doing near the Kaliningrad region?
December 9, 2024
Rybar
Speaking about the B-52N flight near Kaliningrad , it is worth mentioning that this is not the only interesting event of recent days. Over the course of the week, the intensity of satellite reconnaissance of our semi-enclave has increased.
From November 27 to December 4, 61 photographs were taken of more than a dozen military and military-industrial facilities in the Kaliningrad region , from the Fakel Design Bureau to a missile boat division.
In addition, on one of the days, five NATO reconnaissance aircraft were on duty around the Kaliningrad region at the same time, including RC-135s from the US and UK Air Forces, a Gulfstream IV from the Swedish Air Force, an E-3A from the NATO Air Force, and a CL-650 from the US Army.
If the E-3A was over Poland, several dozen kilometers from Kaliningrad , and the other planes were circling around the Russian region and over the Baltic, and over Lithuania, and over Poland.
Such high intelligence activity does not go unnoticed. As a rule, when we see something like this near Crimea or in the Krasnodar region , a few days later there are raids by Ukrainian drones or missile strikes.
In the case of the Kaliningrad region, sabotage is possible (in November, a German citizen was detained for organizing something similar). Or something else is possible, given the recent events in the Baltic Sea related to incidents on underwater cables.
Georgia protests: another global power struggle
Telma Luzzani
Dec 9, 2024 , 12:42 pm .
Violent protests in Georgia follow the Euromaidan pattern in Ukraine (Photo: Archive)
Not only Europe and the USA are interfering in Georgia's internal affairs, but also Ukraine. These two countries, along with Syria, become a battlefield in times of historical transition like the present.
For the tenth day in a row, thousands of demonstrators are demonstrating against the government in the centre of Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, and in other cities across the country. Some groups are "shooting" laser beams at the facade of Parliament and at police officers. Others, wrapped in the Georgian flag with the red cross of St. George on a white background, are calling for "elections now".
The Georgian Dream government has sent special forces to suppress the protests with tear gas and water cannons. According to the press, nearly 400 people have already been arrested.
However, anyone who believes that this is merely an internal conflict is mistaken. It is no coincidence that both Georgia and Ukraine were paved the way for NATO and the European Union by former President George Bush Jr. in 2008, even though their people are culturally and geographically far from Brussels. It is also no coincidence that this small Caucasus country, with just 3.7 million inhabitants, has already suffered three political earthquakes in the 21st century (2003, 2008 and 2024).
Georgia is a former Soviet republic located in a geopolitically strategic point. Like Ukraine, it has a sensitive border with Russia and, at the opposite end, in the south, it borders Turkey. Its coast faces the Black Sea and, from there, there is privileged access both to the Ukrainian city of Odessa (1,000 kilometers) and to the naval base of Sevastopol, on the Crimean peninsula (800 kilometers), historical headquarters of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
Georgia, Syria and Ukraine are countries that, in times of historical transition like the present, become a battlefield between the forces in conflict. Something similar happens in Taiwan and South Korea or even in Venezuela and Essequibo, in South America. They are points of structural tensions, of short circuits between the forces that drive a new multipolar order and the old dominant power linked to the American empire. On the verge of 2025, faced with a profound political change in the United States, all the conflicts have been reactivated.
Who rules in Georgia?
The protests in Georgia were triggered by two factors: alleged fraud in the parliamentary elections of 26 October – the destabilising narrative that is in fashion against governments that do not align themselves with Washington – and the issue of negotiations with the European Union.
Georgia has a parliamentary government, meaning that the prime minister is elected by the legislature. In the October elections, the ruling Georgian Dream party won a clear majority (90 out of 150 seats) and its leader, Irakli Kobakhidze, was re-elected as prime minister. The presidential post, currently occupied by the pro-European Salome Zurabishvili, is purely ceremonial and has no political power.
However, Salome, a woman with connections to the US and NATO, has abandoned the passive role that the Constitution assigns to Georgian presidents and actively supported the protesters' demand. According to her, the results of the October parliamentary elections are "not credible." The US, France and Germany also called for the results to be reviewed. In contrast, China, neighbouring Turkey and Hungary congratulated Georgian Dream on its election victory.
The protests were fading away, but on 28 November, when Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze announced that he had decided to postpone negotiations with the European Union until 2028, the demonstrations, supported by the Georgian president and some opposition members, revived with force. But who is Salome Zurabishvili?
The current president of Georgia was born in Paris to exiled parents. Her grandparents, from an aristocratic Georgian family, fled to France in 1921 when Soviet forces invaded Georgia. At the age of 20, in 1974, she entered the Foreign Ministry and was a French diplomat in the United States and the UN, among other posts. Since December 16, 2018, she became the first woman to hold the presidency of Georgia. Her position is anti-Russian and pro-Western. Her six-year term expires in a few days and she cannot be re-elected. The presidential elections are due to take place on December 14.
Not only Europe and the US are interfering in Georgia's internal affairs, but also Ukraine. "I have just signed a decree that implements the decision of the National Security and Defense Council to sanction a part of the Georgian authorities, the part that is now handing the country over to Putin," announced President Vladimir Zelensky on Thursday 5th. The Georgian president's reaction was immediate: "I couldn't have said it better. Thank you Vladimir! Russia is trying to regain control over the Black Sea!" wrote Salome on her X account.
Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze denies that the Georgian Dream is influenced by Moscow. The government says it is pursuing a "balanced foreign policy" and wants to avoid clashes with Russia, its second largest trading partner, which is why it has not supported Western sanctions against its Russian neighbor and has distanced itself from the war in Ukraine.
"Over the past four years, we have seen four attempts to provoke scenarios like those that occurred in Ukraine in 2013," the prime minister said in an interview with Georgian television. "These are pre-planned and coordinated actions, involving foreign funding," he said.
Both Western and Russian media agree that the Georgian protests bear similarities to the 2013-2014 events in kyiv — known as "Euromaidan" — which ended with the overthrow of President Viktor Yanukovych — after he postponed Ukraine's entry into the European Union — and which were the prelude to the current war in Ukraine.
The US was also explicitly involved in the Ukrainian uprising. It is enough to recall the presence of US official Victoria Nuland inciting rebels against Yanukovych and in favour of a change of government in 2014. This is no coincidence: Ukraine and Georgia are strategic points for those who want to attack Russia.
Demonstrations
In sub-zero temperatures, thousands of Georgians continue to protest night after night in front of the parliament. On Rustaaveli Avenue, demonstrators blow vuvuzelas or throw fireworks at the imposing parliament building. Many wave the medieval Georgian flag as they call for new elections and criticise the prime minister for "boycotting the country's European future".
On 14 January 2004, Georgia abandoned the Soviet flag and returned to the medieval flag, known as the "Flag of the Five Crosses". It was the emblem of the Kingdom of Georgia in the 13th century. It is white with the red cross of St. George (patron saint of Georgia) in its central part, which divides it into quadrants. In each of them there is another small red cross.
Events in Georgia are developing. The protests may cool down or escalate. If the second option is fulfilled, it will be a step closer to global war.
Lessons from Syria; Assad and Putin. Why do the Brutalists Lose?
Opinion by Marat Khairullin
Zinderneuf
Dec 09, 2024
Syria is important. No matter how bitter it is to realize this. But there is such a maxim, "no matter how hard the failure is, if you have learned from it, then it is no longer a failure, but the next step up the mountain." In other words, working on mistakes is more important than the mistakes themselves. Everyone encounters failures in life, but not everyone draws conclusions from this. Let's try to understand what experience can be drawn from the situation with Syria.
First, kindness is very important.
Assad has shown himself to be a great warrior. He stood firm in a hopeless situation and got a chance in 2015 in the form of aid from Iran and Russia. But he did not use it, did not learn from his mistakes. In a broader sense, Assad failed to care for his people who suffered in the civil war. He has not forgiven those who opposed him and has refused to begin a process of national reconciliation. The people of Syria remain divided. The West imposed harsh sanctions on Syria and did everything in its power to prevent the state from restoring its income from the same oil fields. This killed all attempts to begin economic recovery.
And Assad, instead of letting go of the reins, increased the tax burden several times over. The Middle East is such a big bazaar: trade, small business - the essence of the way of life of the people here. Assad, instead of allowing people to survive in hard times, at least due to this, strangled everyone with taxes. Therefore, the society that gave Assad a chance after the first stage of the civil war did not give him a second chance - people simply refused to fight for him.
It must be said that we have a living example of this first lesson before our eyes. Putin before 2012 and after are two different rulers. The first is tough, uncompromising, ready to wipe out enemies everywhere. And the second will probably go down in Russian history as a caring and merciful ruler, practically coinciding with the ideal of a kind but fair tsar-father from our legends. The essence of Putin’s transformation is outwardly clear and simple (we don’t know what it cost him internally).
Here, I can’t resist illustrating how I understand this. They sent me an old article by Lavlinsky (the real name of the writer Prilepin). "Rotting. From the head. From the bottom. From the top. From the tail. Whoever can from where," he writes. And then my favorite: "You can't compare a hypocrite and a cannibal." By the first, by the way, he means Brezhnev, by the second, Putin. And Lavlinsky-Prilepin shouts at the end: "Only Putin's departure from power can stop the revolution. I wish it would happen sooner..." Then he goes on to say with knowledge of the matter that the candidacy of “the blessedly left-leaning Khodorkovsky…” is already being considered for Putin’s place. The devil sure knows how to lick ass...
But the point is not that Putin did not settle accounts with Prilepin after 2012 (what a figure). The point is that Putin allowed Prilepin-Lavlinsky with such views (it is clear that he did not change them, no matter what pose Lavlinsky took on TV) to run for the Duma, and even under the brand "For Truth" (they managed to privatize the truth). Do you know why?
Because Prilepin is also a Russian, no matter how he mimics the current political moment. There's nothing to be done - he has the right. No matter how disgusted people around you may feel, even such a person is still our person, and that means we all need to learn to live in peace.
The duty of a wise ruler is to show the people a personal example. Putin managed to do this after 2012 and focus on the welfare of the entire people. Putin did not divide us into "Lavlinskys" and others. Assad couldn't do that. For him, Syrians remained divided between insiders and outsiders. And he didn't take care of either. Of course, Assad's circumstances were very difficult, but the tax story shows that he didn't even try.
Second, it's not a disaster for us. Somehow, everything here has worked out cunningly. Syria was a transit point for Russia on the way to Africa. By losing Syria, we lose transit bases (both air and sea). This is precisely the point that the Western press is now pointing to. However, reading their jubilant articles, one gets the feeling that behind this jubilation, there is obvious annoyance.
Why? Because, if you look a little deeper, Putin has outplayed everyone here too.
The fact is that the fall of Syria occurred immediately after the launch of the North-South land corridor at full capacity. From the ports of St. Petersburg along the trans-Caspian land highway through Azerbaijan and Iran to the ports of the Indian Ocean. The project began to be implemented back in 2000.
This will be one of Putin's great legacies. His major achievement.
And it’s not even just about the fact that the supply of our projects in Africa (thanks to this route) did not suffer with the fall of Assad. The implementation of this corridor really opens up huge prospects that take your breath away. I will not describe all the advantages, they are well known. I just want to draw attention to how subtly Putin played the Turkish card.
In fact, we gave Syria to Turkey. We put ourselves in their position, so to speak - the Turks have 4 million refugees from Syria on the border. Plus the Kurds. Plus Iranian proxies. Plus everything else. Take it, dear friend Erdogan, this hornet's nest - it is now your problem.
Formally, we exchanged Syria for cooperation with Turkey. In particular, along the North-South corridor, and also, probably, for the right to build a second nuclear power plant. Perhaps there is something else. Putin has put our relations with Turkey on such a solid footing that in 10-15 years (maybe a little more) we will see exactly the same agreement on strategic cooperation with the Turks as with Iran, North Korea. Or as with Kazakhstan. This is a very important achievement. We did not stand up for Assad now, because if we had stood up, in the eyes of the peoples of the Middle East we would have been no better than the Americans, who supported Somoza to the last. Assad had a second chance, and we supported him honestly. Until the critical moment arrived.
Having “escaped” from the war in time, we managed to leave the problems to all our sworn partners.
Let's take Israel. Instead of Iranian proxies, which Russia kept "on a leash and in a muzzle" in Syria, Israel got a full-fledged Turkish gang on its borders. The Turkey-Israel connection, and even with the British Al-Qaeda (Hayat Tahrir - both are banned in Russia) intermediary - I tell you, this will be worse than any bazaar - try to come to a negotiated price!
Russia and Iran washed their hands of the asset, dumping it, which had lost its value, freeing up their energy for other areas and gaining the opportunity to focus on building projects that can bring real profit. And besides, we rendered a great formal service to Turkey - it wants to have fun to the fullest, for God's sake. The main thing is that now the Turks are also our allies. Simply brilliant.
At the same time, we wink at Trump with both eyes: look what a favor we did you - we returned Syria to the Islamists, removed Iran from Israel. And a favor, as they say, for a favor: let's urgently start a peace process in Ukraine. Zelensky on the stake, NATO in the toilet. Somehow, it's very timely that the US started talking about peace.
That is, no matter how you look at it, we "exchanged" Syria very successfully. Especially since the Assad regime was dead anyway. Formally, it is a defeat. So, of course, we will sprinkle ashes on our heads and cheerfully watch the Anglo-Saxons celebrate their victory with sour smiles. Putin publicly sold them a rotten apple that they can not refuse.
"Democracy, you say? Here, your Islamists, let them show you how to build a happy life. And we will go about our business." Of course, no one will ever be able to confirm this, but it is no coincidence that this card fell so successfully. It is hard to believe that it happened by itself.
What’s Publicly Financed Russian Media Saying About Syria’s Regime Change?
Andrew Korybko
Dec 11, 2024
It appears as though the Kremlin signaled to those outlets within its “sphere of influence” to withhold publishing worst-case scenario forecasts for now while their country’s diplomats try to avert an even worse crisis.
Publicly financed Russian media’s reaction to Syria’s regime change is a lot different than most could have expected after they earlier warned that this could lead to an unprecedented terrorist crisis. Those concerns were warranted since Turkish-backed Harat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) is designated as a terrorist group and was originally part of Al Qaeda. Nevertheless, these outlets’ reactions have been surprisingly calm, thus suggesting a desire to play everything by ear for the sake of retaining Russian influence there.
RT published two very thought-provoking op-eds since the Syrian Arab Army’s (SAA) epic collapse and Assad’s cowardly flight from Damascus that are worth reviewing in this context. The first is by Murad Sadygzade, who’s President of the Middle East Studies Center and Visiting Lecturer at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow, and answers the question of “Why did Syria fall so fast and what happens next?” He began by drawing attention to foreign meddling but then dove into domestic details.
This approach is noteworthy since it had hitherto been very rare for publicly financed Russian media to talk about the Assad Government’s many shortcomings, but Sadygzade candidly addressed them:
“A key turning point came when Assad lost the support of even those who had stood by him for years. Economic hardships, sanctions, and a growing sense of hopelessness led many to believe that change was inevitable, even if it came at the cost of destruction. The strategic mistake of the ruling elite – betting on a military solution to the conflict while ignoring political dialogue, both domestically and internationally – ultimately left Assad vulnerable to determined and well-organized adversaries.”
The second RT op-ed is a republication of an article by Gazeta.ru political analyst Vitaly Ryumshin under the title “Assad’s collapse was coming – everyone just looked away”. Here are the highlights:
“Assad’s Syria had been rotting from within for years. The country was locked in a perpetual humanitarian and economic crisis, with 90% of Syrians living in poverty and widespread malnutrition. Desperate families took out loans just to buy food but couldn’t pay them back. Power outages crippled even Damascus, sometimes leaving the capital dark for 20 hours a day. Electricity prices soared by up to 585% in the spring of 2024 alone, pushing an already destitute population deeper into despair.
The Assad government offered no solutions – only mounting repression. Under crushing sanctions, Damascus couldn’t secure foreign loans, and with its oil fields under US-Kurdish control, there was nothing left to trade. Even Syria’s illicit drug trade, once a lifeline, couldn’t plug the gaping holes in state finances. Profits disappeared into the pockets of warlords and traffickers, not the state treasury.
Meanwhile, Assad’s underpaid, demoralized army, bled dry by years of civil war, continued to disintegrate. For a time, Iranian proxies like Hezbollah propped up his forces, but by 2024, they’d shifted their attention to fighting Israel. Attempts to draw Russia further into Syria’s quagmire fell flat. Moscow, busy elsewhere, had no interest in bailing Assad out.”
Ryumshin also twice referred to the Assad Government as a “regime” in back-to-back sentences, writing that “In the south and southeast, dormant rebel cells rose up, striking a final blow against Assad’s hollowed-out regime. On Sunday, opposition forces stormed Damascus from several directions. Bashar al-Assad, whose regime withstood over a decade of civil war, finally fell from power.” It’s a stunning change in RT’s editorial policy that they didn’t replace that previously taboo word before republishing.
Perhaps they listened to what their senior correspondent and veteran Syrian War journalist Murad Gazdiev told them in an interview, where he concluded that “Assad’s govt fell due to corruption, lack of organization, and motivation”. He has a decade worth of experience covering this conflict so his post-mortem on Assad’s Government should be taken very seriously. Publicly financed TASS also editorialized the word “regime” into a headline about Syria on Tuesday in a related visible change of policy.
The day prior, they described HTS’ chief as an “armed opposition leader” without referencing the US’ $10 million bounty on his head for terrorist-related crimes or even his connection to such groups. TASS also reported how “Syrian Embassy operating as usual under new flag”, which implies Moscow’s tacit (key qualifier) acceptance of this regime change in the sense of continuing to recognize those Syrian diplomats as official representatives of the new ruling arrangement who are allowed to keep working.
Their press review of Vedomosti’s article about the future of Russia’s military bases in Syria adds context to why that tacit acceptance appears to have been made. Ibragim Ibragimov, a researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of World Economy and International Relations, told them that “I don’t exclude that a new format of military-technical cooperation will appear soon and that Russian military instructors will play a role in establishing a new Syrian army.” That would be an intriguing turn of events.
It might not be as far-fetched as some think provided that there’s political will and the right conditions to make it work, the latter of which would require the non-terrorist anti-government opposition (NTAGO) to separate itself from terrorist-designated groups and figures. Moreover, such groups and figures would have to prove that they’ve changed their ways, just like the Taliban have sought to do since returning to power in mid-2021 to regain Russia’s trust and try to have restrictions on cooperation with them lifted.
To that end, meaningful progress on implementing UNSC Resolution 2254 from December 2015 would go a long way, which Assad refused to do for reasons beyond the scope of this analysis. The Russian-written draft constitution that was unveiled during the first Astana Summit in January 2017 could also be revived to serve as a model for the constitutional reform that this resolution obligates Syria to undertake. Assad had unofficially rubbished it due to the concessions that he was asked to make.
Judging by what the head of the Syrian armed opposition delegation to the Astana talks told Sputnik and the president of the Syrian Negotiation Commission told RT, these two internationally recognized NTAGO platforms want to retain positive relations with Russia. That could explain why the leader of the new interim Syrian government, Mohammed al-Bashir, was described by TASS as someone who “joined anti-government armed units supported by foreign funding” instead of the previously typical foreign proxy.
Reflecting on publicly financed Russian media’s reports about Syria’s regime change, it therefore appears as though the Kremlin signaled to those outlets within its “sphere of influence” to withhold publishing worst-case scenario forecasts for now while their country’s diplomats try to avert an even worse crisis. The worst might still be yet to come, but it hasn’t yet unfolded and might still be prevented, hence the importance of them remaining calm and reciprocating the new ruling arrangement’s positive messages.
Doctorow would do well to consider that the talking heads upon whom he relies in interpreting the tea leaves are ' within within the Kremlin's “sphere of influence” and an elite view. Oh wait, he is after all an elitist snob.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
THE KREMLIN’S OPRICHNIKI VERSUS THE GENERAL STAFF’S PRIGOZHNIKI IN THE NEW TIME OF TROUBLES
by John Helmer, Moscow @bears_with
The defeat of the Russian army in war discredits, not the soldiers who fought and died, but the commander-in-chief and the generals who were in command. Defeat on the battlefield also destroys Russian military honour as a political force in the country, just as its opposite, victory on the battlefield, threatens the civilian commander-in-chief with his replacement by a soldier hero.
To protect himself from his triumphant, and also from his disgruntled officers, the commander-in-chief may make his generals scapegoats for the defeat. Joseph Stalin had begun shooting scapegoat officers before the German invasion of June 21, 1941, and then accelerated his purge in the weeks which followed. In 1946, in the aftermath of the Red Army’s victory over Germany, Stalin neutralized Marshal Georgiy Zhukov (for the second time), stripping him of his command powers and sending him into internal exile, all for purely political reasons. Stalin had allowed Zhukov to lead the victory parade in Red Square but only after Stalin had tried himself and failed to stay in the saddle of the white horse. Stalin’s jealousy of Zhukov’s domestic popularity was compounded by his (not unreasonable) fear of a military putsch and of the Caligula Cure.
For most Russians – and this has been a consistent finding of public opinion polling by the independent Levada Centre of Moscow – the President’s popularity, public trust, and approval of his performance run about 10 points ahead of the Russian trust in the Army. However, the two support each other on the upswing in the polls when there are victories to celebrate; and then on the downswing when there are defeats, rising casualties, and war fatigue across the countryside. Between 2022 and now, for example, Russian approval of Putin has risen to the 80% level; for the Army approval has also risen to about 70%.
It is the conclusion of the Kremlin and of the General Staff, therefore, that they should either hang together or if not, they will hang each other.
Having opposed but obeyed Putin’s orders forbidding them to fire on Israeli aircraft attacking Syria, or on Turkish ground operations in and around Idlib, Moscow sources believe the General Staff have now told Putin much more than the refrain, he’s heard many times before, “We told you so”. This time the General Staff assessment of the invasion of Syria, refusal of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) to fight, and the replacement of the Assad regime in Damascus is that grave damage has been done to the protective alliances which Russia has been promoting in Africa, the Americas, China, and North Korea.
“We just have to accept that Iran and Russia have been comprehensively defeated in their non-fight, “a well-informed Moscow source says. “It is the worst defeat of Russia by the Turks in history. If Putin goes on now to make significant concessions in an Istanbul II negotiation with [President Donald] Trump, that will be the cherry on top of the Turkish halva. We are thinking this; no one is saying it. In the end, a defeat in Ukraine is all we care about. If Putin fails to deliver that, then he has a much bigger problem than the one he has just retreated from. Yes, this is a huge dishonour for us, but nothing is served by talking of it. Still, the situation can be redeemed in the Ukraine. This means the complete and comprehensive defeat of the enemy there.”
A non-Russian military source says the Russians he knows are “in denial. The Turks can now say we have them where we want them. This means the Israelis and the Americans can say the same. That means leverage above and beyond the Levant, in Africa, Asia and no less in Ukraine. What do the Russians have to offer their African or Asian friends now? Do they say — we’ll be there for you, of course, until the end – we mean your end. Of course, when the going gets tough, and potentially that means fighting the Americans or one of its proxy armies, the Russians now show they will blame their unwillingness to fight on their friends’ refusal to do what the Russians advise; their military incompetence; their corruption; or their racial inferiority compared to Russians.”
Russian military honour, as Russians understand it, is a code of uncorrupted selflessness and individual sacrifice in defence of the country. In national polling, this has been expressed by the consistently high approval of the Army. No other public institution, neither the presidency nor the Church, has drawn strength of support of this moral character.
Military performance on the battlefield counts, however. After rising sharply in the first year, 2022, of the Special Military Operation, trust in the Army began to decline in 2023 and 2024. According to a Levada report of six weeks ago, “confidence in the army remains quite high – 69%, but slowly decreases (by 8 percentage points since August 2022). The level of trust in the state security agencies and the police, on the contrary, gradually grows to 63% (an increase of 18 percentage points since August 2021) and to 48% (an increase of 19 percentage points since August 2021), respectively. The attitude to the prosecutor’s office and the courts remains unchanged – 43% and 31%, respectively.
RUSSIAN TRUST IN THE PRESIDENCY, THE ARMY IN NATIONAL POLLING 1994-2024
Levada polling also reveals that the brief rebellion of Yevgeny Prigozhin and his Wagner force in June 2023 drew considerable public support for what Prigozhin said in criticism of high government officials; but at the same time, there was considerable public opposition to what Prigozhin did in his armed revolt. For analysis of the Prigozhin affair, read this; and for the outcome in Prigozhin’s death, read more.
For the time being, the events in Syria have drawn no public criticism either of Putin’s performance or the Army’s by Prigozhniki – that’s to say, critics, not rebels. Instead, the Oprichniki, guardians of Putin’s reputation and public support, have imposed a comprehensive blackout of news, direct commentary, and published analysis of Kremlin policy in Syria and Russian military operations there.
The President has said nothing himself. At a Kremlin ceremony on December 9 to present awards for military valour, Putin said “we take pride in the courage of our soldiers fighting in the special military operation zone. Their resolve leaves no doubt that we will triumph, and that no-one will ever succeed in subjugating or overpowering Russia.” No medals for valour in Syria, no mention of Syria at all.
The Kremlin has deterred media discussion of Putin’s policy of allowing Israel to attack Syrian and Iranian targets at will; and his parallel policy of allowing Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan a free hand in Idlib, as well as along the Syrian frontier with Turkey.
Putin has already tried scapegoating: the commander of Russian forces in Syria, General Sergei Kisel was removed on December 1. Intended for publication by the Russian military bloggers, the official line was that Kisel was incompetent. “The Syrian sandbox,” claimed Mikhail Zvinchuk, publisher of the Defense Ministry-linked Rybar blog, “ has long been a place for laundering the reputations of unsuccessful generals who turned out to be incompetent in the zone of the special military operation.” There has been no Russian to ask publicly how the Russian commander in Syria and the General Staff can act if the Kremlin has tied their hands. Instead, the Kremlin has encouraged media blame for Bashar al-Assad and his allies for their weakness. Among some Russian military analysts this also becomes the racist characterization of the Arab inferiority compared to Russian superiority.
Military sources in Moscow acknowledge that sooner or later there must be a Russian fight with the Turks, but not now. Instead, Kremlin and Foreign Ministry spokesmen are claiming that they are negotiating with the Turks for the security of the Tartus naval base and the Khmeimim airbase. Unasked, unanswered is the question – is it the Commander-in-chief’s decision to keep the bases and fight for them if necessary; or has he decided to evacuate under terms of safe passage guaranteed by Turkey, Israel, and the US?
In the four-hundred year history of the Russo-Turkish wars, there have been a handful of Russian defeats in battle; there is no record until now of a Russian retreat from battle without firing a shot. In World War I there was a tactical retreat by Russian forces from Trebizond in February of 1914, but the Turkish military gains were reversed over the next four years. The fight the Red Army then put up to defend the Russian Caucasus from the Turks between 1919 and 1921 is a historical reminder of the strategic purpose the General Staff have had in projecting Russian military force to the south of Turkey; that’s to say, Syria. The lessons of the reversal of that power projection, combined with the escalating war against Russia in Armenia and Georgia, have been brought to Putin’s attention.
In a report of December 10 by Vzglyad, the semi-official internet platform for security policy, sources were reported as claiming the Kremlin and General Staff had agreed on a partial withdrawal plan well in advance of the breakout of Idlib by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS, Levant Liberation Council). “Russian representatives were probably negotiating to preserve the bases even before the militants in the north and the opposition in the south began their military operation.”
This plan, according to Vzglyad’s sources, withdrew Russian units deployed at Palmyra, Mambij and in the Kurdish territories in the northeast of Syria; redeploy them inside the Tartus and Khmeimim bases; and open negotiations with the new powers in Damascus. “Russia will have to strengthen its presence in Syria –” Vzglyad reported, “establish relations with different parties, monitor them, observe and negotiate…It is impossible to leave the bases – they are of great geopolitical importance and ensure Russia’s presence in Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean.”
Vzglyad cites the well-known milblogger Alexander Kotz to point out that Russia’s bases in Syria are of strategic value. “To get to Africa, the Khmeimim air base has always been used as an intermediate point. If we are invited to leave, all agreements will be in jeopardy…Africa is now playing a crucial role for Russia. With the help of this region, we are ensuring the policy of a multipolar world and breaking through the isolation imposed by the West. Moreover, the loss of bases will affect our entire presence in the Mediterranean…If we leave Tartus, then hardly anyone in this region will ‘pour us a glass of fresh water.’ We will also have to minimize exercises in this area. At the same time, we should not trust the statements of the opposition which has come to power in Damascus. Thus, we face a long and difficult diplomatic path of negotiations with those representatives who have real political and military weight in the country now. We have specialists in such negotiations, because we conducted this process even when the active phase of the operation in Syria was underway until 2020. Of course, the situation has changed a lot now, but our diplomats have not gone anywhere.”
In Moscow, as the end of year celebrations get under way, sources claim to be in a “fighting mood. Our military leaders are earning the right to power, and there is nobody who doesn’t think that.” This is the sentiment among sources close to the General Staff and the Kremlin.
From Levada the most recent polling reveals brimming confidence in the future among Russians across the country. “Two-thirds of respondents (66%) feel confident in the future,” Levada reported on its survey conducted nationwide between November 21 and 27. “32% say the opposite. In the last two years, after the growth [of confidence in the direction of the country] in 2022, this indicator has not changed significantly. The sense of confidence in the future is more common among men (68%); young people up to 24 (79%); more affluent respondents (75% among those who can afford durable goods); residents of Moscow (76%); and those who approve of Putin’s performance as president (72%).”
Listen now to Chris Cook of Gorilla Radio lead today’s discussion of how Russia sees — and doesn’t see — the regime change and war in Syria.
For the introduction to this broadcast, access to the 20-year Gorilla Radio archive, and Chris Cook’s blog, click here and here. For the lessons of how the US is fighting its war in Syria from the history of how the US has been fighting against the Arabs since 1943, read the book.
John ain't gonna make many friends in the so-called alt media with this line of analysis but perhaps the truth is better than whistling past the boneyard. As said, total victory in Ukraine is more than ever necessary.
******
Navigating the Fog: An Interview with Professor Sergei A. Karaganov
Posted by Internationalist 360° on December 10, 2024
Nora Hoppe and Tariq Marzbaan
Tariq Marzbaan and Nora Hoppe hold another interview with Professor Sergei Karaganov, discussing the developments in Russia and the world, especially with the nuclear threat growing evermore present.
As we transition from a dying world to a new one in its turbulent birth pangs – we find ourselves in a foggy interregnum that urgently needs more clarity for us to move on.
We turn once again to political scientist and senior political advisor, Professor Sergei A. Karaganov – someone who has a long, illustrious career and who continues to hold many posts, amongst them: Honorary Chairman of the Council for Foreign and Defence Policy (Russia’s leading public foreign policy organisation) and academic supervisor of the Faculty of World Economics and World Politics of the National Research University Higher School of Economics in Moscow – as he has long been offering insightful views on such topics as the use of nuclear deterrence as a wake-up call to the West to restore common sense, and Russia’s continuing pivot away from the West to the East and the South.
HOPPE / MARZBAAN: In your recent book from “Restraining to Deterring” – written together with Professor Trenin and Admiral Avakyants, you stressed the need for a new strategic security plan for Russia against the ever-growing menaces from the West, which appear in various forms. One of the things you and your colleagues recommend is the need to revive the fear of nuclear weapons.
And outgoing chief of NATO’s military committee, Admiral Rob Bauer, admitted that NATO would not be able to deploy their troops on the ground in Ukraine because of Russia’s arsenal of nuclear weapons. But now with this latest escalation, in which the US is allowing Ukraine to use American ATACMS ballistic missiles to strike deep into Russian territory, such strikes would constitute a direct NATO attack on the Russian Federation.
What might be the Russian response? You outlined several military steps and measures in your book as responses to attacks by the adversaries, but what measures could be taken against these ATACMS strikes on Russian territory.
PROF. KARAGANOV: I do not want to impinge on my colleagues and fellows in the high command of the Russian army and political circles. So, I will offer my personal view.
This is a provocation, which should and could be answered very directly. Of course, by an avalanche of attacks on high-value targets in Ukraine. And there already are good targets in Romania and Poland, with the threat of a second or third wave, using nuclear weapons.
Russia already sent a powerful signal by a live testing of the new hypersonic multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle, the “Oreshnik” missile, against military-industrial targets in Ukraine. If the West does not stop its aggression, missiles will be tested against targets supporting the Kiev regime. President Putin said that if these missiles were to be used, we would warn civilians beforehand, so they could leave the areas or countries against which warheads would be used. I had advised such a warning to be used for humanitarian reasons, but also to strengthen deterrence against the Western elites, who seem to have lost minds. The total payload of the “Oreshnik” missile with six nuclear warheads is close to one megaton. But, I repeat, God forbid… I hope Western elites could sober up before that.
At this juncture, I would not recommend a strike against targets in Europe. Because it looks like a provocation from the Biden administration, which wants to leave a war of a higher level in the hands of the Trump administration. So, in spite of the fact that I’m always very harsh, I would this time advise caution.
HOPPE / MARZBAAN: How else can Russia “sober up” their comatose and psychopathic adversaries? Is there any other way to avoid a nuclear confrontation and WW3?
PROF. KARAGANOV: Unfortunately, we are dealing with an elite, who has lost all sense and reason and also a fear of war. And they are – especially in Europe – pushing their populations and countries into a meat-grinding machine, just as they had pushed Ukraine. So non-nuclear deterrents could be used and should be used. But the main thing is to restore nuclear deterrence, the fear of a nuclear holocaust – a holocaust in the grand sense of the word. And for that, we have all to think about nuclear weapons seriously and about the war seriously. Unfortunately, because of 70 years of relative peace – though of course there were Vietnams, there were Iraqs, there were Afghanistans, etc. – people all over the world, and especially in the West, got themselves used to relative peace and stability. I call it “strategic parasitism“.
But I hope that a fear of nuclear weapons and deterrence would be restored without the use of nuclear weapons – beforehand. If we do not restore this fear, the world is virtually doomed to a Third World War and a massive use of these and other weapons, destroying existing civilizations and taking away hundreds of millions of lives. The lives of survivors would be hellish for decades if not centuries. Many would envy the dead. To avoid that, we have to discuss the matter much more seriously than we used to. Thank God – since people like myself started a year and a half ago – a debate about the role of nuclear weapons has been reignited in our international relations. It has become a much more debated subject now. It is a good sign.
The strengthening of nuclear deterrence in Russian policies has two aims: One is to win the war in Ukraine, without sacrificing too many of our best men; and, second, to prevent a Third World War, which is advancing. The third task is to stop the West from regaining its positions, which it held in the world for the last five centuries, which permitted it to suppress other civilisations and to siphon off the world’s GNP from other peoples.
We hope, and it is my hope, that our victory in Ukraine can be a substitution for a Third World War.
HOPPE / MARZBAAN: Yes, we hope so too. And they are obviously losing in Ukraine.
But the West will seek other fronts. And you wrote that, even after Russia has won the war in Ukraine, the confrontation with the collective West will continue.
The intentions and plans of the West, especially on the part of the US neocons, have been known for a long time. The adherents to Mackinder’s Heartland Theory, to Brzezinski, the PNAC, the Rand Corporation, George Friedman of Stratfor and others, they have spoken openly about their agenda for Eurasia…
Which regions do you see as most threatened in the near future? How do you see the developments in West Asia and Central Asia? And what about the potential for more colour revolutions?
PROF. KARAGANOV: Well, there could still be colour revolutions. They are trying this technique here and there… in Georgia, Armenia, again in Syria, Bangladesh, etc. But these are residual battles. They are in retreat, and we are witnessing a very vicious and desperate counter-attack.
I think the aim of Russia and our international partners is to channel our Western enemies – hopefully future partners – into a much more sober mood.
I think that the United States could be channelled to retreat into a position of a “normal great power”, one of the four future leaders of the new world order of 20 years from now.
European elites, who have completely lost their strategic mind and common sense should be, for the time being, just pushed aside. They are, from my point of view, unfortunately desperately useless and dangerous. But, of course, over the next 10 to 15 years, we will have to restore some relations with some European countries under the auspices of the Greater Eurasian Project, which we have been promoting.
But at this juncture, the main task is deterrence. And “sobering up”.
HOPPE / MARZBAAN: In your very enlightening book, you speak of a “flexible coalition strategy” as another element of strategic defence. “An expanded strategic partnership between Russia and China will serve as the core of such a coalition framework.”
Which other countries are joining this coalition? Can you please describe this coalition strategy briefly?
PROF. KARAGANOV: At this juncture there is Russia, China, Iran, North Korea… But, generally speaking, there is a much wider potential coalition of those countries who’d love to be freed from the Western yoke. But they are now fluctuating, because they have been integrated in the previous system. They have very strong comprador elements in their elites, but that is understandable. But in principle, if and when Russia wins, more and more countries will come to our side. That is a very clear aim of our policies, as well as the aim for the betterment of humanity.
We are not pursuing policies, which are anti-Western. We are pursuing policies for a better world which is free, multi-coloured, multi-cultural and multi-political. I would love to live in that world. Though I am relatively old and probably will not see the coming of this world. But I am happy to work for that coming.
And also, as I have written in many of my articles, Russia – with its unique cultural, religious and racial openness – is very much better prepared for this kind of world than most of the countries on Earth. So, we are looking for that world, and we are working to make this happen.
HOPPE / MARZBAAN: But in the case they launch a real major war between Russia and NATO, are there countries or states that will join the Russian coalition in the war directly?
PROF. KARAGANOV: Well, we do not need any countries to join us in a coalition in a war with NATO, which I hope would not happen. There is, of course, a great ally, which is [Belarus].
If a war with NATO starts, it will immediately become nuclear. And Europe (outside of Russia) would be largely finished. Unfortunately, people lost their understanding of that simple truth. I repeat: any war between Russia and NATO would go nuclear. And, as I have said many times, the U.S. would not enter this war with nuclear weapons. Unless, of course, a bunch of madmen and America-haters occupy the White House and the Pentagon simultaneously. But the victory of Trump with all his kinkiness, offers the hope that he will not follow the current European path. Though Trump is not a friend of Russia and of all peace-loving peoples. But he is a signal of a return of the U.S. to sanity.
So I hope that a war between Russian and NATO will never happen. Even though Russia is bound to win, it would be a Pyrrhic victory. We would have to destroy a part of our Russian civilisation, a part of ourselves.
HOPPE / MARZBAAN: Do you see the war in West Asia against Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, with its escalations against Iran, as part of the same war against Russia, against the BRICS, against the West, against the Rest?
PROF. KARAGANOV: There will be many tensions. I mean, they will come not only because the West is on the counter attack against the Rest. First of all, their target number one is Russia. Their chief target is China. The West will not win. But the causes of these tensions are manifold and still to come. There are other nations, other leaders of resurrecting countries of the World Majority, of the Global South, which would start to compete with each other. But I think that, if we stay on the straight course, things will go in the right direction. And I’m very optimistic. Of course, we have to avoid a Third World War, which is the most important subject on the agenda of Russia, and, hopefully, all other countries.
HOPPE / MARZBAAN: Can you explain to our readers how the Soviet Union then and Russia now has helped the decolonisation of many states of the Global Majority, has helped these states become more politically and ideologically independent by destroying the West nuclear power monopoly, and by having a political and ideological weight in the world?
PROF. KARAGANOV: Until the 16th century, the world was multipolar. There were many civilisations… They were not as interconnected and interdependent as they are now, but there were many civilisations and centres of power. And most of the great civilisations were outside of the Western end of the Eurasian Peninsula.
But then, because Europe was in a condensed, constantly fighting region of the world, Europeans developed a better use of cannons and a better military organisation, and started to conquer the world. And that started in the 16th century, and continued on into the 19th century with the epoch of colonisation. Then that epoch started to collapse in the early 20th century when the Soviet Union broke out of the system, and immediately started to support those nations that wanted to decolonise themselves. But still it was a side track. And then something very important happened, and that is Russia, the Soviet Union, acquired nuclear weapons and undermined the military preponderance – the foundation of Western dominance in cultural, political affairs, economics – the system, which allowed the West to siphon off the world’s GNP in its own favour. The relative wealth of the West now is, of course, not only, but largely, based on the fact that it has been able for several centuries to siphon off world wealth from other nations or their GNP by imposing its rules, culture, economic policies and political institutions.
That process started to be undermined when the Soviet Union acquired “material parity”. Then for 15 years, the Soviet Union, for its own reasons, collapsed. And it seemed that the world returned back to colonial and neo-colonial times. But now we have resumed our role as the “liberator of the world.”
I am happy to be a member of the intelligentsia, a citizen, of a country that is the liberator of humanity. We have supported decolonisation. We are now supporting the liberation of the world from the Western yoke.
HOPPE / MARZBAAN: Russia is said to be turning away from the West and orientating itself toward the East. Which East is implied here? Siberia, China, the Asian World, the World Majority, or all of them.
PROF. KARAGANOV: Sooner or later, we will restore some of our relations with the West, all the more with the culture – as we are largely a European country. Of course, with very special traits. And we do not share current post-European and post-human values. But politically and socially, we are more Asian.
We are the proud heirs of two great civilisations: one was Mongol and the second was Byzantine. Byzantium was, as we know, destroyed by hungry and barbaric crusaders.
At that time, it was one of the most flourishing civilisations in the world. It is from there that we got our religion and our faith. The Mongols robbed our country, but also they brought the culture of “vertical power.” And also, this unbelievable sense of – I would say – of “global thinking“. So Russians, in spite of the fact that they suffered, they also inherited some of the best traits of the Mongol Genghis Khan Empire.
So we are turning back to where we have been returned from a great journey, which was started by Peter the Great to Europe. It was very useful, because we have culturally enriched ourselves – to the extent that, we have created one of the best, or probably the best literature in the world and great art. Now we are saying: no, thank you, not anymore. We have exhausted the usefulness of our European journey.
So we are turning back home, where we have been. And turning back home is, of course, returning to the East and to the South. In terms of our internal, cultural, spiritual, economic and political movement, it is a movement towards Siberia. But in terms of our external orientation, it is bettering our relations with countries of the Global South and East.
We have become the pinnacle of, or maybe the hard core, strategic linchpin of influence for the Global South. We call it the “Global Majority”. Of course, we are not a southern country. So we call ourselves, refer to ourselves, as Northern Eurasia – a balance of the world and Greater Eurasia.
HOPPE / MARZBAAN: Russia’s orientation away from the West towards the East will apparently not only be seen in terms of economic, scientific, and technological development and security, as you said, but a quest for a new non-Western worldview, a new Weltanschauung.
But as modernity, the modern age of the entire planet has been shaped by the West and is already here, how can we develop it further in a civilised non-Western manner?
PROF. KARAGANOV: The West has reached and passed its pinnacle, has left its place as a source of modernity. It is a source of moral, political, economic, and – sooner or later – economic degradation. So the sooner we part from the West – but keeping our Western roots, especially in our culture – the better. The West is not a source of economic, political or social progress anymore. As I’m saying to my compatriots… being a “Westernizer” and a Western centrist in our case – or in the case of any other country – is a sign of stupidity and intellectual backwardness.
HOPPE / MARZBAAN: You wrote in your book, “From Restraining to Deterring”, that Russia needs a new Russian civilisational platform. Could you please describe that?
PROF. KARAGANOV: Well, we’re working on several subjects, one of them is on a new ideology for Russia. It is too complicated an issue to discuss in one interview. We would need a series for that. I love this subject, but if I start, it will be so piecemeal that people wouldn’t understand, so we would waste time.
HOPPE / MARZBAAN: Yes, but maybe we can do that for the next interview!
PROF. KARAGANOV: Absolutely! I’d be delighted! But it is a very specific subject. I could send you some material on that, because I’m leading a number of working groups all over the country for the creation of a concept for a new Russian ideology, or the “Russian Dream”… including, of course, the question of what exactly Russian civilisation is.
We are searching for a new identity – a new and “old identity”, and, I have just described the elements of this older identity, which should be rediscovered, and that is in our ancient roots. Basically, we are not a Western European country. Our basic roots are in Byzantium and in the Mongol Empire. But we are thankful for the three-centuries-old relationship with our Western neighbours, which helped us to develop great culture, to better our military organisation and to become a great power and people.
But the source of Russian greatness lies in Siberia. That’s where the greatness of my country, the great power of my country, was born – since the 16th century.
We became an empire even before Peter the Great, who proclaimed us an empire. And we are still an empire. And in the better sense of that word, because the Russian way of expansion was not suppressing local people, but integrating them, uniting with them, which is a very interesting phenomenon. The cultural openness of Russians is unexplainable. Well, one could explain it. In any case, I’m absolutely flabbergasted by this fact.
But again, by travelling to Siberia, where there is a mixture of nations, cultures, genes, etc., you will then understand what is Russia. Russia is a great combination of the basic traits of many cultures and many races.
HOPPE / MARZBAAN: Professor Karaganov, we already know that you are a passionate, intrepid hunter…
PROF. KARAGANOV: Oh, sure!
HOPPE / MARZBAAN: …with a keen sense of what might be lurking in the bushes or in the fog. So it was no surprise to us that you spotted “the elephant in the room of the World Majority” and brought the subject of a new world economic system at the St. Petersburg International Forum this year. You proposed to President Putin that Russia take the initiative to create a “master plan” and set up some kind of a think tank composed of top economic specialists from all over the world to brainstorm on potential viable economic models.
Has this proposal become more concrete in the meantime?
PROF. KARAGANOV: Well, first of all, I am a hunter, but I never hunted elephants. For a very simple reason. They are too easy a prey. Now I’m not hunting much. But I had great adventures. So, for me hunting is mostly watching. I do not shoot.
But now to directly answer the question: we are working on that subject. It is one of the most difficult issues to put on the agenda, because people here are not yet ready. All over the world, too.
One has to understand that the previous system, the socio-economic system of global liberal capitalism, has exhausted its course. Russia should, I repeat, become one of the places where the new theory and practice for a new social and economic order would be developed.
It is obvious that the previous dominating socio-economic order has exhausted itself, and it works against humanity – degrading the human – and also nature.
Soviet socialism also collapsed, so we have to find a new socio-economic system that would lead us to a future world, not only of prosperity – prosperity is not the aim. Sure, people should be well off. But we should strive for a new humanistic world, where the centre is the development of the human. That is what I am proposing to become the core of the new Russian Dream: “building” a new Russian person, man, woman, who should be at the centre of our universe, who serves his or her family, society, country and a God – not as an “individual”, but something much closer to the Almighty. Of course, being a Russian means being a Russian Great Russian, a Russian Tatar, a Russian Belorussian, a Russian Chechen, etc.
HOPPE / MARZBAAN: So having turned from the topic of a new economic system to the topic of a new system of values for humanity, we have a question regarding our current situation.
The BRICS Summit in Kazan marks a historical moment with 36 nations of the World Majority coming together to reject the old world order under the Hegemon, to demand the reformation or even replacement of existing international structures and institutions that have all been tailored to the West’s advantage.
You have written that to build a coalition with the World Majority not only shared interests are necessary, but common values. You wrote, and I quote:
“Russia is focused on helping strengthen state institutions and freeing states from new colonial dependence, respecting the social, cultural identity of all countries and peoples, protecting human values consecrated by all world religions, cultures and civilizations, from the western promoted anti-human values and ideas of transhumanism, and upholding diversity and ideological and ethical pluralism as a matter of principle.”
But, right now the World Majority is facing its greatest ethical challenge. Evidenced by the blatant fact that we have a genocide and an illegal territorial expansion occurring 24/7, visible every day on all the cell phones of the world. At the moment, despite all the best intentions to create a more just world, the forces of the World Majority are paralysed. Planned, funded, and enabled by the US and its vassals, who act with total impunity, the war in West Asia, like the war in Ukraine, is ultimately a single war of the West against the Rest.
How do you see the World Majority coming to terms with this? What do we do now with the Genocide and the people who are dying from bombs and from hunger?
PROF. KARAGANOV: First of all, we need to understand that we have to change ourselves, our thinking. Our thinking has become outdated. Both on the liberal and the non-liberal side. Simply, we have to overcome most of the “isms” that we inherited from the past. And I believe that one of the ways to draft a way toward a better future is with the human at the core. The human, who is serving, as I’ve said, not as an individualist, but who is serving the family, the society, the country and a God… and the world. First.
Now, secondly, as to the more practical level, Russia is fighting a war in Ukraine, not only for its sovereignty, its dignity and security interests. It is fighting the war to free the world from the political, cultural, and economic yoke of the West. I think we shall win. And then the countries of the Global Majority, or the Global South, would have more room for manoeuvre. But every country and every people, all the peoples, have to decide themselves – how they should go, where should they go, what their aims are.
Most of the peoples, except for a relatively, small minority now in the West, share the same values. They are noble values. They say that they are usually “conservative” and blah-blah. I don’t like the word “conservative”. They are normal values. And these values are: love for your family, for your friends, for your country, for other people. And of course, a love for your motherland. These things unite us. So, many wrong ideas have been imposed on humanity over the years.
Now we have to devise a new humanistic and superlative ideology, but that’s a very hard issue and I couldn’t pretend to have a clear view of it… but it should be done by us all.
HOPPE / MARZBAAN: The Petersburg International Forum 2024 ended with President Putin saying that “it is ‘Harmony’ that is the principle we will be guided by in building our policy”.
As our world and our lives are so full of conflicts and complexities and each entity might have conflicting interests, is there a concept, some idea or a formula for how we can create and preserve “Harmony”?
PROF. KARAGANOV: I think the answer is very simple. This previous period of history – which was based on the unlimited expansion of consumerism, of consumption, of unbridled capitalism, and also because of the information revolution and other reasons, which have been undermining the human being – is coming to end and should come to an end.
We need to devise different concepts together. Whether they are based on harmony… or whether they are based on some other concepts, we have to decide on them. But it is very important that people feel a responsibility and have the intellectual ability to combine their efforts to draft a new path for the world.
Now we are, at present, in biblical times. Apart from reading all kinds of reports, studies, etc., from time to time I go back to the Bible or Quran. I have just come to understand that we are still somewhere at the time of our Creation – we should look to the Old Testament. But we need to be really creative and open. It is as simple as that.
HOPPE / MARZBAAN: Professor Karaganov, we thank you very much for being with us.
Sergey Aleksandrovich Karaganov:
Extensive biography: https://karaganov.ru/en/ Specialisation: Soviet/Russian foreign and defence policies, security and economic aspects of Russian–European interaction, the Russian pivot to the East. Author and editor of 28 books and brochures, published around 600 articles on economics of foreign policy, arms control, national security strategy, Russian foreign and defence policies. Articles and books were published in more than 50 countries. Chairman of the editorial board and publisher of the journal “Russia in Global Affairs”.
THE NEW TIME OF TROUBLES, PART II — PUTIN OVERRULED THE GENERAL STAFF
by John Helmer, Moscow @bears_with
The illustration of power coming out of the barrel of a gun is from a comic book. Contemplating the reality of Russia’s position in Syria, no one in a position to know believes in cartoon captions, the credibility of the gun, or the direction in which the horse is now running.
Military sources in Moscow have told a tale of President Vladimir Putin’s decision not to defend the Syrian Arab Army and the Damascus government of Bashar al-Assad. That decision, the sources claim, was taken at least two weeks before the Turkish break-out from Idlib began on November 27, and was conveyed to Assad personally by December 6.
It had been hinted at four days earlier, on December 2, when Iran’s President, Masoud Pezeshkian, made an urgent telephone call to Putin. In principle, the Kremlin announced, Putin and Pezeshkian agreed on “unconditional support for the efforts of Syria’s legitimate authorities to restore constitutional order and maintain the country’s territorial integrity.”
In practice, there was a Russian condition. Putin told Pezeshkian that Russian anti-aircraft units in Syria would not operate against Israeli attack and defend the Iranian air bridge to Khmeimim for the troops and arms which Assad had been requesting urgently, and which the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was ready to send. Putin also told the Iranian President that Russian ground forces and artillery would not engage Turkish forces moving southward, and would not bomb them from the air.
By the time Putin and Pezeshkian were speaking, after days of the closed-door debate with the General Staff, Putin believed he had the word of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Russia’s principal military bases at Tartus and Khmeimim would not be attacked and Russian forces not threatened. Their pre-condition was that Putin would not encourage or defend Iranian reinforcements.
The General Staff and GRU warned Putin that Erdogan and Netanyahu could not be trusted, and that without Russian military force to deter them, plus Iranian troops, they would take over Syrian territory – the Turks down the coast to the Lebanese border and to Damascus; the Israelis across the Golan and the Quneitra buffer zone into the southern outskirts of Damascus.
The Security Council met openly only once with Putin during this debate – on December 5. The official communiqué does not report that Syria was discussed.
“Russia does not betray friends in difficult situations,” was the line the Kremlin told the Foreign Ministry to instruct its diplomats to announce after Assad had landed in Moscow on December 8, adding the footnote that “a deal has been done to ensure the safety of Russian military bases.” The Ministry spokesman, Maria Zakharova, did not go so far. “Our number-one priority is ensuring the safety of the Russian citizens currently residing in Syria, and protecting Russia’s property and its diplomatic, military and other missions,” she said.
Zakharova was signalling there was no deal for the bases short of evacuation from Syria, with terms of safe passage still to be negotiated with the Turks. The camouflage for this is a multinational negotiation the Foreign Ministry is proposing for Russia, Turkey, Iran, the Gulf Arab states, and the United Nations special envoy for Syria.
Asked what reaction Russia has to the Israeli occupation of southern Syria, Zakharova said: “it is incumbent upon all members of the international community, especially neighbouring nations, to exhibit restraint and an elevated level of responsibility by refraining from actions that could provoke further deterioration of the situation in Syria.” Asked what role Israel and the US had played in the invasion and military coup in Syria, she replied: “The situation is being analyzed. There will be even more facts qualifying what happened in Syria.”
Zakharova was not asked for the ministry’s assessment of the part Erdogan had played. Instead, she said: “Our country respects the leaders of friendly countries, maintains dialogue with them and develops relations with them.”
The Kremlin record of Putin’s direct telephone conversation with Erdogan on December 3 claims Putin told Erdogan he should agree “to stop radical groups’ terrorist aggression against the Syrian state.” Erdogan, who initiated the call, didn’t agree.
The General Staff understood Putin to believe that he had the agreement of Turkey, Israel and indirectly of the United States for a de facto partition of Syria into four military control zones, like Germany following Adolf Hitler’s suicide in Berlin on April 30, 1945. The General Staff warned Putin that Russian military capacities in the bases would be too weak to enforce his verbal exchanges with Erdogan and Netanyahu; that a Russian control zone around the bases could not be protected from a forced evacuation; and that if Putin agreed to this, he was risking the destruction of Russian credibility with strategic allies, Iran first of all, then China.
Ex-President Dmitry Medvedev was then sent to Beijing on December 12 to explain and assure President Xi Jinping. Xi has not been reassured. The General Staff messaged Putin, “We told you so”. Now read on.
In the Chinese communiqué of the Xi-Medvedev meeting, Xi’s line was reported as “the need to uphold the three principles of no expansion of the battlefield, no escalation of fighting and no provocation by any party, to promote the easing of the situation as soon as possible.” The communiqué also reports the Chinese as accepting Medvedev’s assurance that there will be no fresh surprises to undermine Russia’s promises of strategic alliance with China. “The Russian side will unswervingly implement the consensus reached by the two heads of state and promote strategic coordination.”
A hint is surfacing in the Russian military blogs – endorsed by the GRU-linked reporter Yevgeny Krutikov — that if and when the Tartus naval base is evacuated by the Russians, an alternative naval base arrangement may be made at Tobruk in Libya.
BBC, the British state propaganda organ, is also reporting the possibility of a Russian fleet redeployment to Tobruk. It is unlikely that Erdogan, Netanyahu, or the incoming Trump Administration will agree to the reinforcement of the Russian military position in Libya.
A well-informed Moscow source comments there is no surprise in Moscow at Putin’s decision-making to favour Israel and Turkey at the expense of the Arabs and Iran. The source also warns that the surprise expressed by Anglo-American podcasters who support Putin in the Ukraine war “reflects their readiness to say what they believe the Kremlin wants to hear – with or without reward.”
An accurate guide to the Kremlin propaganda line right now, the source indicates, is a Moscow-based American academic named Andrew Korybko. He has turned the General Staff’s warning upside down, defending Putin’s decision to accommodate Israel and Turkey in Syria as reflecting the realistic military balance in the Middle East right now. “Putin is a proud lifelong philo-Semite,” Korybko says, “who never shared the Resistance’s unifying anti-Zionist ideology, instead always expressing very deep respect for Jews and the State of Israel…Russia dodged a bullet by wisely choosing not to ally with the now-defeated [Arab-Iranian] Resistance Axis since it would have needlessly ruined its relations with Israel, the undisputable victor of the West Asian Wars. Putin made the right choice, which was always driven by his rational calculation of what was in Russia’s objective interests as a state, not due to ‘Zionist influence’.”
“This is toadying,” the Moscow source comments, but indicative. “The toad is giving voice to those who think, plan, decide. He is giving the clearest official line on it all.”
A Moscow military source suspects that Putin has “traded” with the General Staff, exchanging the evacuation of the Russian bases in Syria with permission to accelerate missile operations against the regime in Kiev, against US and NATO planning and operations units in the Ukraine, and intensification of the electric war in Kiev, Lvov and western Ukraine. The source adds that the test of this “trade” will be whether the General Staff launches strikes over Friday and Saturday in retaliation for the resumption of US-Ukrainian ATACMS launches on Wednesday night against Taganrog.
ATACMS missile part photographed at Taganrog on Wednesday evening, December 11. The Russian Defense Ministry reported that six American-made ATACMS missiles were used in the strike. “This attack by Western long-range weapons will not remain unanswered, appropriate measures will be taken,” the Ministry declared.
Well it looks as though the General Staff has 'passed the test'.
******
“Russia Dodged a Bullet by Wisely Choosing Not To Ally With the Now-Defeated Resistance Axis”
Posted on December 12, 2024 by Yves Smith
Yves here. We are running a new piece by Andrew Korybko which is very likely to provoke informative reader discussion. Having said that, Korybko likes to paint with exceedingly bright colors and his disinclination for nuance has the unfortunate tendency to undercut his observations.
His frame is a criticism of the Alt-Media Community. I must confess that I have no idea what that is. Is there a secret handshake? A membership process? He depicts them as a monolith and of acting in bad faith by telling their audiences what they want to hear.
As I mentioned yesterday, the commentariat had a very lively discussion of the group-think among the anti-globalists and how they were blindsided by Israel, with US and Turkiye help (and the Russians believe, the UK too), managing to very suddenly turn the tables in its neighborhood. Some of the most influential commentators are on YouTube, and as interviewees, are not earning a dime for offering their views (save arguably Scott Ritter, who is also writing for publication and so keeping his profile high helps with readership-building). For instance, Colonel Larry Wilkerson and Ambassador Chas Freeman were of the same view Korybko attributes to Alt-Media Community. Even in post-Syria-collapse appearances, Wilkerson and Freeman still depict Israel as in very fundamental trouble.
Regarding the YouTube appearances, there is a vector for group-think on Judge Napolitano. He has a propensity to take the same clip, often of a particularly offensive or stoopid official statement (think of Sebastian Gorky puffing his chest about how Trump is really gonna put Putin in his place) and ask his guests to comment, often with leading questions. So one means of creating orthoxody-opposed opinion convergence is having YouTube hosts influencing the content.
Additional evidence of Israel’s apparent weakness were elements like the reported large number of Israelis leaving the country, particularly highly educated professionals who could land work abroad, the growing revolt among IDF reservists about serving, the parallel rejection of Haredim of demands that they be drafted, and the continuing strain on the economy, such as by Houthi (and the earlier Hezbollah) shelling.
Another contributor to groupthink was the limited number of experts with meaningful military and/or diplomatic experience in the region. On that short list are aforementioned Wilkerson, Freeman, and Ritter, plus Alastair Crooke. Crooke makes a point of maintaining a professionally cool posture, but the others, even the normally very careful and measured Freeman, have found it hard not to show their disgust for the Israel government. That hatred, which most of the world shares, in turn looks to have contributed to confirmation bias in reading considerable signs of Israel’s weakness as evidence of an irreversible deterioration.
I must have missed the discussion of whether Russia supported the Resistance. Aside from the possibility that it was helping the Houthis, Russia was pointedly sitting this one out. Russia is believed to have helped Iran after Israel started attacking Iran directly. But as much as the Anglosphere media would like people to believe, that is not the same as helping Iran with its Resistance efforts. Where were the S-400s in Lebanon, for instance?
PlutoniumKun, in comments yesterday, noted that Syria was important to Russia for long-standing reasons that had nothing to do with Israel:
As for Syria – as usual there is far too much attention paid to the big non-Middle Eastern players in this, when the real roots of what happened is much closer to Syria – in particular the UAE, Kuwait and KSA, all of which have devoted billions (and mountains of weapons) to the conflict to their various allies, and who have far deeper and better intelligence insights than anyone else. The Turks have very strong influence in the area via their traditional allies and the Muslim Brotherhood, and they’ll be using these to exert further influence, but it will only be in private agreements with Qatar, KSA, etc. They will work out something between them. If they don’t there will be chaos. Neither the US, Russia, China, Iran or anyone else will be anything but observers….
Turkey, btw, did not, as some claim, betray or lie to Russia and China (not that China has a particularly big role). They see themselves as the key regional power there, everyone else as annoying outsiders who they occasionally have to mollify. Its highly unlikely the Russians took anything they said at face value (not least because the Russians scrupulously held Assad back from striking at direct Turkish interests. Turkey had always made it clear – to the extent of shooting down at least one Russian fighter – that it saw itself as the big beast in that area and would not have made any promises to what it sees as intruders to their zone of interest.
The value of Syria to Russia was far more than just its port and airfields and position on the Mediterranean. It was its leverage point with the Gulf region as a whole and it allowed Russia a say in what is still the worlds center for oil and gas. Its now lost any influence in the region, including to a significant degree with Iran – both countries, while working well together in some respects, also have fundamentally differing strategic needs in the Caspian region. This would well worsen relations between them, especially if Russia continues to favour Azerbaijan. While the area is not a core strategic interest of Russia, it is still an area they can’t afford not to be involved in, and the absence of their presence, which has always acted to some degree as a break on the US (and others) having everything their way, could well have many unexpected second and third order effects on the regional balance there. One thing to look out for is Chechnya – there are rumours of Chechens with Russian military training fighting with the Syrian rebels – any sign of a weakening by any power in the region could well cause some unexpected revolts in any number of regions from the Black Sea to the Caspian and across to the former Soviet Republics and Pakistan.
There will be renewed talk about pipelines via Syria to the Mediterranean, but these may create unlikely allies (and enemies). Qatar wants to dominate via a land link through KSA, but their main gas reserves are essentially shared with Iran, so any agreement will involve quiet discussions with Tehran. Qatar has to thread carefully due to its ‘issues’ with KSA and the other Gulf States, but with so much money involved, expect some possibly unexpected realignments. Iran, which is also desperate to find new gas markets, may renew their focus on Armenia and Georgia.
Now to the main event.
By Andrew Korybko, a Moscow-based American political analyst who specializes in the global systemic transition to multipolarity in the New Cold War. He has a PhD from MGIMO, which is under the umbrella of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Originally published at his website
Putin made the right choice, which was always driven by his rational calculation of what was in Russia’s objective interests as a state, not due to “Zionist influence” like some in the Alt-Media Community now ridiculously claim to defame him after being mad that he didn’t lift a finger to save the Resistance.
The Iranian-led Resistance Axis has been defeated by Israel. Hamas’ terrorist attack on 7 October 2023 prompted Israel’s collective punishment of the Palestinians in Gaza, which set into motion a series of conflicts that expanded to Lebanon and Syria. Israel has also bombed Yemen and Iran. Hamas’ and Hezbollah’s leaderships were destroyed, leading to a ceasefire in Lebanon, while the Assad government was just overthrown by a Turkish-backed terrorist blitz that severed Iran’s military logistics to Hezbollah.
These outcomes were already surprising enough for those who believed the late Nasrallah’s claim that “Israel is weaker than a spider web”, but many were shocked that they occurred without Russia lifting a finger to save the Resistance, with whom they thought that it had allied against Israel long ago. That second-mentioned false notion will go down in infamy as one of the most successful psy-ops ever conducted against the Alt-Media Community (AMC), and ironically enough, by its own top influencers.
It was explained in early October “Why False Perceptions About Russian Policy Towards Israel Continue To Proliferate”, which readers should review for more detail, but which can be summarized as top AMC influencers telling their audience what they thought they wanted to hear for self-interested reasons. These include generating clout, pushing their ideology, and/or soliciting donations from well-intentioned but naïve members of their audience depending on the personality involved.
The preceding analysis also lists five related ones about Russian policy towards Israel since the start of the West Asian Wars, including this one “Clarifying Lavrov’s Comparison Of The Latest Israeli-Hamas War To Russia’s Special Operation”, which itself links to several dozen others. All of them also reference this May 2018 report about “President Putin On Israel: Quotes From The Kremlin Website (2000-2018)”. All of these materials rely on official and authoritative Russian sources to arrive at their conclusions.
They prove that Putin is a proud lifelong philo-Semite who never shared the Resistance’s unifying anti-Zionist ideology, instead always expressing very deep respect for Jews and the State of Israel. Accordingly, as the final decisionmaker on Russian foreign policy, he tasked his diplomats with balancing between Israel and the Resistance. To that end, Russia never took either’s side and always remained neutral in their disputes, including the West Asian Wars.
The most that he ever personally did was condemn Israel’s collective punishment of the Palestinians, but always in the same breath as condemning Hamas’ infamous terrorist attack on 7 October 2023. As for Russia, the most that it ever did was repeat the same rhetoric and occasionally condemn Israel’s strikes against the IRGC and Hezbollah in Syria, which Russia never interfered with. Not once did it try to deter or intercept them, retaliate afterwards, or give Syria the capabilities and authorization to do so either.
This was due to the deconfliction mechanism that Putin and Bibi agreed to in late September 2015 shortly before the Syrian operation. It was never confirmed for obvious diplomatic reasons, but these actions (or rather lack thereof) suggested that Putin believed that Iran’s anti-Israeli activities Syria posed a legitimate threat to Israel. For that reason, Russia always stood aside whenever Israel bombed Iran there, but Russia still sometimes complained due to Israel’s attacks formally violating international law.
It’s an objectively existing and easily verifiable fact that Russia’s opposition to Israel’s regional activities, be they in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, or Iran, always remained strictly confined to the political realm of official statements. Not once did Russia ever threaten to unilaterally sanction Israel, let alone even remotely hint at military action against it as punishment. Russia won’t even symbolically designate Israel as an “unfriendly state”, though that’s because it doesn’t abide by US sanctions and won’t arm Ukraine.
Therein lies another fact that most in the AMC were either unaware of or in denial about and it’s that Israel isn’t the US’ puppet otherwise it would have already done those two things long ago. It’s beyond the scope of the present piece to explain this, as well as why the Biden Administration has tried to destabilize and overthrow Bibi, but this analysis here dives into the details and cites related articles. The point is that Russian-Israeli ties remain cordial and these two are far from the foes that some thought.
It therefore never made sense to imagine that Putin, who considers himself to be the consummate pragmatist, would burn the bridge that he personally invested nearly a quarter-century of his time building with Bibi between their two nations. After all, Putin boasted in 2019 that “Russians and Israelis have ties of family and friendship. This is a true common family; I can say this without exaggeration. Almost 2 million Russian speakers live in Israel. We consider Israel a Russian-speaking country.”
He was speaking before the Keren Heyesod Foundation, one of the world’s oldest Zionist lobbying organizations, during its annual conference in Moscow that year. Whenever members of the AMC were confronted with these “politically inconvenient” facts from official and authoritative sources such as the Kremlin’s own website, they spun a “5D chess master plan” conspiracy theory alleging that he was just “psyching out the Zionists”. Top influencers also aggressively “canceled” anyone who brought this up.
The end result was that these false perceptions of Russian-Israeli relations as well as Putin’s own views towards this subject continued to proliferate unchallenged through the AMC, thus leading to the impression that they were secretly allied with Iran due to their allegedly shared anti-Zionist ideals. This notion became a matter of dogma for many in the AMC and correspondingly turned into an axiom of International Relations for them. Anyone who claimed otherwise was smeared as a “Zionist”.
It’s now known after Russia didn’t lift a finger to save the Resistance that they were never actually allies. Some of those that still can’t accept that they’ve been lied to by trusted AMC influencers who duped them for self-interested reasons (clout, ideology, and/or soliciting donations) now speculate that Russia “betrayed” the Resistance and “sold out to the Zionists” even though Russia was never on either’s side. If they don’t soon shake off their cognitive dissonance, they’ll detach themselves further from reality.
In retrospect, Russia dodged a bullet by wisely choosing not to ally with the now-defeated Resistance Axis since it would have needlessly ruined its relations with Israel, the undisputable victor of the West Asian Wars. Putin made the right choice, which was always driven by his rational calculation of what was in Russia’s objective interests as a state, not due to “Zionist influence” like some in the AMC now ridiculously claim to defame him after being mad that he didn’t lift a finger to save the Resistance.
The takeaways from this are several: 1) Putin and his representatives don’t play “5D chess”, they always say what they truly mean; 2) Russia isn’t anti-Israel nor anti-Zionist, but it also isn’t anti-Iran nor anti-Resistance either; 3) the AMC is full of charlatans who, for self-interested reasons, tell their audience whatever they think they want to hear; 4) their audience should thus hold them to account for lying about Russian-Israeli and Russian-Resistance relations; 5) and the AMC requires urgent reform.
From the comments:
Michaelmas
December 12, 2024 at 7:31 am
Yves S.: Korybko likes to paint with exceedingly bright colors and his disinclination for nuance has the unfortunate tendency to undercut his observations.
Meh. I find this guy as overblown in his absolute certainties as the people he — rightly — criticizes. Everyone comes with priors and Korybko doesn’t seem any more interested in interrogating his than Ritter, and co. This here mostly comes as PR for Putin as realpolitik pragmatist. But most intelligent observers would take that position, so why Korybko’s bloviation about the obvious?
I do like Crooke. He comes on like a sleepy old dormouse and he has his verbal tics, such as ‘If you like,” but he knows his stuff and defines the limits of his knowledge most of the time.
Yves. S: ...the Alt-Media Community… Is there a secret handshake? A membership process?
Come on, Yves. You’re holding out on us, but we’re not fooled. You know the secret handshake.
Transcript of ‘Judging Freedom’ edition of 12 December
As an introductory comment to the transcript of today’s chat with Judge Andrew Napolitano, I am obliged to explain my point about how a factory producing the Russian equivalent of American AWACS planes may have been the true target of the Ukrainian strike on Taganrog using ATACMS missiles. Like the Ukrainian drone attacks earlier this year on Russian early warning radars in the south of the country, the factory making Russian AWACS has no value whatsoever to the Ukrainian forces, and so one should ask why would they go after it. The simple answer is that such an attack only serves American interests in destroying Russian defenses against a possible U.S. preemptive nuclear strike coming from US submarines in the Mediterranean or Persian Gulf. For this very reason, the Kremlin may well be reconsidering what it should target in its retaliatory strike now. Logically the target should now be some valuable U.S. military asset like its newly opened base in Poland.
Transcript submitted by a reader
Napolitano: 0:32
Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for “Judging Freedom”. Today is Thursday, December 12, 2024. Professor Gilbert Doctorow will be here with us in just a moment on Russia, Ukraine, Syria, and Georgia. Ooh, but first this.
0:51
[video: Thank you, 500,000 subscribers]
Napolitano: 1:43
Well, thank you, everyone, for helping us achieve this milestone. Professor Doctorow, thank you for your contributions to the show as well, and we hope that they can continue, and welcome here. It’s always a pleasure to be able to pick your brain. I have a lot to speak to you about.
2:00
President-elect Trump on Sunday evening tweeted that Syria fell because its benefactor deserted it, and he identified the benefactor as Vladimir Putin. Is there any truth to that statement?
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
Not really. Yes, the Russians did not make a great effort to save Syria when it was clear that it was mission impossible. They have prioritized Ukraine. They will take Ukraine where they want to take it, and they will not be distracted by anything. If they weren’t distracted seriously by the invasion of their own province of Kursk, why would they be distracted by something rather remote, which was not salvageable? Because their own intelligence informed them that the regime of Assad was collapsing from within.
Napolitano: 3:00
Does Russia expect to continue to maintain the troops and naval personnel and ships in Syria?
Doctorow:
Well, let me just continue to the last point.
Napolitano
Sure.
Doctorow;
Whether Russia abandoned Syria, This is being used by Western media, by “The New York Times” in particular, today’s edition of how Putin has been so disappointed and has taken such a heavy hit in Syria and therefore he’s making greater efforts in Ukraine. These are unrelated issues, as far as Russian pursuit of its main task. The Western press here in Belgium, French newspapers, as of yesterday, were saying the same thing, that the Russians took a big hit. They were very happy to have something, what they believed would take news away from the disastrous situation that’s evolving day by day in Ukraine for the United States, for NATO, and most of all for Mr. Zelensky and his gang running the show in Kiev.
4:11
So let’s not be distracted or misled by the intention of all this material coming into Western media. Its purpose is propagandistic and it is– now, to answer your question directly about what the Russians are saying, what they’re thinking of doing. The Russians’ options are rather considerable, what to do. First of all, they’re sitting tight. They’re waiting to see how this new rebel-led government will be treating the area where they are based, which is the coastal area of the Alawites, the home support group, home constituency of Bashar Assad. It is presently safe, although the Russians took the precaution of moving their ships more than eight kilometers out to sea, out of range of artillery. That was a precaution. It was quite wise.
Napolitano: 5:16
What artillery did the Russians fear? I mean, who would dare to attack Russia there? The US? The IDF? The Turks?
Doctorow:
The fog of war would have been. concealed very nicely, who was firing those anti-artillery missiles. Just as contingency. Well, the Israelis had moved in and taken the buffer zone, moved tanks close to Damascus, allegedly, all they were saying to protect themselves against every contingency.
So why shouldn’t– what kind of a contingency were _they_ protecting themselves against, when they knew the value of Assad’s military?
Napolitano: 5:58
How does a person perceive a snarky statement from the president-elect, like the one that I just paraphrased for you, Assad lost because his benefactor deserted him and that benefactor is Vladimir Putin? It’s not a quote, but it’s a fair paraphrase.
Doctorow:
No, they don’t take anything that Trump says seriously. They don’t take anything that merits the candidate of the Christian Democrats in the electoral process is saying. And he’s making very dramatic statements about how the Taurus missiles should be shipped immediately to Kiev.
The Russians are focused on their day-to-day pursuit of the war and of how to retaliate now for the latest defiant strike by the United States and Kiev against Taganrog, which I assume we’ll talk about. But let me take a step back, because you asked me what are the other options. Larry Wilkerson the other day mentioned something that really caught my attention. That, oh yes, the Russians could, if they’re chased out, if they feel that they have to abandon their naval base in Tartus on the Syrian coast, they could now seek to do a deal with the Iranians and to move their naval base in the region to Iran. It’s a very amusing proposition and I’m glad that he raised it, because he correctly identified the Russians’ desire to have a naval base, to have their boots in the warm waters of the Indian Ocean.
This goes back several hundred years, and it has in the recent, very recent history, been an ambition that was stated by the Russian nationalist politician Zhirinovsky. He spoke precisely about Russia’s wishing to have a naval presence, naval base in the Indian Ocean. But that’s a separate point.
7:57
The other options are– and Wilkerson didn’t mention that– Algeria, Egypt. Russians have many options. The Americans have antagonized, alienated these countries in North Africa. The Egyptians are hopping mad over what’s going on in Syria today. So it is conceivable that if for any reason the Russians felt it was necessary to abandon their presence in Syria, they would open up in Algeria. Why not? It serves the same purpose.
8:31
What is that purpose, other than having a base of naval personnel? I mean, what are they going to do with it there?
Doctorow:
Look, these ships in the Mediterranean have their home base in Sevastopol. However, in a situation of crisis, the Turks would have the right to close their right of return through the Dardanelles back into the Black Sea. So for purposes of security and being able to provide for these ships in the Mediterranean under all conditions, Russians need a base in the Mediterranean.
Napolitano:
Got it. What is the Russian, I’ll be more precise, what is the Kremlin’s view of President Erdogan now? I mean, is he still pushing to enter BRICS? Is that likely to be expanded to the full membership of BRICS or is his behavior with respect to Syria something displeasing to the Kremlin?
9:41
Oh, it’s very displeasing to the Kremlin. There’s no doubt that they felt a stab in the back. They were– people at the higher levels of Russian government and political circles, they did not see Erdogan as a reliable person. They knew that he goes this way and that way. They certainly knew that he was receiving big offers of cash from the United States, which he needs because his economy is doing very poorly.
And so they did not count on– certainly, I think that he has eliminated himself from further consideration within BRICS. But saying that does not mean to say the Russians are emotional, are responding in a way that doesn’t serve their own interests. They will not abandon Mr Erdogan, not because they like him, but because he’s a neighbor with whom they have to get along, and because they have very important projects, both for Turkey and for Russia. He has positioned his country as the gas hub for Russian deliveries to those member states of the European Union that still want and can’t receive it. And he is still owing them money for the completion of one of the biggest nuclear power projects that Russia has outside of its own country.
So these are things that he needs. He needs that energy project to be completed. It is important to his economic plans, and the Russians need it. I would say, to put it in a language that Americans will especially appreciate today, the relationship of Moscow with Istanbul is transactional.
Napolitano: 11:33
Nice word. Haven’t the Russians in fact– talk about transactional– sold air defense systems to the Turks?
Doctorow:
Yes, they have. They’ve sold them the S-400, and Erdogan, to his credit, stood by that deal under very heavy pressure from the United States because he was making the point that his country’s defense would not be totally at the mercy of the latest administration in Washington and how it feels about him and his country, that he would have some autonomy. And the Russian S-400s were very important for this purpose, not just because they’re outstanding value for the money and very dependable air defenses, but because it was a statement to the United States that he is not in their pocket.
Napolitano;
Erdogan is a very, very, President Erdogaan is a very interesting character. I’d be interested in your, you know, two-minute version of how you perceive him on the international scene. I mean, three months ago, he was calling Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu a war criminal, and last weekend was celebrating with him, not physically in the same room, of course, over the demise of President Assad. How does the Kremlin, how do other players in the Middle East, how does Egypt view President Erdogan?
Doctorow: 13:10
None of them likes him. But then– I know that in high diplomacy and international relations, some kind of personal liking or ability to get along is an important positive factor. Mr. Erdogan does not allow that to happen by his duplicity and by his acting against the interests of today’s partners. So there’s nothing new with his behavior. He’s been around for a long time. People know not to rely on him too heavily, But they also know that his country is very important. Population-wise, situationally, it is what it always was for the last 2, 000 years. It’s a bridge between Asia and Europe. And we know that from the migrant crisis. He is unavoidable. And so you do business with him, but not out of any particular liking for his personality.
Napolitano: 14:10
Right. A few minutes ago, you reminded us that the United States and Great Britain continue to facilitate strikes inside Russia using ATACMS and Storm Shadows, American and British technical know-how and physical involvement, as well as Ukrainian. The Pentagon spokesperson, a woman named Sabrina Singh, whom I don’t know and who I guess is at the tail end of her career there, made some comments about US intel is thinking that another Orushnik may soon come. Here are her comments. I’d be happy to hear your thoughts, Professor Doctorow. Chris, cut number one.
Singh: 14:57
Putin has said publicly that Russia intends to launch another experimental Oreshnik missile, as you mentioned. It’s possible that Russia could do it in the coming days. I don’t have an exact date for you. I think it’s important to note that should Russia choose to launch this type of missile, it’s not going to be a game changer on the battlefield. It’s just yet another attempt to inflict harm and casualties in Ukraine. We’ve seen this before. They’re trying to use every weapon that they have in their arsenal to intimidate Ukraine. But of course, Ukraine, with the United States, other partners around the world, continues to have our support as they, you know, fight every single day on the battlefield.
Napolitano: 15:41
Is the Kremlin plan to use the Oreshnik on a regular basis? Are they concerned that the message intended by the Oreshnik apparently is being ignored or almost even mocked or treated with indifference by the US and the West?
Doctorow:
Well, that’s a complicated question because there are several angles here. The first of all are what Washington thinks the Russians will do. There’s nothing to think about. Mr. Russian Ministry of Defense stated from the 10th to the 13th of this month, they have declared a no-flight zone over the area in Astrakhan from which the Oreshnik, the first Oreshnik firing took place and obviously where subsequent launches of Oreshnik against targets that the Kremlin identifies will take place. So she’s not divulging some intelligence that America has come up with. It’s in the public domain.
16:43
What she is missing, and what the Western media is intentionally missing, is the question of what the Russians are going to fire against. And for that, I regrettably have to bring a piece of news that she didn’t mention.
Napolitano:
What is that?
Doctorow:
That is that the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs today told Russian citizens not to travel in Western Europe or the United States because there might be some serious problems that they will find. But this is as much as saying that Russia is considering right now using the Oreshnik against a NATO target. That is almost certain what the intent of that message was.
So her saying that this Oreshnik missile has no relevance to the battlefield is dead wrong. It has every relevance to NATO and its ability to continue this war.
Napolitano:
Here is Maria Zakharova, the Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson yesterday, Professor Doctorow, saying exactly what you just mentioned. Cut number 14.
Zakharova: 17:55 [English voice over]
Seeing the confrontation in the Russian-American relations because of the official Washington, they are on the verge of breaking the trips, private and business trips to U. S. Are fraught with serious risks. There is a literal hunt by the American law enforcement and intelligence service for our citizens. And there is a fraught scheme of luring out Russian citizens abroad.
So how is it happening? They send invitations with some beneficial commercial or tourist offers. After that, the people that were targeted are detained, and then they’re extradited to the American jurisdiction according to the extradition agreements. And there is a full list of countries that cooperate with the US in the, regarding the extradition. It will be on our website. That is why we urge during the celebrations and in the future to refrain from any trips to the US or any allied satellite states, first of all Canada, and countries of the EU with some exceptions. It isn’t an emergency, of course.
Napolitano: 19:23
I mean, if this is serious, this is pretty heavy-duty stuff, Professor Doctorow.
Doctorow:
This was a very big warning for a very shallow threat. So I believe that this was an indirect message to Washington about the possibility of a strike on a NATO asset. This had been going on for 20 years, that Russian citizens in third countries, Thailand, and Lord knows where, had been extradited to the United States to stand trial for various alleged crimes. Now that’s not new.
Now why is she speaking precisely about NATO countries, that is Western Europe and the United States and Canada? I don’t know. But I think that there is a lot of re-examination now in the Kremlin as to how they want to use the Oreshnik next and whether– I had assumed, and I’ve said this in the last week, that they decided that the greatest point of leverage was against Kiev and that they would have Mr. Zelensky dead frightened about the next strikes that might come, namely the decapitation strikes that– when they say they’re going to target decision-making centers, well, he is a decision-making center. So that was what I assumed was the case.
20:53
But now I have to rethink that, and I think they are considering whether they want to hit Poland or not. That would be the most logical thing, would require the least advance warning, because the Polish base that America has is a military base, and the presence of civilians is at some distance from it and is negligible. Therefore, I would not rule out today the possibility of Russian strike, next response strike, retaliatory strike, for what happened in Taganmog.
21:23
Now what happened in Taganmog? I’ve seen different explanations of what was targeted. The most common one you’d find in our mainstream is that it was a military air base. The more interesting explanation is that our next adjacent to that military base is a factory producing planes, the Russian equivalent of the American spy planes, the early warning planes. And that, if so, that would have been a very threatening damage if it succeeded. It would be in line with the earlier, this goes back six months or more, when there were attacks on the Russian early-warning radars. The planes that we’re talking about are the airborne equivalent of these early-warning radars.
22:24
And they were shot down. There were six ATACMS, the Russians say. Two of them were shot down with debris falling over the area and causing some damage and some injury to cars and other non-strategic, non-important equipment. But they say that the building was attacked and nothing, the building meaning the factory I’m talking about, was not damaged. Nonetheless, if that had succeeded, It would have been a serious loss for Russia.
23:03
And so I think that taking this attack with the uttermost concern, two were shot down and four were diverted by Russia’s very advanced electronic warfare equipment. Nonetheless, it was a serious threat, and I think the Russians are recalibrating how to put the fear of God into Washington.
Napolitano: 23:23
We only have a minute or two left, Professor Doctorow. What’s happening in Tbilisi, Georgia from the Kremlin perspective?
Doctorow:
The Kremlin perspective is that it’s completely falsified, Russian participation or influence over what the Georgia Dream governing party is doing. The whole issue is about Washington’s attempt to use Georgia as it has used Ukraine, to open a new front against Russia and distract Moscow’s attention from the battlefield in the Donbass. The Bay Russians have nothing whatever to do with the conflict between the President Zorav Peshvili and the … Georgian dream party that controls the parliament.
The lady involved, the president of the country, is a dual national, she has a French passport, and the Russians say that she was heavily involved with French intelligence, that she is an asset of French and CIA intelligence. So this is a strictly domestic fight within Georgia over whether the country is going to be used as a proxy by the United States to attack Russia.
Napolitano: 24:57
Wow. Wouldn’t be surprised. Professor Doctorow. Thank you very much. Again, thank you for helping us to achieve our goal of a half million subscribers. You’ve been a core part of the show, and I hope it will continue. And we look forward to seeing you next week.
Doctorow:
Thanks, and I look forward to it as well.
Napolitano:
Thank you. Coming up later today at 11.15 this morning, Max Blumenthal; at two o’clock this afternoon, a new former British diplomat who will be here; and at three o’clock this afternoon, Matt Ho.
Ukrainian Culture is Celebrated in a Ukrainian Restaurant in Moscow, of all Places!
By Felix Abt - December 11, 2024
[Source: Photo Courtesy of Felix Abt]
On a recent visit to Russia, I happened to come across a Ukrainian restaurant while walking through Moscow.
Politicians and the media in the West wanted us to believe that Russia intended to annex Ukraine and eradicate its culture. I was therefore both amazed and delighted that this centre of Ukrainian culture is flourishing in the Russian capital.
The owner of th[/img]e Ukrainian restaurant chain with author Felix Abt. She met him spontaneously, i.e. without prior appointment [Source: Photo courtesy of Felix Abt]
The owner of the Korchma restaurant grew up near Kiev and has been running the popular Ukrainian restaurants in Moscow for eight years. Her chain now comprises a total of fifteen eateries. She kindly showed me her beautifully decorated restaurant full of Ukrainian memorabilia, including the famous Ukrainian embroidery that Ukrainians call vyshyvanka.
Photo gallery
Traditional Ukrainian utensils (Source: Photo courtesy of Felix Abt)
Traditional Ukrainian implements [Source: Photo courtesy of Felix Abt]
The restaurant staff wore embroidered Ukrainian shirts, which are traditional but still considered fashionable. I was told that each Ukrainian region has its own patterns and colours.
A friendly waitress from the restaurant [Source: photo courtesy of Felix Abt]
I enjoyed the Ukrainian food, especially the borscht soup, which you can see here.
Popular Ukrainian-style borscht soup. [Source: Photo courtesy of Felix Abt]
It is a sweet and sour beetroot soup that is slightly different from the borscht soups I have eaten in other countries, including Russia and China. In fact, it is a popular dish in Central and Eastern Europe as well as in some parts of Asia. Ukrainian borscht is considered the country’s national dish and is ideal for any occasion. It is made from simple and locally grown vegetables such as beetroot, carrots, cabbage and potatoes.
Another Ukrainian speciality is varenyky, which are dumplings with various fillings such as potatoes, cheese and cherries.
Ukrainian-style dumplings filled with cherries [Source: Photo courtesy of Felix Abt]
I also tried this delicious Ukrainian bacon, which is not exactly suitable for dieters
Typical Ukrainian style of serving [Source: Photo courtesy of Felix Abt]
Two friendly musicians presented live music. They played Ukrainian music for the guests who requested it (myself included) and Russian music for those who asked for their favourite Russian songs.
Musicians performing Ukrainian and Russian songs [Source: Photo courtesy of Felix Abt]
I was told that the Ukrainians, just like the Russians with whom they share a long history, place great importance on family values and community. The gatherings are often large and lively, with lots of food, music and laughter. As we can see, visitors feel at home in this Ukrainian atmosphere, and the Russian guests celebrate birthdays in the same way as the Ukrainians.
Lively atmosphere in the Korchma Restaurant. [Source: Photo courtesy of Felix Abt]
Several historical eras, in particular the Scandinavian-dominated Kievan Rus’, the Cossack period and influences from neighbouring countries have shaped Ukrainian culture. The birthplace of Russia is not St. Petersburg or Moscow, but Kiev, the current capital of Ukraine. From the late 9th to the mid-13th century, it was the administrative centre of Kievan Rus, the first Slavic state and forerunner of both Ukraine and Russia. Later, Kiev was the capital of a federation of principalities in Eastern Europe.
Even if Ukrainian nationalists and Stepan Bandera supporters deny it today: Russians and Ukrainians have the same cultural roots. Geopolitical influences and interests from afar, namely from across the Atlantic, may have driven Russia and Ukraine apart in recent decades, but this microcosm of cordial coexistence fortunately shows that this does not have to remain the case forever.
▪ ▪ ▪
Related videos to the travelogue:
The West Is Trying To Crush Russia – Eyewitness Report from Moscow
Moscow Subway Is The Most Beautiful & Safest Subway In The World | Traveling On The Moscow Metro
24/7 Russian Services: Exceptional Customer Care in Moscow | Eyewitness Report 2024
Wandering In Moscow: Honest Moments & Sounds from the City’s Street Life
THE NEW TIME OF TROUBLES, PART III – DON’T WORRY, BE HAPPY
by John Helmer, Moscow @bears_with
President Vladimir Putin gave a party rally speech in Moscow on Saturday in which he omitted to mention seven of the eight domestic issues most troubling Russian voters – inflation; high interest-rate caused stagnation in the economy; corruption; low quality education; poor public health care; terrorism; and illegal immigrants.
He made an exception for the Special Military Operation and “the front to fight for the Motherland”.
To Russians who tell pollsters the protracted war and the casualty rate are their biggest concerns, Putin said not to worry — he and his party are taking care of both: “The United Russia party has been supporting our troops literally from the first day of the special military operation: it submits important draft laws to create legal and social guarantees for our heroes and their families; assists the recovery of the liberated regions; collects and delivers everything the civilians there need. The party also does much for the veterans who are back from the combat areas, helps them realise themselves in civilian professions, in public and political life.”
Reading methodically without departing from his script, Putin told delegates at the 22nd Congress of United Russia that the party stands for “the unity of people, faith in the country and in our victory…the desire to ensure the safety of the Motherland, to protect our sacred historical memory, spirituality, traditions.” This is political boilerplate — and it’s bullet-proof. The polls reinforce Putin’s message with the assurance that Russian voters see and fancy no alternative.
In the current State Duma, elected in September 2021 to a five-year term, United Russia holds 324 of the 450 seats. The opposition is led by the Communist Party with 57 seats; Just Russia with 28, and New People with 16. In the Levada polling, support for United Russia is stable at 42%; the other political parties are polling between 4% and 10%.
Right: Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin. For background and analysis of Mishustin’s performance since he replaced Dmitry Medvedev in January 2020, read this.
No other Russian politician represents a challenge to the president; he does not face a new election until 2030. Public approval for Putin remains at 87% according to the Levada Centre; 79% according to the All-Russian Centre for the Study of Public Opinion (VTsIOM), and stable. There is no government or party figure drawing current voter support in opposition, and no public canvassing for the succession.
Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov trail after Putin in the polls but far behind; their political profiles and approval ratings are based on the frequency of their media appearances. But public trust for them is a fraction of Putin’s rating, and they are not candidates to succeed him. Trust in former President Dmitry Medvedev is a fraction of that for Mishustin and Lavrov because Medvedev – though head of the United Russia party and deputy head of the Security Council — is almost invisible in the mainstream media.
The general public mood, as measured by Levada between November 2 and 27, is overwhelmingly positive and confident – 72% of Russians believe the country is going in the right direction; only 18% think it’s headed in the wrong direction.
In this domestic atmosphere, Putin is calculating there is no good reason for him to mention the Russian military withdrawal from Syria, or to answer press questions of why he decided to evacuate Russian bases in the country, allow Israel to destroy Syria’s military and industrial infrastructure, and accept Israeli, Turkish and American takeover of Syria’s sovereignty, territory, and natural wealth, particularly water and oil.
A Moscow source comments: “I think the Russian public will not be convinced to risk a presence there especially when the propaganda has changed its tune to the line, ‘it’s impossible to help those who can’t help themselves.’ With Syrian statehood gone, this battle is lost.”
This is the rationale, several Moscow sources believe, for Putin to cut his losses and run from Syria without risking the appearance to Russian voters of having done either. The military and strategic implications of Putin’s decision-making on Syria, argued behind closed doors with the General Staff, are unmentioned in the Duma and the media.
The Moscow source adds: “What happens in Ukraine and when are the main questions now. There could well be more surprises from the US. There might be a new ground assault into Russian territory and continuing missile attacks deep into Russian territory. So far, these are not disturbing the national mood of confidence and optimism. So for the time being Russians are not expecting and are not prepared for any escalation on any front – at least not on the ground. If Putin can negotiate to keep the four [Donbass] regions and a demilitarisation accord with [President Donald] Trump, there will be what the Defense Ministry calls retaliation, but no escalation. At least not for now, not for six months after Trump takes office if the talks head nowhere.”
“What is needed now from Russian point of view is time to build the army and the economy for a bigger war. That, according to everyone I talk with, is going to be war with Turkey when the stakes will be much higher than they are with Ukraine. Putin is adopting a wait-and-see stance.
Russian military sources believe that Putin and the General Staff have agreed to restrict their operations to electric war targeting; to avoid decapitation strikes at the Ukrainian leadership or US, French and British forces operating long-range Ukrainian missile units; and to characterize current air operations as “retaliation”, not “escalation”.
Map of Russian missile and drone strikes against electric grid targets, principally in western Ukraine, December 13.
In Beijing last week, Chinese President Xi Jinping told Dmitry Medvedev that his advice to Putin is “no expansion of the battlefield, no escalation of fighting and no provocation by any party”. Medvedev agreed.
A western veteran of electric war operations comments on the latest Russian strikes of December 13: “every time the aftermath is worse. More outages, longer duration, more misery for Ukrainians. Rail capacity and fuel storage are degrading as well. There’s a consistency in the General Staff’s operational thinking that’s been maintained since the start of the electric war. Draw in the enemy from outside of Ukraine, smash their equipment, kill their volunteers, immiserate and break the Ukrainians. It’s slow, but it’s working.”
“The paradox of this Russian success is that the more the General Staff beats NATO and the Ukrainians, the more they commit to the war. The more Putin applies the brakes, the more encouraged they are.”
Did Viktor Orban achieve anything during his mission to Mar-al-Lago this past week?
December 15, 2024
We have all seen video images of Viktor Orban’s visit with Donald Trump on Monday, 9 December, which featured the two leaders smiling broadly and showing thumbs up to photo journalists. We know that during the same visit, Orban met with Elon Musk: and major media showed them in a friendly conversation during which Musk was carrying one of his children on his shoulders. These were all heart-warming images to Trump supporters, awful signs for dyed-in-the-wool Democrats of the prospective collaboration between what they believe to be hard right authoritarian leaders during the Trump years to come. Some reporting also carried mention of Trump’s designated national security adviser Mike Waltz as having been present for the talks.
On Wednesday, 11 December, Reuters and other U.S. media reported briefly that Orban had a one-hour telephone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin during which he evidently recounted what he learned in Mar-al-Lago and sought Putin’s agreement for a Christmas Day cease-fire and large-scale exchange of prisoners to be arranged with Kiev. We may assume that Putin gave his consent, but subsequently Vladimir Zelensky rejected Orban’s initiatives on both matters and roundly attacked the Hungarian Prime Minister for speaking to Putin at all. Some of our media did quote Orban as saying that this week was the most critical in the entire Ukraine war, meaning that the fate of the world was hanging in the balance.
On this same Wednesday, we learned that Kiev had used six ATACMS missiles in a strike against the military airfield in Taganrog, a Russian port city on the Sea of Azov.
The week closed with Russia’s massive missile and drone attack Friday, 13 December, on Ukraine’s already shattered electricity generating infrastructure, which even compelled Kiev to shut down the nuclear plants which till now had been the mainstay of residual electricity supply to the country. One half of Ukraine was now said to be totally without electricity. Nearly 100 Russian hypersonic short range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles together with a still greater number of killer drones were deployed in what Moscow called a successful mission in retaliation for Kiev’s ATACMS strike on Taganrog.
All of these reports in major Western media leave us with a great many loose ends. The interrelationship of these various developments and in particular, the impact of Viktor Orban’s peace mission to the United States, is left unanswered.
With the help of insights that I have just gathered from the remarks of panelists on the Russian talk show Vremya pokazhet (Time will Tell), I will try to tie up the loose ends and will argue that we all owe a great ‘thank you’ to Orban for his brave defiance of colleagues in the European Union, for using these closing weeks of his six-month presidency of the European Council to save us all from escalation towards nuclear catastrophe, at the upper end of ambition, and to save the lives of Russian and Ukrainian servicemen on the holiest day in the Christian calendar, at the lower end of ambition.
*****
Readers of these pages are aware that I have been drawing most of my material on what the Kremlin is thinking from the two leading news and analysis shows on Russian state television for their home audience, Evening with Vladimir Solovyov and The Great Game hosted by Vyacheslav Nikonov. Occasionally I have also made reference to Sixty Minutes, led by Yevgeny Popov and his wife Olga Skabeyeva. The presenters of these programs may be described as highly authoritative, and I have a personal reading on them all going back to my meetings with them on air back in 2016-2017 when I had a year-long ‘day in the sun’ on Russian domestic television as a guest panelist.
At that time, they had a special interest in hearing from Russia-neutral or Russia-friendly Americans who were fluent in Russian, as opposed to their traditional fare of Russia-hating Americans fluent in Russian, of whom the most celebrated example was a certain Michael Bohm. The reason for this was clear: the Russian news editors were in a state of confusion over what the Trump presidency meant for bilateral relations and there was a hope that an improvement was coming. Of course, those hopes were dashed during 2017 and by mid-way through that year Russian talk shows reverted to inviting devil-incarnate Americans panelists whom they could beat into the ground during their shows for the amusement of their audiences. In the past two years of the Special Military Operation, relations have deteriorated so far that no foreigners of any stripe are invited onto the talk shows other than an occasional Belarus diplomat or Opposition personality from Ukraine.
What I have not been using to inform my journalism in recent months is one other important talk show on which I appeared back in 2016, the aforementioned Vremya pokazhet. It also has high ratings, though is a notch below the Solovyov, Nikonov and Popov programs. Back in 2016, it distinguished itself by scheduling shows in the mid-afternoon when the audience would consist heavily of housewives and pensioners, as opposed to prime time with its primarily working male audience. I am unsure how they position themselves in this regard today, but watching the first segment of their 12 December show, I see that they are using some of the same expert panelists as the other talk shows but are bringing a distinctive focus to the discussions that helped me to reconsider the week’s news in the way I do below.
What I piece together from the material presented on this show is the certainty that Orban’s mission to Mar-al-Lago and his subsequent debriefing for Putin had a strong influence on the way that the Kremlin chose to retaliate for the attack on Taganrog. Clearly, as I have said in my interviews this past week, there were options on the table that were sharply escalatory, foremost among them the possibility of an attack using the Oreshkin hypersonic missile against the US missile base in Poland that was the source of great concern and loud complaints by Moscow going back seven years or more when its construction was first announced. Now, from the words of one panelist on this show, it becomes evident that another possibility which the Kremlin was considering was an Oreshkin strike on a decision-making center in Kiev, but one which no one appears to have considered from among my peers in the alternative media: namely a strike on the U.K. embassy in Kiev, which the Russians properly consider to be directing the war that Ukraine is waging. And the Russians have in hand Western precedents, starting with the U.S. ‘accidental’ bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in May, 1999 during the NATO offensive to bring down the Milosevic government.
It is clear to me that Orban was able to provide Putin with persuasive evidence from his talks with Trump, Musk and Waltz that it would be far better to show restraint, not to take the bait from the Biden administration to escalate and thereby not upset Trump’s likely plans to stop funding the war upon taking office. Accordingly, the Russians only ravaged what remains of Ukraine’s power supply and did not touch NATO assets inside or outside Ukraine.
For this, as I say, we all owe a great debt of gratitude to the Hungarian prime minister.
Other than his petty booj orientation the greatest flaw in Doctorow's work is that he takes these Russian talking heads at face value. No historian should ever take a source at face value. Which is not to say that they should be ignored outright as propagandists but their motivations should be examined. The second flaw is a result of the first.
******
US Targets Georgia as a Tool to Extend Russia
December 14, 2024
US sponsored opposition rally at the Georgian Parliament on Rustaveli Avenue in the center of Tbilisi, Georgia on December 12, 2024. Photo: New Eastern Outlook.
By Brian Berletic – Dec 9, 2024
Political unrest continues to erupt in the nation of Georgia along Russia’s southern Caucasus border, led by openly anti-Russian protesters backed by US-European government money and support.
The protests are a repeat of similar unrest that targeted Georgia in 2003 leading to the overthrow of the elected government then.
A 2004 Guardian article titled, “US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev,” not only admitted that unrest in Ukraine that year was fully organized, directed, and backed by the US government, it admitted that similar US-sponsored unrest had targeted “four countries in four years,” including Georgia itself.
The current ruling party in Georgia seeks to avoid NATO membership, thus avoid becoming the “next Ukraine”
The Guardian admitted:
Funded and organised by the US government, deploying US consultancies, pollsters, diplomats, the two big American parties and US non-government organisations, the campaign was first used in Europe in Belgrade in 2000 to beat Slobodan Milosevic at the ballot box. Richard Miles, the US ambassador in Belgrade, played a key role. And by last year, as US ambassador in Tbilisi, he repeated the trick in Georgia, coaching Mikhail Saakashvili in how to bring down Eduard Shevardnadze.
The same article also explained:
Last year [2003], before becoming president in Georgia, the US-educated Mr Saakashvili travelled from Tbilisi to Belgrade to be coached in the techniques of mass defiance.
And from 2003 to 2008 the US-installed client regime headed by Saakashvili welcomed US-NATO military training, equipment, and weapons as part of a de facto NATO-ization right on Russia’s borders as part of what the US State Department referred to as the “Georgia Train and Equip Program.”
This training and equipping continued right up to 2008 when Georgian forces attacked Russian peacekeepers in August, precipitating a short but devastating war for Georgia. Earlier that year, for example, Georgian forces switched from Kalashnikovs to US-made M4 carbines, Reuters reported, reflecting the depth of US involvement in building up Georgia’s forces ahead of its attack on Russia.
Despite attempts by the US to depict the August 2008 conflict as a “Russian invasion,” the European Union, as part of its own investigation, found Georgia to be responsible for triggering the conflict, Reuters would report.
Georgia: A Tool to “Exploit Tensions in the South Caucasus”
Georgia’s political capture by the US, then use as an armed proxy against neighboring Russia in a devastating war served as a template the US would use again but on a much larger scale in Ukraine from 2014 to present day.
Georgia is still identified by US government and US arms industry-funded policymakers as one of several possible fronts for continued use to “extend” Russia.
In the 2019 RAND Corporation paper titled, “Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground,” Georgia is listed by name under a section titled, “Measure 4: Exploit Tensions in the South Caucasus.”
Other measures include “Measure 1: Provide Lethal Aid to Ukraine,” “Measure 2: Increase Support to the Syrian Rebels,” “Measure 3: Promote Regime Change in Belarus,” “Measure 5: Reduce Russian Influence in Central Asia,” and “Measure 6: Challenge Russian Presence in Moldova.”
All 6 measures are being pursued by the US government to one degree or another, especially considering the ongoing war in Ukraine and the recent escalation of conflict in Syria.
Regarding Georgia specifically, under “Measure 4,” the report states:
The United States could extend Russia in the Caucasus in two ways. First, the United States could push for a closer NATO relationship with Georgia and Azerbaijan, likely leading Russia to strengthen its military presence in South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Armenia, and southern Russia.
It also notes that, “the United States might also renew efforts to bring Georgia into NATO.”
The current ruling party in Georgia seeks to avoid NATO membership, thus avoid becoming the “next Ukraine.” In order to again use Georgia as a disposable proxy, the US must remove the current Georgian government from power, and re-install an obedient client regime eager to subordinate Georgia’s best interests to Washington’s.
The same paper warns, however, that Washington fully understands the national security concerns Russia has with NATO troops expanding their presence along its border including possibly in Georgia and note that Russia may militarily intervene to prevent this – just as Russia has now done in Ukraine.
The same 2019 paper noted, under “Measure 1: Provide Lethal Aid to Ukraine,” that the resulting conflict would likely, “produce disproportionately large Ukrainian casualties, territorial losses, and refugee flows. It might even lead Ukraine into a disadvantageous peace,” all realities now taking shape.
Thus, Georgia’s current government’s policy reflects not only Georgia’s best interests, but well-founded fears regarding admitted potential catastrophe laid out by US policymakers themselves while seeking to use Georgia once again as a proxy against Russia.
Georgia: A Battleground Between Empire and Sovereignty
The US government employs polling agencies to assess and present public opinion within targeted nations, including Georgia, to global audiences, depicting aspirations to join the European Union, NATO, and even position themselves adversarially against Russia, as the will of the people and representing what is supposedly their best interests.
Many onlookers take these polling numbers as evidence that sitting governments opposed to such interest are “dictatorships” running roughshod over the public’s will.
In reality, these polls are not assessing the best interests of the Georgian public, but instead the success or failure of US government-funded propaganda campaigns aimed at convincing the Georgian public Washington’s interests are also their interests.
Objectively, neutrality for nations like Georgia represents the Georgian people’s best interests, especially considering its most important trade partners and the consequences already suffered by Georgia during its previous political capture and use by Washington.
While nations around the globe have invested heavily in national defense across traditional domains like land borders, shores, and airspace, few nations have recognized let alone properly defended new domains including information space the US wages multidomain warfare across.
US political interference can be understood as a non-military instrument in persuasive, inducement, and coercive strategies along a single spectrum that – on its other end – includes military instruments of persuasive, inducement, and coercive strategies.
In other words, US interference is just the first few steps of a process that eventually includes sanctions, US-sponsored sedition, terrorism, proxy war, and even US invasion and occupation – all of it aimed at politically capturing and controlling a targeted nation. Libya and Syria serve as examples first targeted by US political interference that steadily grew into state-sponsored violence, to proxy war and eventually direct US intervention.
The limits to Washington’s ability to move along this spectrum are the measures a targeted nation has put in place to deter each step from being taken.
A nation with a large military and a tightly controlled information space makes US persuasion, inducement, and coercion strategies of any kind more difficult.
Nations with powerful militaries but no control over their own information space – in the 21st century – are much like nations last century with powerful land armies but no air forces or air defenses. Air power allowed the US to attack targeted nations with impunity, creating conditions both militarily and economically conducive to eventual regime change.
Today, by compromising a targeted nation’s information space, controlling what information can and cannot be shared, the US is able to turn a nation’s population against its own institutions without Washington itself firing a single shot. While it takes much longer and often goes unseen by ordinary onlookers, the final result is success as resounding as any traditional military conquest. The overthrow of Georgia’s government in 2003 and Ukraine’s government in 2014 are just two of many examples.
Georgia’s recent passing of its foreign agent’s law represented a tentative first step toward securing its information space from the deep and disruptive interference exercised by the US through local fronts funded by the US government through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and adjacent organizations.
Washington’s “Superweapon” Aimed at Georgia
The NED funds programs targeting Georgia’s information space by standing up media organizations promoting US interests, including Georgia’s joining of both the EU and NATO. These media platforms also repeat US narratives regarding US adversaries including Russia and China in an attempt to poison the Georgian population against who would otherwise be constructive partners for Georgia’s future.
An example of this is “Open Caucasus,” (OC) admittedly funded by the US government through the NED on its “About Us” page, which at the time of this writing featured stories promoting ongoing protests in Georgia, op-eds decrying Georgia’s election as “rigged,” and claims of “Russian influence” behind the desire for Georgia to avoid once again being used as a proxy by the US against Russia – all narratives promoted by the US State Department itself.
US government-funded media outlets like OC are numerous, well-funded, and often monopolize the information space in targeted nations like Georgia. This is because many nations also rely on US-based social media platforms like Facebook and search engines like Google to find and share information. These US-based platformes work directly with the US State Department determining what information can and cannot be shared and what information is promoted across the public, creating the illusion of overwhelming consensus while simultaneously suppressing alternative views.
US government-funded programs also target the education systems of other nations from elementary school to university, shaping young minds in what to think long before they understand how to think. Students then see narratives promoted through these programs reinforced across the US-dominated media, shaping national opinion and even identity.
The US through the State Department and the NED create entire pipelines indoctrinating youths who eventually work their way into a targeted nation’s legal, educational, journalistic or political system. Aspiring lawyers, educators, leaders, diplomats, and journalists are deliberately plugged into professional and personal networks across the collective West ensuring the vast majority of those indoctrinated into these programs not only serve US interests, but face professional and personal isolation if they don’t.
Together, these invasive means of political interference and capture represent a “superweapon” few nations acknowledge, let alone defend against. Nations like Russia and China have done much to secure their respective information spaces as well as their educational, legal, and political systems from such interference. Their ability to assist allies in doing likewise is so far limited.
Georgia’s ongoing fight against Washington’s attempts to reassert political control over the nation and redirect it onto a path of self-destruction represents a national security threat not only to Georgia itself, but to the rest of the multipolar world. If Georgia can be politically captured, its population poisoned against its own best interests (again) and convinced to destroy their own nation in conflict with Washington’s chief adversaries, any other nation can be targeted next.
More must be done across the multipolar world to expose Washington’s regime change “superweapon,” promote the means by which to defend against it including foreign agent laws cutting off NED and adjacent foundation funding, and the creation of pipelines creating future political leaders, diplomats, business owners, and journalists who serve the best interests of their own nation, not Washington’s, and the creation of social media platforms within and between nations of the multipolar world beyond Washington’s control.
Assistance could be provided by Russia and China to defend a nation’s information space, just as Russia and China sell military weapons to defend a nation’s traditional domains like air, land, and sea.
Today it is Georgia. Tomorrow – as the US has proven over the decades and its long and ever-growing list of nations divided and destroyed by US interference – it could be any nation next.
Former football player Kavelashvili has been elected as the new president of Georgia.
The Prime Minister of Georgia, upon the confirmation of the new president, said that the Maidan in Georgia had failed, and that the former president would be forcibly evicted from the presidential residence, which she refuses to leave, if necessary. In a good way, she could be taken straight to the prosecutor's office for questioning, and then to a pretrial detention center.
As for the failed Maidan, we'll see. Perhaps they will try to stir up the protests with bloodletting in the near future.
And this happens.
Tbilisi Mayor Kakha Kaladze publicly apologized to Georgians for the fact that he once supported the election of a French granny as president of Georgia, who is now actively doing dirty tricks to Georgians. This is what happens when you hand over power in a country to foreign puppets.
( Video at link.)
Granny doesn't have much time left. In the near future, the parliament will elect a new president, and the French granny will be asked to leave.
She has already stated that she does not recognize any elections in Georgia and refuses to leave the presidential palace.
But it is quite obvious that as soon as a new president is elected, she will be carried out of the palace.
Well, and then there are already a bunch of articles that she violated - so either she will be jailed, or, more likely, she will flee abroad.
The Maidan in Tbilisi has deflated somewhat without bloodshed. They need corpses in Tbilisi, but there are none. Therefore, the protests are stalling.
However, all these risks still remain.
Georgian Parliament Elects Pro-Russian Mijail Kavelashvili as President
Georgian President Mikheil Kavelashvili (C), 2024. X/ @JohnEdgarCarter
December 14, 2024 Hour: 8:19 am
He replaces pro-European opposition leader Salome Zurabishvili, who refuses to vacate her position.
On Saturday, the Central Election Commission announced that Mijail Kavelashvili, of the ruling Georgian Dream party, was elected president of the country during a parliamentary vote boycotted by the opposition.
Kavelashvili, who received the support of 224 out of 300 national and municipal deputies convened for the vote, replaces pro-European opposition leader Salome Zurabishvili. Zurabishvili refuses to vacate her position, claiming that the legislature resulting from the October parliamentary elections lacks legitimacy.
As the sole candidate in the election, Kavelashvili becomes the sixth president in the country’s history since its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. A former ruling party deputy since 2016, he also had a distinguished soccer career, including playing for Manchester City.
Born in 1971, Kavelashvili is the founder of The Strength of the People, a movement that promoted laws against foreign influence and sexual minorities, which were criticized by the opposition for their similarity to regulations enacted in Russia.
The opposition, which has been holding daily protests in Tbilisi since the government froze negotiations to join the European Union on Nov. 28, gathered early in the morning outside the Parliament building.
“Slaves” and “Russians” were some of the slogans chanted by activists, who consider it an “insult” that the new head of state lacks higher education. To prevent incidents, police have closed off nearby streets used by lawmakers to access the legislature and have deployed water cannon trucks in the area.
The authorities altered the presidential election mechanism for this vote. For the first time, the president was not chosen by universal suffrage but through a collegiate vote involving 150 parliamentary deputies and 150 municipal delegates.
In addition to the parliamentary deputies—89 of whom belong to Georgian Dream—the electorate included 21 deputies from the Parliament of the Autonomous Region of Adjara, 20 representatives from the Supreme Council of Abkhazia in exile, and 109 municipal delegates.
Last night, Zurabishvili, president since 2018, reiterated that she would not relinquish the presidency. She called the election a “constitutional farce” and urged continued protests. According to the opposition leader, who deems Georgian Dream’s victory in the October legislative elections fraudulent, the country currently lacks a legitimate Parliament, and “an illegitimate Parliament cannot elect a new president.”
On the meeting of Vladimir Putin with Nursultan Nazarbayev
December 14, 2024
Rybar
Yesterday evening in Novo-Ogaryovo, a meeting was held between Russian President Vladimir Putin and the first President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev. Details of the event are unknown.
What is interesting so far is the reaction in the Kazakh media. Or rather, the lack thereof. State channels and agencies are getting by with standard formulations, apparently not yet understanding how to react.
In previous years, Nazarbayev also visited Russia in December, but this meeting is now taking place in the context of a rather controversial information background surrounding relations between Russia and Kazakhstan.
Sometimes they promote films about Kazakh nationalists , sometimes they hinder the spread of the Russian language in Kazakhstan, and sometimes they pursue a policy of de-Russification of the northern regions of Kazakhstan, populated predominantly by Russian-speaking people.
Although the position of the former head of state's family was seriously shaken after the January riots and the new leadership, the Nazarbayevs nevertheless retained a fairly significant share of influence in the country's economic sector (especially among the oligarchs of the Nazarbayev era).
And in this context, some may see the meeting as a signal to Kazakhstan’s political elites .
In particular, those circles that are engaged in promoting Russophobia through various departments, for example, the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, or instead of promoting their own initiative to create an International Organization for the Russian Language, on the contrary, they sabotage this work in every possible way.
Or maybe it’s just a meeting between two friends that doesn’t mean anything and isn’t a signal.
Chief of NBC Protection Troops Killed in Moscow
December 17, 10:15
In Moscow, as a result of a terrorist attack on Ryazansky Prospekt, the head of the NBC protection troops Igor Kirillov and his assistant were killed.
The games of gentlemanliness with Nazis and terrorists "here we kill, there we don't kill" have such consequences, among other things.
(The Clown is axin' for a hazel nut right up the wazoo.)
Sabotage in the State Duma
December 17, 16:58
You come to the doctor, give him a bottle of "Kinovsky 3" and get a fine of up to 50,000 rubles. 2024, what are you doing...
Looks like news from Panorama, but no.
Sabotage in the State Duma
The State Duma has proposed fining Russians who give alcohol
as gifts This proposal was made by Andrey Svintsov, a member of the lower house of parliament and deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on Information Policy, Information Technology and Communications.
Life.ru has obtained a copy of the draft law, which will be submitted to the lower house of parliament on December 17.
According to the author of the initiative, it is necessary to supplement the Code of Administrative Offenses with a new article providing for fines for giving alcohol as a gift.
For individuals, the fine is proposed to be set at 5 thousand rubles,
for officials - from 35 to 50 thousand,
and for legal entities - 100 thousand rubles.
As stated in the explanatory note, the initiative is aimed at reducing alcohol consumption among citizens and supporting a healthy lifestyle.
As an alternative, it is proposed to give fitness memberships, education certificates, museum and theater tickets, flowers, household goods and other useful gifts, the document notes.
"This information is for informational purposes only (introductory) and is not an individual investment recommendation."
There will be backlash...I thought they got rid of the liberals?
******
The US Is Left Out in the Cold as China and Russia Develop Arctic
Posted on December 16, 2024 by Conor Gallagher
The RAND Corporation, one of the more influential US think tanks that help craft US foreign policy, is out with a new paper arguing that it’s time the US use a divide and rule strategy with Beijing and Moscow in the Arctic. Years of sanctions, threats, and general belligerence from Washington helped organize the wedding of China and Russia’s complementary economies, and that’s increasingly evident in the Arctic where the two are cooperating on development, trade routes, and oil and gas projects. Here’s RAND now sounding the alarm:
What might be done to limit China-Russia cooperation in this geopolitically important region? RAND researchers consider this question in a new paper, concluding that Western policies focusing on the differences between Beijing and Moscow may be effective. To put such a strategy into action, the United States and its northern NATO allies could develop separate approaches for dealing with China and Russia when it comes to Arctic affairs.
The authors (Dr. Abbie Tingstad ,a visiting professor of Arctic research at the Center for Arctic Study and Policy, U.S. Coast Guard Academy; Stephanie Pezard, an associate research department director, Defense and Political Sciences, and a senior political scientist at RAND; and Yuliya Shokh, a U.S. Air Force intelligence analyst and technical analyst at RAND.) also note the following:
…there may be no need to drive a wedge between Russia and China in the region. That’s because one may already exist: The two countries have very different Arctic interests, influence, and postures—not to mention a difficult history together.
My first thought was that these people are crazy — or are paid to be so. You could maybe convince yourself it would be feasible if the US wasn’t doing its best to bring Moscow and Beijing together with all its sanctioning, bombing, and arming as it’s unlikely that Communist differences from decades ago are going to be a bigger factor than the immediate threat posed by an unhinged and violent US.
Yet in the aftermath of the Syria shock, maybe it’s not a bad time to doublecheck RAND’s details of the Russia-China relationship. Not only is the Moscow-Beijing “no limits” partnership one of the biggest geopolitical developments of recent years, but it is also one that the US continues to help bring about. And it looks set to continue to do so whether following a path set forth by RAND or one of even more doubling down as laid out in a December special report from the Council on Foreign Relations.
Let’s look at what RAND highlights as signs of present and potential friction between Russia and China over the Arctic and Russia’s Far East.
Is the relationship headed toward benign neglect or even divorce because China increasingly sees Russia as a destabilizing influence that counters its Arctic aspirations? A potential breakdown in Sino-Russian relations has been foretold by the still low or nonexistent numbers of Chinese vessels transiting the [Northern Sea Route], Beijing’s apparent growing apathy to Russia’s Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline proposal, and the 2020 arrest of Russian lecturer Valery Mitko on spying charges.
Let’s look at each one of these points:
Despite the holdup on Power of Siberia 2, Russian pipeline gas exports to China are at new records. As of December 1, Gazprom increased supplies to the equivalent of 38 billion cubic meters per year. That’s roughly nine percent of China’s consumption this year.
Mitko, a researcher of the Arctic region and one of Russia’s leading hydroacoustics experts, was accused of revealing sensitive data during a 2018 academic trip to China. He denied the charges but was under house arrest from 2020 until his death in 2022. The issue never posed any serious threat to expanding ties between the two countries, although it’s feasible that continued future similar cases could cause headaches.
How about the lack of Chinese vessels on the Northern Sea Route (NSR)?
While the authors are correct that traffic remains low on the shortest route between the western part of Eurasia and the Asia-Pacific region, that doesn’t mean it will remain that way, and they also omit recent milestones. Here’s one from late 2023 courtesy of Maritime Executive:
In another demonstration of the efforts to expand shipping along Russia’s Northern Sea Route, the Chinese-owned containership Newnew Polar Bear (15,950 dwt) became the first to reach the Russian port in Kaliningrad after a six-week passage. The governor of the Kaliningrad region Anton Alikhanov hailed the achievement on his Telegram account.
The vessel was acquired earlier this year by a new Chinese shipping company, Hainan Yangpu Newnew Shipping Co., and ushered in the route sailing from St. Petersburg at the beginning of July. She started the return trip from China in late August, reaching Kaliningrad on Tuesday and spending three days on dock. The ship registered in Hong Kong is 554 feet long with a capacity of 1,600 TEU.
She is part of the effort to expand trade between China and Russia and grow traffic along the Northern Sea Route. President Vladimir Putin has ordered the authorities overseeing the route to boost annual shipments to 80 million metric tons in 2024.
“Transport companies plan to make this logistics product permanent. It turns out cheaper and faster than through the Suez Canal,” writes Alikhanov touting the party line on his Telegram account.
Additionally in June Russian state nuclear agency Rosatom signed an agreement with Chinese line Hainan Yangpu New Shipping to potentially operate a year-round route. The deal also involves collaboration in the design and construction of new ice-class container ships. In a historic first, two Chinese container ships crossed paths on the route on September 11. It might not be the last time — although much work remains to be done building up infrastructure along the NSR. Yet the US is providing both Moscow and Beijing with incentives to pursue just that with its isolation efforts. While the NSR might not become a primary route for China, it does provide another option, and it also shortens shipping times with Europe by up to 50 percent compared to the Suez route, and Russia will rake in profits from transit fees.
The RAND authors continue:
Russia has been wary of the presence of non-Arctic countries in this region, especially regarding military activity. Despite the declaration of a limitless friendship with China, Russia has not provided Beijing with opportunities to conduct overt military operations directly in and around the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation (AZRF). Compared with the growing frequency and scale of U.S. cooperation with Norway on Arctic military training and exercises, sailing a few destroyers well below the Arctic Circle pales in comparison.
I’m unsure how much a contest over military exercises tells us. Nonetheless, what’s indisputable is that China’s footprint continues to grow even if it’s not to the level of US training and exercises in Norway.
In October, for example, China’s Coast Guard entered Arctic Ocean waters for the first time as part of a joint patrol with Russia. Four vessels from the Russian Border Guard and Chinese Coast Guard were spotted by the US in the Bering Sea – the northernmost location it said it had ever observed the Chinese ships. And in July US and Canadian forces intercepted Russian and Chinese bombers flying together near Alaska for the first time.
Part of the reason for such moves is to send a message to Washington whose military activities in the South and East China Seas and arming of Taiwan are not well-received in Beijing.
Energy and the Far East
Here’s RAND on the proposed Power of Siberia 2 pipeline:
Similarly, China has not written a blank check for Russia to develop its Siberian energy reserves. To the contrary, Moscow has been unable to convince Beijing, as of the time of this publication, to fund the larger capacity Power of Siberia 2 pipeline, despite numerous meetings between these countries’ leadership. There are several potential reasons for this lack of funding: One is that China is waiting for an even better deal on energy resources; another is that Beijing could be wary of being overly dependent on Russia for energy…
Power of Siberia 2 (PS2) is a proposed pipeline that would have the capacity to carry 50 billion cubic meters per year from Russia to China, but the two sides are struggling to come to an agreement on price.
PS2 is often overblown in the Western media. While Russia has both economic and geopolitical reasons for wanting to get a deal done, it doesn’t want to give the gas away.
And China currently has other options, including pipeline gas from Central Asia and LNG suppliers such as Qatar. Its demands are currently met by existing contracts and might not need the gas from PS2 prior to the mid-2030s. It could be attractive, however, due to US efforts to control China’s rise and its energy supply and Beijing’s reluctance to rely too heavily on LNG from the likes of Australia and the US.
Less mentioned is that Russia also has options. It continues to increase LNG exports — largely to China — and has a goal to triple overall exports by 2030. China would play a huge real in achieving that goal, but that would make PS2 unlikely. Either way the gas is getting to China, and Russia is doing just fine with its energy exports:
The problem for the US is that further tightening sanctions on Russia makes Moscow more dependent on China, which benefits Beijing.
Any attempt to isolate China (say by cutting LNG from Australia and Middle East or pipelines from Central Asia) makes China more dependent on Russia.
Even without PS2 China is already getting 38 bcm through the original Power of Siberia. Starting in 2027, gas will also go to China via the Far Eastern route, which is set to have a capacity of some 10 Bcm/year. That’s 48 bcm per year is already a massive amount. A useful map from S&P Global:
With the heavy focus on PS2, RAND (and others) also miss all the other developments in Russia’s Far East. Let’s take a quick look.
Over the past ten years, Russia has laid more than 2,000 kilometers of railway tracks and renovated more than 5,000 kilometers on the Trans-Siberian Railway and the Baikal-Amur Mainline.
By the end of this year, the carrying capacity of these networks is expected to reach 180 million tonnes — an increase of 36 million since 2021. More than 3,100 kilometers of tracks are planned for the next eight years, as well, which will help Moscow meet international demand for resources from its East.
China and Russia are also working together to increase the capacity of resources heading to the former. In 2022, they opened the lone vehicle bridge crossing the Amur River, which forms more than 1,600 of their roughly 4,000 border kilometers. Later that year they opened the Tongjiang Bridge, currently the only railway bridge connecting the two countries. It shortens the journey between China’s Heilongjiang region and Moscow by more than 800 kilometers over previous routes, saving 10 hours of transit time. This helped rail transport between the two countries jump to 161 million tonnes in 2023, a 36 percent increase from 2022. Over the first five months of this year, it grew another 20 percent.
A second railway bridge over the Amur is coming soon and will provide Russia’s resource-rich Sakha Republic with direct access to China. The new route will be 2,000 kilometers shorter than the current one which involves the use of sea ports. Beijing is investing in this railway construction in the Sakha Republic as part of a new international corridor in the Russian Far East: the Mohe-Magadan railway line.
RAND wraps up its rundown of China-Russia trouble in paradise with hypotheticals that, while possible, start to sound a little desperate:
The Arctic relationship between Russia and China could be damaged by a hypothetical diplomatic clash—for instance, if China were to precipitate a major safety or environmental incident in the vicinity of the Russian Arctic or somehow publicly embarrass Moscow by undermining the perception that Russia exerts full control over its Arctic region. More broadly, some serious indications that China might represent a direct and immediate military threat to Russia in the Arctic could lead to a backlash from Moscow.
How is the US supposed to exploit these points of contention? RAND argues the following:
Western policies that focus on differences between Russia and China may ultimately be more successful in shaping the Arctic’s future than those that emphasize their similarities or their relationship itself as the primary driver of regional outcomes….
Chinese growing interest in Arctic resources does not necessarily translate to a stronger dependence on Russia alone…China’s relationship with the United States is a big influence on this scenario’s probability; six of the seven other Arctic countries (except Russia) are allies, militarily and otherwise, of the United States. This scenario would assume a reversal of these countries’ existing preference to watch closely—and deny more often than not—China’s efforts to invest in such sectors as real estate and critical technologies. This scenario also offers a reminder that although the Sino-Russian relationship is important, the mere existence of their relationship is not the only determinant to how China can potentially extend its influence in the region…
One key policy decision by the United States and its northern NATO allies could be to develop separate strategies for dealing with Moscow and Beijing when it comes to Arctic affairs.
What does that look like? Conveniently, more of the same, which means the US doesn’t have to do much of anything other than stay the course and wait:
The Western Arctic countries yield strong potential to realize their interests and diminish the power of the Sino-Russian relationship by developing policies that (1) recognize Russia as an aggressive, risk-taking, but ultimately legitimate Arctic state and (2) recognize that China has no innate influence in the Arctic and pursues a vested interest in maintaining good economic and scientific relationships with all Arctic nations. There may be no need to drive a wedge between Russia and China in the Arctic because it already exists through their differences as Arctic actors and difficult history together.
RAND, to its credit, does admit is that much of the Russian-Chinese cooperation is mutually beneficial:
…the Sino-Russian relationship is driven by Russia’s need for funding and technology to develop its Arctic region, especially because its pool of investors waned with the invasion of Ukraine and sanctions, and by China’s desire to gain a foothold in the region and tap into Russia’s hydrocarbon resources and access to the NSR for Arctic navigation.
Furthermore:
Russia and China have forged a cooperative relationship that has (at least to some measure) helped Russia to further develop its northern economy and afforded China tangible opportunities to establish itself as a recognized stakeholder in the region. The most prominent example is the investment of Chinese companies in two liquid natural gas (LNG) projects in the Yamalo- Nenets Autonomous Okrug in northern Siberia and the Power of Siberia 1 pipeline.27 Overall, China has invested billions of dollars in energy and mining projects in Russia’s Arctic, although the bulk of its investment in Russia (and across the Arctic writ large) is in Yamal LNG, which is a massive undertaking.28 In addition, the Chinese transportation company COSCO SHIPPING Lines Co., Ltd., has been exploring the use of the NSR running along Russia’s Arctic coastline as an option for future global logistics.
RAND does not, however, consider one the driving forces behind the increased cooperation: the current policy of the US and its vassals. And when you add that factor to the mix, it shows why a Moscow-Beijing split is unlikely. Even if the US and its Arctic allies try to develop separate policies for Beijing and Moscow, the latter two would still have the incentive to work together. Indeed, what makes the NSR more attractive isn’t just how short a route it is between Europe and Asia; it’s that its 5,600 kilometers are controlled by just one country (Russia), which means it faces less potential chokepoints than others.
A big part of that is because of how the West bailed on Russian Arctic projects.
Much of Russia’s plans for the extraction and delivery of its Arctic resources previously involved the West, but that, of course, is no longer the case. European shipping companies mostly cut ties with Russian operators in 2022. As part of the economic war against Russia, Western partners abandoned Northern Sea energy projects. At first, traffic fell off a cliff, but it has since rebounded and now looks set to grow exponentially into the future with both Beijing and Moscow being the biggest winners. According to Silk Road Briefing, “a central hub for building large-capacity offshore structures to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG) on a very large scale is underway based in Murmansk. Russia is active in boosting the production of sea-borne super-cooled gas as its pipeline gas exports to Europe, once a key source of revenue for Moscow, have plummeted amid the Western sanctions imposed over the conflict in Ukraine. Those resources are now being directed East, where consumer demand is far greater.”
And yet the RAND authors propose the US keep up the very policies that are driving Moscow and Beijing together in a bid to drive a wedge between them.
And why it is done. Starting from 22:40 in otherwise excellent conversation between Larry and Alex Christophorou (of Duran), Alex makes an astonishing claim that in Mediterranean everything is lost for Russia and talks about sway and about Med being NATO and US lake.
For all my deep respect for Alex, here are some important points one has to consider and I will be blunt.
1. Russians don't give a flying coitus about having sway anywhere--Greece, Germany or the US. Russia is not USSR and is not interested in the International Worker's Movement or International Socialist (and Communist) Movement. Russians don't give a fuck about being loved or respected in EU. Europe is Russia's existential enemy. Russia is strictly transactional--wanna do business? Fine. If you don't, well, feel free to find better deals elsewhere. Russians DO NOT buy all this crap about cultural "closeness", or common "Orthodox root" and shit like that--everybody has their price, look what $5 billion buys one in 404. Tsipras government demonstrated to Russians everything they needed to know about Greece. Tourism and a few Russophile clubs here and there in the EU are just that--clubs with negligible impact.
2. As Paul Atreidis stated in Dune: "He who can destroy a thing, has the real control of it". Soviet/Russian projection of power was always NOT about bombing the shit out of locals--this is the American idea of "projection of power". Russian idea in Med since post WW II was about a) Shipping Lanes Of Communication (SLOC) and free movement of commodities between USSR/Russia and her clients, b) to prevent the Med's flank from resupplying NATO forces in case of WW III. And here is the issue:
3. Alex speaks from the POV of how NATO people think, that is the problem, because--this is the thinking from the XX century school of geopolitics, which ignores completely a simple XXI century fact that Russia can sink ANY combination of the NATO Fleets, including any number of the US Navy's Carrier Battle Groups from Gibraltar to Bosporus and NATO can do nothing about it. Zero, zilch. Combined West is simply stuck in the 1980-90s military thinking and technology.
A single frigate of Gorshkov-class with a single pr. 885 Yasen-class SSGN can, in a single salvo of 4 3M22Zircon each destroy two US Navy Carrier Battle Groups--none of those CBGs will know what hit them. Moreover, what is also missing from this outdated POV is the fact of a term which Vladimir Putin and Russian military professionals saying about Oreshnik--read attentively--it is a HIGH PRECISION weapons. That means that Oreshnik's hypersonic maneuvering blocks with the range of 5,500 kilometers can hit any types of targets on the land or in the sea. NATO navies, including US Navy's CBG can huff and puff, can simulate Alfa-strikes but all this is for naught because since roughly 2018 there is no NATO "lake" in Med with or without Russian bases there, because all of those navies are nothing more than fat prestigious defenseless targets. What matters the most, those who are not completely brainwashed in NATO navies know this. And this is why any attempt to sabotage Russian commercial activity supported by Russian Armed Forces can start with the demonstration of sinking some Euro-chihuahua ship, say French or Spanish FFG as a warning.
Too bad Royal Navy's ships do not go to sea anymore--no, really and, yes, I am being facetious about sinking those. So, in this case, after Syrians (or whatever they consider themselves now) made their choice. Now they, ahem... LOL))
The new Syrian authorities are calling on the international community to intervene and help it stop Israeli strikes, the head of the Hayat Tahrir-al-Sham (HTS) jihadist group, Abu Mohammed al-Julani, has said. In an interview on Saturday on the Istanbul-based Syria TV channel, Ahmad al-Sharaa, who is better known by his nom de guerre, spoke about Israel for the first time since taking over the country. Militant groups led by HTS launched an offensive against Syrian troops in November, capturing major cities and advancing towards Damascus. After the collapse of the Syrian military, Former President Bashar Assad fled the country and was granted asylum in Russia. Al-Julani said that “the Israeli arguments have become flimsy” and “do not justify their recent violations.” The HTS leader stressed that West Jerusalem has “crossed the lines of engagement” in the country, which might threaten an escalation in the region.
Don't you love it? Meanwhile Russia relocates a few assets to Libya, which is a critical location for expanding Russia's Saharan and sub-Saharan commercial and military activity. Just to demonstrate what Oreshnik's reach is in relation to Med...
Now, let's talk about whose lake the Mediterranean is. Remember: "He who can destroy a thing, has the real control of it"(c). Wise words.
Provocations and rent-a-crowds as imperialists try Maidan 2.0 in Georgia
Georgia’s people are resisting the Euro-Atlantic plot to turn their country into another base for attacking Russia.
Proletarian writers
Saturday 14 December 2024
Protestors in Tblisi give the game away by carrying not only the Georgian flag but also the EU and Ukrainian ones. A clear indication of what the colour revolution operatives have in store for the Georgian people if they get their way.
On 28 November, following months of increasingly hostile action by European and US imperialists in the country, Georgian prime minister Irakli Kobakhidze announced the suspension of his country’s European Union accession process, which would be put on hold until at least 2028.
He stated that while an EU association treaty was still being pursued, negotiations for membership of the union and for receipt of EU grants would be suspended. The Georgia–European Union association agreement facilitates cooperation in areas such as trade, political dialogue and sectoral policies, aiming to align Georgia more closely with EU standards.
Government rejects EU blackmail
This action was in fact preceded by a similar one from the other side. Back in July, EU ambassador to Georgia Paweł Herczyński announced that the union itself was pausing Georgia’s accession process and freezing €30m of assistance funds that had been promised to the ministry of defence.
He asserted that Georgia’s new law on ‘transparency of foreign influence’ (ie, that NGOs operating in the country must declare the source of their funding) “is a clear backslide on nine steps, and the anti-western, anti-European rhetoric is fully incompatible with the stated aim of joining the European Union … Georgia’s EU accession has been put on hold.” This blackmail attempt had the opposite effect of the one intended, however.
In calling for a halt from his own side, Kobakhidze said that the Georgian Dream government’s decision was aimed at minimising further opportunities for such blackmail: “We observe that European politicians and bureaucrats are using allocated grants and loans as a tool for blackmail against Georgia. For instance, we all recall their attempt to cancel a €75m loan just weeks before the 2021 elections to illegitimately influence the outcome.
“A similar tactic was employed ahead of the 2024 parliamentary elections, but it had no impact on the Georgian people’s decision. Using financial resources for blackmail is not only inappropriate but also an affront to the dignity of the self-respecting Georgian people, and such practices will never be accepted.”
Talking about the need for mutual respect between nations, the prime minister said: “Georgia-EU relations, in their essence, are bilateral and can only be bilateral. We are a proud and self-respecting nation with a great history. It is categorically unacceptable for us to consider integration into the EU as a mercy that the EU should grant us … We intend not to enter the EU begging and standing on one leg, but to join it with dignity, with a functioning democratic system and a strong economy.” (Georgian PM announces government’s halt of EU accession talks until 2028, refusal of bloc’s grants, Agenda.ge, 28 November 2024)
Following this announcement, the USA suspended its strategic partnership treaty with the Caucasian nation, asserting without a blush that Georgia was guilty of “anti-democratic actions” that had “violated the core tenets” and “shared values” of “democracy, rule of law, civil society, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and anti-corruption efforts”.
Various of its allied sidekicks, mouthpieces and proxies have either enacted or called for sanctions against Georgia to punish it for its stance in favour of sovereignty. The prize for most shameless mouthpiece must be handed to Lithuanian foreign minister Gabrielius Landsbergis, who said: “Opponents of democracy and violators of human rights are not welcome in our countries.” Presumably he doesn’t include the Nato and Banderite forces operating out of the fascistic Baltic statelets in this category.
Colour revolution formula on display again
The imperialists have been trying to gain full control of Georgia’s political and economic life since the fall of the Soviet Union. The country’s government was successfully coopted during 2003’s west-backed ‘Rose revolution’, which deposed a president who was trying to face east as well as west. Despite his key role in the destruction of the Soviet Union and his desire to open Georgia up to western capital, President Eduard Shevardnadze was considered too close to Russia and was removed in one of a series of such operations that were carried out across the territory of the former USSR.
As in the case of so many countries in Europe and Asia, political or geographical proximity to the Russian Federation are enough to motivate the imperialists to mount a regime change operation. In the minds of Washington’s ‘grand chessboard’ strategists, their ‘Russian problem’ will ultimately be solved only if they can set as many fires as possible along the country’s borders, exhausting its capacities to deal with them all and bringing hardship and deprivation to its citizens. This in turn (it is hoped) will trigger a popular revolt capable (with a little external help, of course) of bringing down the hated (by the west) Moscow administration led by President Vladimir Putin.
True to the tried-and-tested colour revolution formula, a daily protest movement has been instigated by Euro-Atlanticist forces, many of them well-paid employees of west-backed NGOs. The privileged existence of this parasitic layer is under threat by government moves to rein in their influence by forcing them to declare the source of their funds (a not unreasonable demand, one might think, and certainly a measure the USA has in place and keeps well policed!)
While protests have been held in several parts of the country, Tbilisi is their main epicentre and the focus of all violent activity. Protests in the capital have been held daily, but local comrades tell us that numbers are waning, and that even at its peak the movement could not mobilise more than 25,000 people.
While most protesters are peaceful, the crowds have been seeded with a sprinkling of violent hostile actors. These provocateurs throw stones, Molotov cocktails and fireworks at police, and try to build barricades out of destroyed city infrastructure such as payphones, paving slabs and dustbins.
The crowds contain a suspiciously high number of foreign nationals, including Ukrainians, Russians, Americans, assorted European and even some Brits, some of whom have been arrested for provocative activities such as throwing rocks and fireworks at police officers and parliament buildings.
While a few local workers have been mobilised by the all-pervasive colour revolution propaganda, the organised working class – as represented by Georgia’s central and independent trade unions, local initiative groups, miners and metalworkers, etc – either don’t support the protests or have publicly opposed them.
The main forces involved in the protests are political parties and NGOs with ideological and financial ties to western imperialism, and they are spurred on by heavily publicised public statements from EU and US officials. The only ‘left’ forces involved are of the western liberal variety: liberal-left intellectuals and a few west-sponsored ‘left’ organisations and student groups, the latter being encouraged by their professors to abandon their studies and join the protests.
The organisers are even trying to bring children out of school to swell the ranks of the protests – a move endorsed by the president on her Twitter/X account (interesting to note that her post is in English).
The west-anointed leader of this attempt to re-run the 2014 Maidan coup in Kiev is President Salome Zourabichvili. It is interesting to note that Ms Zourabichvili was born and brought up in France as a scion of a liberal family that left Georgia in 1921 rather than remaining to live under socialism. One of her uncles disappeared during WW2 after having been identified as a collaborator with the Nazi occupation in France. Another, Mikhail Kedia, lived in Berlin during the war years as head of the Nazi-sponsored ‘Georgian government in exile’. He worked for the Reich’s Georgia desk and expected to be appointed head of state by the fascists after they had ‘liberated’ the republic from Soviet rule.
A group of Georgian mercenaries fighting in Ukraine published a video in which they promised the president they were ready to come back and form a new national guard, but there is as yet no evidence that they have actually left Ukraine.
Georgian socialist view
The assessment of our comrades in Tblisi is that this movement has been entirely engineered and funded by the west, via their local proxies in Georgia: NGOs and a carefully cultivated network of diplomats, intellectuals and political parties.
They also believe that the government strategy has been to force the protestors onto the streets earlier than had been intended, before their preparations were fully in place and before they were able to bring in mercenaries who might have been able to act as snipers or to carry out some other fatal atrocity that could be blamed on state forces and used as a justification for further intervention by the west. (This exact template has been used in many countries over the years, including Syria in 2011 and Ukraine in 2014.)
Georgian security services believed that the regime-change operation had been scheduled to begin in mid-December, when President Zourabichvili is due to leave office. The president has been engaged in escalating hostilities with the government for several years now: as the government has become more inclined towards sovereignty, she has become more stridently oppositional.
As well as blocking the appointment of several diplomats and vetoing the passage of laws that would have changed the composition of the national bank, she tried (unsuccessfully) to block the passing of the foreign agents law that has been causing so much outrage in western circles.
Having described this summer’s parliamentary election (won by Georgian Dream) as “fraudulent”, Ms Zourabichvili has refused to leave office when her replacement is chosen on 14 December. She is facing impeachment and a possible prison term if the regime change movement is unsuccessful in toppling the government.
If, on the other hand, the imperialist operation should be successful, Russian intervention in Georgia is almost inevitable. Since the Russia-Georgia war of 2008 (which the present government has now openly admitted was triggered by Mikheil Saakashvili’s government at the behest of the west), the country has been almost completely demilitarised. This means that Russia would have a small window of opportunity to intervene before any Nato armaments could be brought in (one of the aims of the regime change operation is to bring Georgia into Nato and thus bring imperialist bases closer to Russia in the southern Caucasus region).
A second military front would thus be opened up for Russia while it is still fighting in Ukraine – a major aim of the imperialist bloc as it stares its imminent defeat in the face. Our comrades point out that, as in the case of Ukraine, a pro-Nato coup in Georgia would be enough to force Russia’s hand in this regard, even without any direct military attack. This would serve the dual purpose of diverting Russian military forces and using up Russian resources while allowing western media and diplomacy to go into overdrive about how ‘aggressive, imperialist Russia’ is staging another ‘unprovoked invasion’ against a ‘peaceful neighbour’.
We wish the Georgian people success in foiling the coup plotters. The progressive world must stand firmly with them and their chosen government against the aggressive manoeuvres of the imperialists. The financiers in Washington, London, Paris and Berlin do not care a jot for the masses; they care only for their own ability to continue controlling and plundering the world.
They must not be allowed to turn the people of Georgia into fresh fodder for their war machine.
DIRECT LINE FROM THE ALT-MEDIA – ANSWERS TO READER QUESTIONS AND OTHER HOME TRUTHS
by John Helmer, Moscow @bears_with
In the English-language media markets it is impossible for any journalist, editor, publisher or owner to be more corrupt, more of a liar, more of a fraud, and more of a success at selling all three than Rupert Murdoch.
That was until the mass media at which Murdoch excelled were superseded and outread by the alternative media. They call themselves the alt-media, but the alternatives they offer are no more than ideological variants of the same basic market laws which Murdoch has observed and demonstrated. That’s to say, making money at serving state force, fraud, and subversion.
Murdoch was even a success at selling outdoor advertising placards on Russian city streets until he was forced out of that market by men whose crookedness wasn’t greater than his, but who exploited their local political advantage in exactly the same fashion as Murdoch does. The outcome was that in 2011 Russia had the only government in the world able and willing to do real damage to Murdoch – and throw him out. That year Dmitry Medvedev was president; Vladimir Putin, prime minister. By them Murdoch was forced to sell his street signs and radio stations for less than a sixth of his asking price.
Murdoch swore violent revenge for that; he’s been at it against Russia ever since, from The Times to the Wall Street Journal to Fox News to Catherine Belton’s book.
Thirty years ago, as he was dying, Dennis Potter, the British screenwriter, said “I call my cancer, the main one, the pancreas one, I call it Rupert, so I can get close to it, because the man Murdoch is the one who, if I had the time – in fact I’ve got too much writing to do and I haven’t got the energy – but I would shoot the bugger if I could. There is no one person more responsible for the pollution of what was already a fairly polluted press, and the pollution of the British press is an important part of the pollution of British political life.” Now that Murdoch is almost dead himself, and his family is cracking up over – what else? – the money, the cancer he represents in the mainstream media can also be recognized in the alt-media — and in the corner of the alt-media focusing on Russia and the war in the Ukraine. The Ruperts in this corner have names like Seymour and Gilbert.
If watching or reading them can be brain sapping, is there any remedy, and if so, what is it? These and other reader questions are answered in this Direct Line.
What explains President Putin’s refusal to explain his decision to withdraw from Syria and abandon the country to partition between Israel, Turkey and the US? Is this stupidity, corruption, or something else?
President Putin thinks mnemonically and politically; this doesn’t mean he thinks strategically. This is the reason he is susceptible to making mistakes of anticipation, and repeating them.
Putin is a prodigy at memorizing and reciting data; that’s to say, he has the mind of a mnemonist. The first clinician to analyse what this means was the Russian neuropsychologist, Alexander Luria (1902-77). First published in Russian in 1965, then in English in 1968, Luria’s work, the case study of S., one of Luria’s Moscow patients, is titled The Mind of a Mnemonist; read it in full.
Although their prodigious memories seem to be similar, mnemonists aren’t cognitively the same in their methods of recall or psychologically the same in their personalities. According to Luria, his patient S. couldn’t readily understand poetry. Abstract ideas were also a problem for him to follow – his thinking was graphic, not logical nor strategic. Also, “the big question for him, and the most troublesome, was how he could learn to forget.”
Luria didn’t generalize from his single case. Because the mind of the mnemonist is so rare, he acknowledged the impact of the mind on the personality is something “we know least about, is probably the most interesting.”
If Putin hadn’t performed his memory feats for record lengths of time in public – records no significant politician in the rest of the world can match – he would not have invited attention to them. And yet neither in his Russian biographies, nor in the foreign ones – friendly and hostile, balanced or unbalanced — can a section on his memory be found. In First Person, the authorized self-portrait prepared for Putin by three Moscow journalists in the year 2000, Putin’s fifth-grade schoolteacher was quoted as remembering “he had a very good memory, a quick mind”. She didn’t remember him as a prodigy.
His first wife, Lyudmila Putina, came closer. “Volodya always had a good memory,” she said. “It was the first time I saw him in action [St. Petersburg mayoral press conference]. I sat there open-mouthed. He talked about politics, the economy, history, and the law. I listened, and I kept thinking, ‘How does he know all this?’” Click to read more.
Putin also thinks politically; that is, on every topic which comes to him for decision he listens to or reads a wide range of views. To his interlocutors he appears to be attentive and to agree with them. In fact, he can appear to agree with several different and contradicting courses of action at the same time. He also agrees; decides; then changes his mind; issues a new, superseding decision. In this process, he tries to strike a balance between options and between those arguing their competing cases. Thinking politically in Putin’s case is balancing; it can look like equivocation, vacillation, indecision, confusion.
Case studies of this are rare because much of the evidence is missing. In Sovcomplot, the book on Putin’s decision-making in the Russian shipping industry, the evidence is in the vast court files of a 15-year litigation in London by the heads of the Russian state shipping company Sovcomflot and their predecessors, plus interviews with the Russian principals engaged. From the evidence in this story, Putin’s method of deciding by balancing between individuals, lobbies and factions becomes clear. So too, the cost in money, in the reputations and fortunes of individuals, in damage to the state.
Left: Alexander Luria; centre, his book published in Russian in 1965, then in English in 1968; right, Sovcomplot published in 2023.
Thinking politically is short term. Long-term thinking, with anticipation of what adversaries and allies will do in the future – this is thinking strategically. Putin has said that when he was a child, he thought it would be good for him if he played chess, but that was a game he admitted he didn’t play. Asked by journalists during the Direct Line broadcast of 2021 what games he liked as a child, he replied: “I really want to say chess, but unfortunately not. Just like everyone probably played hide-and-seek and tag in Leningrad courtyards back then. In some places they also call it salochki — we used to play tag.”
Putin has acknowledged that chess is valuable training in strategic thinking, and he has recommended state support for the game in municipal and regional budgets. Just once he has commented on an international chess match – the 2016 world championship between Sergei Karjakin of Russia and Magnus Carlsen of Norway. “We are certainly proud of our chess school and the outstanding grandmasters of our country,” Putin said. “We have specially created this direction at the centre for gifted children in Sochi, where these classes are organized at the appropriate level. But we need chess to develop all over the country…Karjakin really played great, he was just great. Magnus is an outstanding grandmaster of our time, and Sergei adequately represented Russia, our chess school. He is a fighter, and I am sure that victories are still ahead for him.”
There is no record of Putin playing chess himself.
The unique combination of these methods of thinking produce very different outcomes in the record Putin makes. The Syrian case is an example of his thinking politically, not strategically. This explains the political calculation.
The case of Putin’s protectiveness of Israel isn’t mnemonic, nor political nor strategic thinking. It’s sentimental, and it’s been with Putin since Leningrad courtyard days. It’s to be explained another time.
On Gorilla Radio and elsewhere you’ve been saying that the Skripal case is more significant than the case of Julian Assange? What’s your reason?
The poison spray attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal in the English town of Salisbury in March 2018 was a British operation involving the intelligence and security services, the Defence Ministry, the Porton Down chemical warfare laboratory, and senior officials up to Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and Prime Minister Theresa May. Their narrative – that President Putin had ordered an assassination by Novichok – has never been challenged in British or American public opinion, media or parliament. It was a powerful mobilizing step on NATO’s road to war against Russia, and it remains so.
Sergei and Yulia Skripal have been imprisoned for the past six and half years, almost totally silenced; Sergei Skripal is probably dead. They have served the British purpose. Nothing said or done on the Russian side has made any difference to their fate. Not a single British lawyer of note has spoken in their defence. The Russian media ignored the public hearings on their case which took place in London this past October and November. The Skripals are casualties of the war before the Special Military Operation began; there have been many more casualties since.
Julian Assange’s case was an Anglo-American and Swedish operation to silence Wikileaks, to stop whistleblowers and leakers from communicating their state secrets, as well as to deter journalists from reporting those secrets. Assange suffered five years of imprisonment but he was not silenced at the time, and in June of this year he was released. His lawyers were able to make an articulate, public case for his freedom, and they, together with the mainstream media, managed to expose the fabrications and illegalities in the prosecution of his case. But Wikileaks has been neutralized, not least by the terms of the plea agreement Assange signed on June 22, 2024.
But even without the court cases against Assange, Wikileaks, and their sources, the impact of this journalism and of Assange himself on the objects of their reports — on the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Ukraine, for example — has been brief and marginal. The public demonstrations for Assange in the UK, US and Australia have engaged far more supporters than have appeared against the war with Russia. Indeed, Assange’s well-known lawyers support the war against Russia.
The success of the Novichok narrative in the Anglo-American media is proof positive that next to nothing has been achieved by the Assange case in the very same media.
The ban on you in Russia began in 2010, and since then your books, articles, and appearances are banned by RT, the state television channels, newspapers and book publishers. Not even the designated foreign-agent media and reporters from enemy state propaganda agencies are treated so severely and for so long. Why?
I was declared persona non grata by the Foreign Ministry in September 2010, and the ban has been confirmed to last fifteen years until November 2025. This was an action taken, not by the FSB or SVR which reported they had no security concern, but personally on the order of Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Originally, the ban order was requested by the aluminium oligarch Oleg Deripaska, whose personal relationship with Lavrov and with other officials of the Foreign Ministry I and others had been reporting for years. My requests to Lavrov’s spokesman and head of press, Maria Zakharova, to reopen the file and reconsider the ban have been rejected without reply. Requests by oligarchs in the oil and mining businesses to invite me for short trips to meetings at their companies have all been refused. In July 2023 Lavrov personally refused to suspend the ban temporarily to allow me to accompany my wife’s body home to her funeral and burial in Tomsk. Judge for yourself what reason an individual has to behave like this continuously over fourteen years. I don’t know it.
How can the Russian people tolerate what we in the West regard as such an obvious strategic defeat in Syria?
President Putin has made many mistakes of strategic anticipation. The Kiev putsch of February 2014 which overthrew Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich and threatened the Russian Navy’s bases in Crimea was one; the defeat of the counter coup in Kiev at the Battle of the Antonov Airport of February 2022 was another; confiscation of $300 billion in the sovereign assets of the Central Bank in March 2022, another; the invasion of Kursk on August 6, 2024, was a recent one.
Putin doesn’t recognize the mistakes until afterwards; sometimes not even then. Occasionally he reckons they weren’t mistakes so much as costs for his thinking correctly, according to his political calculation based on balancing the assessments he had listened to.
For the time being, the president has convinced himself there are higher priorities for Russia’s defence and for its warfighting capacities than his order, several weeks ago, to the Russian General Staff and the army commanders in Syria not to defend the Assad regime, and to stand down while the Turks, Israelis and Americans partitioned the country. Even those Moscow military and political analysts who disagree – albeit in silence – acknowledge that that in the short term the Russian military could have not waged an effective counter-offensive. Whether (and when) Putin had already signalled to Ankara, Tel Aviv and Washington that he would not deter their plan to take over Syria is another matter – there is no public answer to this question, and the official debate is over and done with, in secret.
Just how done with, Putin explained to the officer corps at the Defense Ministry on December 16. He made no mention of Syria. There were implied references. “Bloodshed continues in the Middle East,” Putin told the military audience, “they conduct hybrid wars and implement containment policies against dissenting states, including Russia.”
He explained that in his decision-making the bottom line is political – too many demands, too little money. “I will repeat what has just been said: 6.3 percent of GDP is spent on increasing and strengthening defence capability. We cannot increase this expenditure endlessly, because all components of the country’s life such as the economy, the social sphere in the broadest sense of the word, science, education, healthcare have to develop, too. I am saying this so that everyone understands: the state, the Russian people are giving everything they can to the Armed Forces to fulfil the tasks we have set. Our task is to ensure the security of the Russian nation, our people, and the future of Russia.”
A Moscow source explains: “Putin is doing the Indian rope trick – sending the boy, then the magician up the rope and disappearing, to leave the audience gasping in amazement.”
Left: Putin at the Defense Ministry on December 16.
Right: how the rope trick worked.
“He can get away with whatever happens in Syria”, the source continues. “For the short term, he might get away from what happens in Ukraine by citing economic and inflationary pressures on the economy. He might announce, I don’t want to hurt your pockets for too long so I made a deal. He is saying to the generals that the people have ‘bled enough’ and you did not finish the job. He won’t tell them, you didn’t finish the job because I wouldn’t let you fight. We will not see any challenge to his authority — no candidates, no media or blogger will go against him. So there is a status quo for the next decade unless he retires at the end of this term [2030]. We should expect that the internal discussions, disagreements, or the ‘democracy’ within the system will result in a strong outcome. The outcome is looking very strong in how the economy and industry have been transforming. There are complete transformations in Irkutsk, Nizhny Novgorod, and Murmansk. Moscow is the most efficient and functional city in the world. We have a lot going well for us and we have to pull together to prepare for a big war. They were just not ready for what they have faced.”
Gilbert Doctorow recently went on a podcast to call you a “suspect source” who has “the wrong friends expressing the views of disgruntled, probably retired colonels and generals”. What do you say to this?
I understand that Dr Doctorow was very upset at having to debate the evidence for the views he propounds, based, he says himself, on watching Russian television talk shows. He was so upset he almost walked away from his microphone in his Brussels house. I don’t know what he did later with the podcasters, Alexander Mercouris and Alex Christoforou, behind the scenes. They subsequently cancelled a podcast they had commissioned with me on the Skripal case and they have banned me altogether, without explanation.
To understand what motivates Doctorow, it’s unusual for him not to publish a career profile of the academic curriculum vitae type or even a Wikipedia profile. What that blank space conceals is the time he took between his university degrees and between graduation and recorded employment. In my experience of others, especially of trainees in the Russian language in the US and UK, when two years or so are missing, the graduates have been working with or been trained by state agencies they wish to keep private. What Doctorow has allowed to be publicly known through a 1999 email of his is that after he graduated from Columbia with a doctorate which took eight years to complete, he went to work for the International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX). This organisation was established to promote academic exchanges between the US and the Soviet Union. It was indirectly funded by the CIA; if that was suspected by the KGB, it has been corroborated by US researchers and confirmed by Doctorow himself. He then says he moved to Russia for “the relatively cleaner business of strong drinks.” He became a Russian sales manager for a London-listed company called United Distillers, which subsequently turned into Guinness and then Diageo. During the Yeltsin administration, Doctorow says he was “Mr Smirnoff, Mr Johnnie Walker”. “Very congenial business”, he called it: “also very politicized business”.
What he doesn’t reveal is whether he is still in that line of Russian business – whether he has turned into a consultant advising Diageo on how to keep selling into Russia their whisky, rum, gin, vodka and Guinness stout. If so, Doctorow may be maintaining the “politicized” company he used to keep. That included Mikhail Fridman’s Alfa group which was a shareholding partner in Diageo’s Russian business, as well as a retail outlet for its drinks through Fridman’s supermarkets.
Diageo claims to have left its business in Russia when the Special Military Operation began. In the two years since, its share price and market capitalization have dropped by 36%. Winding-down costs in Russia amounted to $64 million, according to the company’s financial reports. Asset value writeoffs and impairments were accounted at $146 million. But Diageo’s alcohol brands keep coming into the Moscow market, often through schemes of sanctions-busting parallel imports through Dubai and other ports of convenience.
Diageo, like its competitors, is keen to know whether it will be able to return legally to the Russian market when the current war is fought or negotiated to its end. The terms of that outcome are likely to be of commercial as well as of political interest to Mr Johnnie Walker. So, to rephrase the question and counting about $200 million in Diageo’s losses and costs from the war, what options to recoup might Mr Johnnie Walker continue to advise? What “politicized” friends might Mr Johnnie Walker be keeping still in Moscow for the future? Would Mr Johnnie Walker disagree with the “politicized” line they advise, compared with the line of the General Staff he calls “suspect”?
Doctorow was asked for comment or correction “in the event you detect error of fact or analysis in relation to the report on your business in Russia for IREX and then United Distillers (Diageo).” He replied: “I write to you only to assert that you have maliciously distorted every aspect of my professional career within the possibilities of someone who has not researched it beyond reading the back cover of my Memoirs of a Russianist Volume II. If you had spent a few Australian dollars to purchase and read my Memoirs, you would know something about who I was and what I did. Instead by your intellectual laziness you are just disseminating empty malicious lies. I will not do you the honor of a public response.”
Diageo’s investor relations and press representatives in London were asked whether “your group of companies maintains an advisory, consulting or communicating relationship with Dr Gilbert Doctorow, once the group’s direct employee as a Russia sales manager in Moscow?” There has been no reply.
Who's gonna call Helmer a Russian tool after this? I think it an honest appraisal. And I doubt similar track record would be tolerated here in the US.
Helmer likes and respects the Russian people and military more than he does the government.
Helmer seems to feel that Putin is going to leave the job unfinished, which I think would be a great mistake and a tragedy given the carnage and deaths. Or is he listening to nervous mid-level types? Time will tell.
When is the Helmer/Doctorow cage match? I wanna see that.
*****
WION India’s ‘Focal Length’ analytic news program: Russia, Ukraine and Ceasefire
I am pleased to share with the community a 12-minute interview on the above topics that was taken by a news group called Focal Length within the WION organization. Though recorded one week ago and only released today, the interview was well edited and presents in very concise manner the issues that have taken the attention of both mainstream and alternative media all this time.
Transcript submitted by a reader
Porteous: 0:07
Hello and welcome back to NewsX World. I’m Thomas Porteous and you’re watching “Focal Length”, where we get you a briefing on topics from across the world. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is changing dynamics significantly, however its fate is still uncertain. So, how does Moscow see Zelensky’s troop proposal, and could Trump offer a better peace prospect than Biden? What conditions might each side demand? And do shifts in Syria weaken Russia’s influence?
Let’s find out. Joining us is Gilbert Doctorow, who is an international relations and Russian affairs expert. He is a professional Russia watcher and actor in Russian affairs going back to 1965. He is a Magna Cum Laude graduate of Harvard College. Doctorow also served as the chairman of the Russian Booker Literary Prize in Moscow.
0:58
Thank you for joining us Gilbert Doctorow. My first question to you is: does the overthrow of Assad government in Syria indicate a weakening of Russia and Iran?
Doctorow:
It’s premature to say. There was a lot of celebration in Washington, in London, in Ankara over the overthrow of Assad, but I don’t think that those who laugh first will necessarily laugh last. The notion that the winners were Israel and Turkey and that the big losers were Iran and Russia, is very widespread in the major media that you find in the West today. However, the situation in Syria is very fluid. The ability of those who overthrew Assad to hold onto power by themselves is unrealistic.
1:56
We’re speaking about a force that’s HTS, the force that came through from Idlib down through Homs into Damascus. There are 30,000 men. A 30,000-man army cannot govern a country the size of Syria with all of the diverse ethnic and religious groups in that territory. Therefore, the forming of a government is going to be a process that takes some time, if it succeeds at all. Moreover, in the case of Russia, we’re talking about a country that is discussed only in terms of its holding onto its military [assets], the air base, Khmeimin, and the naval base in Tartus. This is only a partial side of the story.
2:50
The major story is that Russia was very active as a determining force in 2015 to 2017, holding the Assad government in place. But that’s not all they did. From 2017 to 2020 or later, they were very active on the ground, whereas their soldiers went through the countryside of Syria and held pacification talks, as a result of which many of the most radical extremists were moved with their families to Idlib, which is really the spawning ground for this latest military event. The point is that Russia has enormous experience as a pacifier and stabilizing force across the country. It has relations with opposition groups across the country. It invited and held talks with opposition leaders in Moscow during this period, 2017 to 20 or later in what was called the Astana process. That is to say Russia probably has a better feel for the future of Syria than any other country. And to say that it is a loser in this is to be misguided.
Porteous: 4:10
What do you make of Zelensky’s proposal for deployment of foreign troops in Ukraine till it is not made a part of NATO?
Doctorow;
I’m sure that these words were put in his mouth by Washington. That is exactly what Washington and London and Paris would like to hear, that they are being invited into Ukraine to be a peacekeeping group, to monitor and control any eventual ceasefire if one is signed with Russia.
But one will not be signed with Russia under the terms that have such a peacekeeping force as a premise. The Russians do not accept it, and they will not accept it. Russia’s terms for ending this war are very different.
Porteous: 4:58
Since Trump’s election there is a change in rhetoric. Zelensky has agreed to a diplomatic resolution to the war. Why is there a change in stance?
Doctorow:
To say that there’s a change in Zelensky’s stance is to choose one day over another day, because one day you hear that he wants negotiations and next day you hear that he doesn’t. In point of fact, no negotiations are possible so long as his decree [is in force] prohibiting any members of the government in Kiev to hold talks with the Russians. No talks, no negotiations. Therefore I don’t take with any seriousness his latest remarks. But watch to hear what he says tomorrow.
Porteous: 5:41
Do you think under Trump there is a better chance of negotiating peace between Russia and Ukraine than under Biden?
Doctorow:
The simple answer is no. Mr Trump seems to be as misguided and misinformed as Mr Biden was, has been for the last three years. The remarks that he has made during his visit to Paris indicate that he already is beginning to understand that solving the problem in Ukraine and Russia is not a matter of 24 hours. It may not take 24 years, but it certainly won’t take 24 hours. And he has put into his statement about his … his dedication to achieving a peace, the words “if I can”.
So he has finally seen that this is a very complicated story, and that the outlines for negotiating a truce that had been proposed, or at least are in the public domain, coming from General Kellogg, who is his nominated envoy to Ukraine and Russia, that these points in the Kellogg plan are utterly unacceptable to the Russians.
Porteous: 6:55
In hindsight, do you feel Biden’s “no dialogue” policy with Russia was a deliberate attempt to ensure that the war did not end?
Doctorow:
Oh definitely. Biden is very keen– or the collective Biden, Biden and his closest advisers who actually are taking decisions in his name, by that I mean Jake Sullivan and Tony Blinken– they are keen to see the collapse of Ukraine happen on President Trump’s watch and not on their watch. The fact that Ukraine will collapse, I think is accepted as a given by both the Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration.
Porteous: 7:38
What do you think the conditions will be put by Russia to enter into a peace deal?
Doctorow:
These conditions were stated by President Putin when he spoke to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They assemble once a year for general consultations with ambassadors, and they did that in Moscow in the middle of June. On June 13th, he addressed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and set out his terms for concluding a peace, not just a ceasefire, which is unacceptable to the Russians, but a genuine peace.
8:12
And those terms were revalidated by his press secretary just a couple of days ago. When this question came up, what can the Russians ask to establish a peace? They are first of all that the Ukrainians withdraw from the territories that Russia calls New Russia and Donbass, that is the four provinces that have been incorporated into the Russian Federation after referenda were held on them. This is Donetsk and Lugansk, and the two New Russia provinces to the southwest of them. That the Ukrainians must withdraw. Now that withdrawal means going further back than they are today, because in point of fact, Russia has not completely taken possession of these provinces.
9:09
So the Russians say, “You stop fighting, you withdraw, and the next day we will stop firing on you.” That is their first condition. But to go from the mere fact of a cessation of hostilities to a peace, the Russians are saying, let’s go back to what we agreed in March, April of 2022, when you initialed a peace treaty with us, that was then overruled by the Americans and the British when Boris Johnson came and said, “No, don’t do it. Continue fighting; we’ll help you.”
9:43
So what were the terms that were agreed in March, April of 2022? That Ukraine would be neutral, but that’s not enough. That Ukraine would not join NATO, but that’s not enough. That there will be no foreign advisors, foreign military installations, foreign trainers, foreign bases in Ukraine. Those facts are not the same as saying no NATO. So Russia wants to have a limit on the military capabilities of Ukraine in return for which Ukraine will receive security guarantees.
But security guarantees that are not issued through the presence of peacekeepers, which is where we began this discussion, peacekeepers coming from the supporters of Ukraine today. No, no, if Russia accepts any type of monitors of the peace, it will be a broader international contingent, including themselves, of course, and including the Chinese. So, to make an example…
Porteous: 10:52
What do you think the conditions will be put by Ukraine to enter a peace deal?
Doctorow:
Well, they have put out their conditions repeatedly, and they’ve called them various things, their peace initiative, going back six months or more, when they tried to bring in as many countries as possible to present the Russians with an ultimatum to end the war. Their terms are the terms of a victor. They are pretending that Russia, who are clearly the winners on the battlefield, should give up everything at the negotiating table in return for a cessation of hostilities.
11:32
That is an inversion. It’s a complete reversal of the normal proceedings when a country that is vanquished and a country that is conquering sit down to discuss the peace.
Porteous:
Thank you, Gilbert Doctorow, for speaking to us on “Focal Length”. With that, it’s a wrap on this episode.
11:53
For more international news updates, stay tuned on NewsX World.
1. He did not name the exact dates of the end of the Central Military Operation and the operation in the Kursk Region.
2. Putin is confident that the enemy troops will be driven out of the Kursk Region. In other areas, the Russian Armed Forces are confidently advancing and have the initiative.
3. The enemy is using the bulk of NATO armored vehicles in the Kursk Region. The largest cemetery of NATO armored vehicles is now located there. Putin does not see any military sense in the enemy's offensive in the Kursk Region.
4. Putin called the problem of the lack of payments and the status of a participant in the Central Military Operation for the soldiers fighting in the Kursk Region a mistake by the authorities and the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. This mistake will now be corrected. Everyone who fought (including conscripts) will be given the status of a participant in the Central Military Operation and will be paid all due payments retroactively. They will also make payments for destroyed NATO equipment. According to Putin, he did not know about the difference in payments for participants in the Counter-Terrorism Operation and participants in the Central Military Operation.
5. Putin does not know why "Oreshnik" is called "Oreshnik". Putin is confident in the combat capabilities of this system.
6. A large ring road similar to the Tavrida will be built around the Sea of Azov. Its construction has already begun.
7. 300,000 people have already returned to Mariupol. The restoration of the city continues.
8. Kursk Oblast will be completely restored. 108 billion rubles have already been allocated. And there will be more.
9. 20,000 different objects will be restored in the new regions in the next 5 years. The money for this has already been allocated.
10. Well, it is worth noting the flag of the 155th Marine Brigade, which is engaged in the liberation of Kursk Oblast. A number of other units and formations were also noted.
On the parameters of negotiations with Ukraine
December 19, 15:48
Putin announced the parameters of potential negotiations with Ukraine.
1. Russia is ready to negotiate on Ukraine without preconditions.
2. Negotiations must be based on the Istanbul Agreements.
3. They must a priori take into account the realities on the ground (i.e. minus 4 regions, in addition to Crimea).
4. Russia will only talk to Zelensky if he runs for office and gains legitimacy.
5. Russia will only negotiate with the legitimate leadership of Ukraine.
6. There will be no foreign peacekeepers in Ukraine without Russia's consent.
In essence, we are talking about Istanbul 2.0, worsened for Ukraine. Without 4 regions.
... especially its media-(pseudo)intellectual complex is a collection of lowlifes who have no normal human qualities. Sociopathy is essentially a lack of consciousness. The only "military" capability the UK has is that of terrorism and so the most UK media are supporters of terrorism and should be viewed as such. Hence...
Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Wednesday slammed British daily The Times for justifying the assassination of Lt. Gen. Igor Kirillov, who headed Russia’s Radiological, Chemical, and Biological Defense Forces. Medvedev criticized the editors as “lousy jackals” who are part of a hybrid war against Russia. In an article on Tuesday, the UK outlet claimed that its sources within Ukraine’s security services admitted responsibility for the general's assassination. It went on to describe the incident as “a legitimate act of defense by a threatened nation.” “The assassination is a discriminate strike against an aggressor,” The Times wrote. The paper further characterized Kirillov’s killing as an “eminently defensible” act that should be seen as “a warning and deterrent to other plenipotentiaries of [Russian President] Vladimir Putin.”
I am still puzzled why BBC, as an example, this pedophile central, is present in Russia, as are other representatives of British propaganda, such as degenerate Rosenberg. And Medvedev has a point:
“It’s impossible to ignore the editorial published in The Times, where the bastards called the terrorist attack on Igor Kirillov and his assistant a ‘legitimate act of defense’,” Medvedev, who currently serves as deputy head of the Russian Security Council, said in a Telegram post. He stated that according to the logic employed by The Times, its entire management could now be considered “legitimate military targets” for Russia, along with all Western decision-makers. “All NATO decision-makers from countries that provided military assistance to Bandera Ukraine are participating in a hybrid or conventional war against Russia… All these individuals can and should be considered legitimate military targets for the Russian state,” Medvedev said, adding that the people “who committed crimes against Russia” always have accomplices, including in the media.
Correct, London is a filthy degenerate place, the ball of freaks and, unlike the US, with which Russia has to have some kind of relations, I see no reason for Russia maintaining any diplomatic relations with this Euro chihuahua which still thinks herself a great geopolitical player. The only thing the average UK politician and media creeps understand is fear, and fear they should have.
To understand what these imbeciles think about themselves, get the load of this:
Применение баллистической ракеты средней дальности «Орешник» на территории Украины заставило Лондон занять более взвешенную позицию в отношении ударов дальнобойным вооружением вглубь России, заявил посол РФ в Британии Андрей Келин. Хотя британцы и не испугались, они осознали, что возник новый фактор – ответ России на использование ракет Storm Shadow, заявил Келин в интервью телеканалу «Россия 24», передает ТАСС. В результате в Лондоне стали осторожнее относиться к этой теме и внимательно следят за развитием событий, добавил он. Келин отметил, что официальная реакция Британии на запуск «Орешника» была невнятной, однако в экспертных кругах изучались возможности и способности этой ракеты. Посол подчеркнул, что из Белоруссии, где планируется развернуть «Орешник», достижима каждая точка в Европе.
Translation: The use of the Oreshnik medium-range ballistic missile in Ukraine forced London to take a more balanced position regarding long-range strikes deep into Russia, said Russian Ambassador to Britain Andrei Kelin. Although the British were not scared, they realized that a new factor had emerged – Russia’s response to the use of Storm Shadow missiles, Kelin said in an interview with the Russia 24 TV channel, TASS reports. As a result, London has become more cautious about this topic and is closely monitoring developments, he added. Kelin noted that Britain’s official reaction to the launch of the Oreshnik was unclear, but expert circles were studying the capabilities and abilities of this missile. The ambassador emphasized that every point in Europe is accessible from Belarus, where the Oreshnik is planned to be deployed.
No, moron, that IS the definition of being scared. In fact shitting own pants. Because the first candidate for direct demonstration to NATO of what will happen to it in case of continuous terrorism is highly likely Royal Navy and whatever the shit it tries to put to sea. As is the air base Akrotiry. And yes, every point in Europe is accessible from ANYWHERE in European part of Russia.
“Results of the year with Vladimir Putin,” an informational event which merits close attention
As I have note on these pages, Vladimir Putin’s speeches to mark one or another calendar event are a daily feature of Russian air time on state television. But there are also very special and noteworthy televised Putin-centered events. Today’s fell into that category. It was preceded by a couple of weeks of active promotion in the media to ensure the widest possible participation of the public.
In what follows I will discuss several of the key issues which Vladimir Putin addressed in response to questions from the moderators and from journalists, that is issues which are necessarily of interest to the international community and not only to the domestic audience in Russia. The event in question is the annual Q&A of the Russian President with callers from around the country and with the national and international press. These two different groups, who were formerly addressed on separate days. The public had its ‘Direct Line’ and the journalists separately were invited to an ‘Annual Press Conference.’ So it was when both events were established back in 2004. However, four years ago, given the limitations imposed by Covid, they were combined into a single event and so it remains.
The venue for the ‘Results of the Year’ is in the heart of Moscow, just steps away from Red Square and from the Kremlin in the totally renovated 18th Century building called Gostinny Dvor that once served as commercial retail premises.
Seating in the central hall was reduced to allow for aides to pass freely into rows and pass the microphone to designated questioners. Moreover, the center of the hall, in an elevated space about the size of a boxing ring, was reserved for the president and a couple of journalist-moderators seated around a table. Journalists, foreign and domestic, constituted most of those in the hall. They numbered less than a thousand but were only a tiny part of the combined exercise.
In the run-up to the event more than two million questions were sent in to the dedicated call center. One million two hundred thousand were phone calls. A little less than 500,000 were sms messages and others were videos and text messages sent via social media. These advance communications were all processed electronically using Artificial Intellect so as to be categorized by the topic interesting the caller, the location of the caller geographically and other parameters useful in prioritizing the President’s time on air.
The ’Direct Line’ events had been characterized not only by the preponderance of questions relating to domestic Russian issues but to a great many highly personal requests for Putin’s intervention to right some wrong in a given locality or some conflict with local officials. In today’s event measures had been taken in advance to reduce the number of such petty exchanges and to leave more time to issues of consequence and general interest. The particularistic questions or complaints were shunted off to be resolved by the governor’s office where the respective caller lives.
Meanwhile, by clear intent of the organizers to make the event more interesting to a global audience, questions relating to international affairs were moved to the first hour, not left for the very end as was the case in the past.
On this basis, I am able to present below some points that Vladimir Putin evidently was keen to bring to our attention, though I admit that I sat through only the first two hours of ‘Results of the Year.’ This gives me the opportunity to provide a ‘scoop’ to readers of these pages, and then to come back with follow-up if the President dealt with something of general interest to us abroad before the Q&A was terminated.
*****
One of the first questions pitched to Putin by one of the moderators was to ask if the world has gone mad. How can Russia navigate the very turbulent waters of international affairs.
His answer was that the world has not gone mad but that when the bullets are flying, as is now the case, people say it is terrible; whereas when there is a time of calm, people say it is a period of stagnation!
The answer to the question, in his view, is to look at the Russian economy, which is stable, resilient and growing very well. Last year, Russian GDP grew at 3.6%; this year it is currently 3.9% and may reach 4% at 31 December. So Russia has grown 8% over two years, while the number is 5.6% in the USA, 1% in the EU and 0% in Germany. Russia is now the largest economy in Europe and number 4 in the world. It has a record low unemployment rate of 2.3%. Growth in manufacturing this year has been 4% and it was 8% in processing industries. The negative indicator is the 9.3% inflation rate.
In answer to a later questioner complaining about price inflation in specific products, Putin revisited this issue, saying that the Central Bank is now looking into what other instruments besides the prime interest rate it can use to tame inflation. And the problem with inflation is too few goods put onto the market to satisfy the growing demand. By way of example, Russia now has become fully self-sufficient in meat production, and meat consumption is now 80kg per capita whereas a few years ago it was half that amount. Milk demand, especially for production of butter, has soared while output has not been able to keep pace. All of this is in conditions of 9% rise in real wages over the past year, which adds to demand across the board.
Surely of greater interest to Western audiences is what the Russian president had to say about the Oreshnik hypersonic missile and the other advanced strategic weapons systems that Russia has now put out into the field and has in serial production.
He explained the logic of developing the intermediate range missiles which were formally banned by an arms agreement which the Americans abrogated under Donald Trump. The range of the Oreshnik and the peculiarity of its very high rise into the atmosphere were decided upon to make the missile invulnerable to all present American means of interception. Since the missile is most vulnerable in the moments immediately following launch, it was given extended range (to 5,000 km) making it possible to locate it way beyond the attack range of any anti-missile systems in the American armory, and especially available on the American ABM bases in Poland and Romania. It reaches a height in the atmosphere before its lightening descent at Mach 10 that also exceeds several times over the capabilities of the Patriot or the still more modern American interceptors.
In what surely will be featured in Western media later today, Putin challenged the States to engage in a ‘duel of the 21st century’. Russia will name its target somewhere in Ukraine and dare the US to bring down the Oreshnik using the best interceptors in their arsenal.
Another set of questions addressed to Putin that can be of general interest in the West was with regard to reconstruction in the 4 annexed regions of the Donbas and Novaya Rossiya: does Russia have the financial and management capability to retore and grow these new territories? His answer was an emphatic yes and he pointed first to the city of Mariupol which had 450,000 inhabitants before the war and was largely destroyed in the artillery battles that preceded its conquest by Russian forces. Putin said that much attention was devoted to infrastructure, starting with rebuilding and fully modernizing roads and to reconstruction of housing. The population has been returning and now is approximately 300,000 strong. Similar investments are being made all across the new territories. And Putin assured the public that these new regions are growing their economies very quickly so that even today the tax revenues from Lugansk are almost twice what they were before the war, and they are more than 60% higher in the part of Donetsk under Russian control.
The microphone was then demonstratively handed over to the American news outlet NBC whose reporter Keir Brennnan-Simmons. Putin was making the point that Russia is treating the foreign press from ‘unfriendly countries’ with the kind of respect that no Russian journalist receives in America.
Brennan-Simmons opened with two questions, the first of which was more an accusation and mark of derision than a question proper: ‘Mr President when you meet with Donald Trump, you will be doing so from a position of weakness. You have lost soldiers. You just lost a senior general…”
Putin said first that he has heard nothing from the Trump camp about a possible meeting with him. And he challenged directly the notion that Russia’s position would be the weaker party when the meeting eventually takes place. No, said Putin, we are much stronger than we were thanks to the assertion of our sovereignty and our finding our way in self-reliance since the launch of the Special Military Operation. We are standing on our own feet economically. Our military production far exceeds the capabilities of all of NATO together. Our soldiers on the battlefield are using our own military supplies and we do all of this in a most rational and effective way. Compare that to NATO where the price of 155mm artillery shells is now four times what it was back in 2022. With this type of cost inflation, NATO member states will have to dedicated not 2% but 3% of their GDP just to stand in place. Our army today has no peer in the world. Russia has become stronger and we, as a sovereign country, are following our national interests.
As regards the journalist who ‘disappeared’ in Syria, Putin offered to put the question to al-Assad when they eventually meet. However, he asked with all due reason how one could expect to get an answer to the mother’s request given that it all happened in the midst of the Syria civil war and long ago.
Then Putin used the question as a springboard to what we all wanted to hear: what the Kremlin says about the ‘loss’ of Syria and about its bases there. As I remarked several days ago, he insisted that Russia entered the civil war in 2015 for one purpose only: to ensure that an extreme Islamist enclave could not be established there. He said Russia succeeded in that mission and did so with no boots on the ground other than those defending its naval and air base. The fighters were from the Syrian Army and from friendly Arab forces [meaning Iranian proxies]. What happened recently was the melting away of the Syrian forces in advance of the conquering troops without a fight. Iran once again turned to us for assistance with moving its troops – but unlike 2015 it was not to move Iranian forces into Syria, it was now to evacuate Iranian troops from Syria. We did so and evacuated 4,000 Iranians to our air base.
As regards Syria, Russia, he said has maintained relations with all interested parties inside and in the region. Everyone says we should keep our bases there. But whether we do or not will depend on our negotiations with the government in Damascus. We have suggested to others that we are ready to open both the naval and the air base for use by all parties wishing to bring humanitarian assistance in to Syria.
In summary, Putin said that Russia’s experience in Syria corresponds to the old remark “Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”
The NBC’s remark about the assassination of General Kirillov evoked a response from Putin that he was satisfied to see the word ‘assassination’ applied to the case, meaning the understanding that this was an act of terrorism. Why is it, Putin then asked in turn, that you journalists in the West have never uttered a word of regret over the murder by terrorist attacks of our Russian journalists?
Finally, Putin invited Brennan-Simmons to ask anything else he might want clarified now that he had the microphone. The journalist asked if Russia is ready to make compromises itself in line with its demand that Kiev make compromises to arrive at a peace.
The answer Putin gave is noteworthy: that Russia and Ukraine had demonstrated this in March-April 2022 when they initialed a peace treaty involving compromises on all sides. Regrettably the British prime minister with a peculiar hairdo then came down to Kiev and issued instructions not to complete the deal.
Russia detains suspected murderer of General Kirillov
Who was really behind the atrocity? And what consequences may we may expect to improve Russian domestic security? to take revenge for this act of terror?
Earlier today, Reuters reported on the arrest by Russian investigative authorities of a 29-year-old Uzbek man suspected of having carried out the assassination yesterday of Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, head of the military’s nuclear, chemical and biological defense forces. We are told that the detainee has confessed to the crime and has said he was given this project by Ukrainian intelligence, who offered him a $100,000 reward for success and a comfortable life somewhere in Western Europe.
As we knew already hours after the crime yesterday, the Ukraine’s SBU security service claimed responsibility.
So far, so good. But does the trail of responsibility for the assassination end there? Not in the view of Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other spokesmen for the country’s top leadership.
In her Briefing to journalists earlier today, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova explained why General Kirillov would have been targeted by “the Anglo-Saxons” for his many years spent exposing their egregious violations of international law by (the U.S.) operating biological laboratories in Ukraine and elsewhere that targeted specific ethnic groups including Slavs, for his exposing the false flag operations of the white helmets and other British agents in Syria who staged phony chemical attacks to lay at the door of the Assad regime and its Russian backers, for his exposing the falsehoods of the alleged Russian use of Novichok against the Skripals in Salisbury, U.K., and for exposing the use of chemical agents by Ukrainians on the battlefield in the ongoing war with Russia. She identified the ‘Anglo-Saxons’ as the ‘main beneficiaries of the Kiev regime’s terrorist activities.’ More importantly, she called the ‘Anglo-Saxons’ ‘the ones who masterminded all their activities.’
Seeing where the Russian argumentation was headed and knowing that it would be put before the United Nations Security Council on 20 December, the spokesperson for the U.S. Department of State Matthew Miller flatly denied that the U.S. had foreknowledge or played any role in the assassination of General Kirillov.
However, by ‘Anglo-Saxons’ Zakharova very likely had in mind the Brits, not the Yankees. At least that is what I conclude after listening to the discussion of the murder of Kirillov on yesterday’s Evening with Vladimir Solovyov news and analysis show. The host and panelists were of one mind that this terrorist act had all the hallmarks of the MI6 British intelligence operatives, the very same gents who were likely involved in poisoning Navalny in his distant prison camp. Cold blooded murder seems to be their stock in trade. And it was the British, after all, who had applied sanctions against General Kirillov. In this matter, as in everything else to do with the Ukraine conflict, they were the attack dogs rather than the poodles of Washington.
Otherwise, last night’s discussion of the murder on the Solovyov show was noteworthy for raising yet again the issue of ending the suspension of capital punishment in Russia precisely for cases of terrorists. This issue arose following each of the widely publicized terror attacks these past couple of years, including the Crocus entertainment center attack and the bombing murder of the journalist Darya Dugina. It was also worth paying attention to because of the attention given to the modest life style of Kirillov and other high Russian military officials, as we saw from photos of the general’s apartment building, and the absence of security details to assure their safety. It was not clear from the discussion how better protection can be provided.
The identification of the United Kingdom as the likely masterminds of the murder of General Kirillov was repeated in this afternoon’s edition of The Great Game. It was noted that while Western media generally have not issued any condemnations of this act of terror, the British stood out in their open support for such acts. The editorial in today’s London Times says it all:
The assassination of a Russian general is a legitimate act of defence by a threatened nation. Amid political flux, western governments must step up to support for Kyiv.
One panelist opined that the British elites, which The Times represents, are defending the assassination, because they know that their intelligence operatives were involved in its preparation.
The Russian public is now awaiting what further information about the Ukrainian handlers of the confessed murderer will come out during the interrogation of the suspect. In contrast to the perpetrators of the Crocus center terrorists who were bloodied and damaged goods when shown before cameras after their apprehension, the Uzbek murderer of the general seemed not to have a scratch on him. How well he fares under interrogation remains to be seen. More interesting, of course, is what actions against Kiev the Kremlin will now order in retaliation for this atrocity in a residential neighborhood of Moscow.
The Azerbaijani President Reaffirmed His Country’s Alliance With Russia
Andrew Korybko
Dec 19, 2024
Ilham Aliyev is one of Eurasia’s most visionary leaders and Azerbaijan is playing an increasingly important role in the emerging Multipolar World Order.
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev reaffirmed his country’s alliance with Russia in the extended interview that he gave to Rossiya Segodnya chief Dmitry Kiselyov earlier this week that can be read in full here. It’s extremely detailed so the present piece will summarize the insight that he shared for convenience. Aliyev began by praising the Declaration on Allied Interaction between Azerbaijan and Russia that he agreed to with Putin on 22 February 2022 as an historic event in their relations.
He appreciated Putin’s state visit over the summer and noted how their trade is rising, Russian visits to Azerbaijan have been restored to their pre-COVID levels, and there are now twice as many flights as during the Soviet era. Aliyev hopes that there won’t be a hot war between NATO and Russia, which would be apocalyptic, and expressed optimism that Trump will make positive changes to US foreign policy. Azerbaijan can also help facilitate a détente between Russia and the US if both are interested.
Aliyev reminded Kiselyov about how Azerbaijan is independent of East and West, has the unique status of being allied with both Russia and NATO-member Turkiye, and previously hosted meetings between top Russian, US, and NATO military officials, which wasn’t by chance since it’s equally trusted by them. In response to being asked about reports that Azerbaijan will host a Turkish base, he said that such isn’t needed since their 2021 Declaration on Allied Relations already includes a mutual defense clause.
Azerbaijan plans to buy new Russian arms, but there haven’t been any new contracts lately since Russia’s military-industrial complex is prioritizing domestic demand. The deadline for implementing prior contracts was also pushed back at Russia’s request, which he said has temporarily withdrawn from the international arms market for obvious reasons, but he expects Azerbaijan to make new requests for some of the new arms that Russia has developed. That’ll lead to the resumption of military cooperation.
On the topic of military interests, Aliyev said that Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s recent claim about his country’s relations with the CSTO having reached the point of no return is a direct threat to Azerbaijan, the concerns of which he conveyed to the US and France. The US changed its balanced approach to the region under the Biden Administration to one of unilaterally supporting Armenia. Aliyev also described the State Department as Armenia’s patron and Soros’ people in DC as its sponsors.
France, India, and the US are sending lethal arms to Armenia, but only the first two admit it, though Azerbaijan tracked American military transport planes and thus has evidence of these transfers. Aliyev would prefer to spend his state’s funds on reconstructing Karabakh and on social payments but is compelled to have a record $5 billion military budget this year due to these newfound threats. He warned that Armenia cannot possibly win the arms race that it’s provoking in the region.
This is in spite of Armenia receiving its latest equipment either for free or with loans that can later be written off. The US and France won’t help it if there’s another ground provocation, which is why Armenia would do well to agree to a peace treaty with Azerbaijan. About that, Aliyev said that Armenia’s discussions about peace and its simultaneous arming by the West are incompatible courses. It also needs to agree to two outstanding issues with Azerbaijan in order for a peace treaty to be signed.
These are refraining from filing international lawsuits against one another and not deploying representatives from other countries along their mutual border. NATO infrastructure has clandestinely been created in Armenia under the cover of EU observers, according to Aliyev, with the EU mission seamlessly turning into a NATO one through Canada’s involvement. Armenia must also amend its constitution to remove the reference to its Declaration of Independence that makes claims to Azerbaijan.
The OSCE Minsk Group must be abolished too since it’s no longer necessary. The fact that Armenia refuses to comply with any of Azerbaijan’s preceding requirements for peace suggests that the revanchists’ plans are quite serious in Aliyev’s words and justifies his country’s record military spending. Moving along, Aliyev then answered Kiselyov’s question about Karabakh’s remaining Armenian community, which he said numbers just approximately 20 people.
They were all informed ahead of September 2023’s one-day anti-terrorist operation of the state’s plans to reintegrate them into its fold, which included granting them equal rights and social assistance, yet their self-appointed public representatives ignored this. The innuendo is that more might have stayed had they not been misled by others into fearing for the worst and distrusting the authorities. Aliyev then brought up how Armenia deported around 300,000 Azeris in the 1980s and 1990s.
This involuntary diaspora community has officially applied to the Armenian leadership requesting conditions for their return and reintegration but have yet to receive a response. Aliyev suggested that each side’s associated policies follow a parallel course and expressed regret that Armenia isn’t interested in reciprocating the policies that Azerbaijan has promulgated for that country’s community. In any case, Karabakh’s reconstruction continues apace, and Russian companies are also participating in this.
The Governor of Astrakhan Region is involved in the construction of a kindergarten there, while other Russian companies already supply goods and services for other reconstruction projects. Aliyev hopes that more will get involved since their infrastructure expertise in building roads, tunnels, and bridges is much-needed in Karabakh. There are also investment opportunities there too as proven by Tatarstan building a KAMAZ service center in the region.
Switching gears, Kiselyov then asked Aliyev about Azerbaijan’s energy strategy, to which the latter responded by highlighting its enormous fossil fuel deposits but also emphasizing its recent investments in wind and solar energy. It won’t rule out nuclear power plants, which Russia could help Azerbaijan construct, but still needs to look into it some more. Aliyev also passionately denied that his country is a petro-state after being smeared as such by the Western media ahead of hosting COP29 last month.
The US produces almost a billion tons of oil compared to Azerbaijan’s 30 million, yet nobody describes it as such. Canada also produces ten times as much Azerbaijan does, which is why it was hypocritical for its representatives to smear Azerbaijan as a petro-state. These attacks and others come from what Aliyev described as the “lying four”: the Washington Post, the New York Times, Figaro, and Le Monde. Their daily smear campaign against Azerbaijan is also aided by the State Department and allied NGOs.
The inclusion of two French outlets on this list isn’t coincidental since Macron has prioritized attacks against Azerbaijan all throughout his presidency, thus prompting Azerbaijan to retaliate by drawing global attention to French neocolonialism. Their two nations used to be so close that Aliyev’s father’s first foreign trip was to France as was his own after entering office, but that’s all in the past now after France sided with the occupiers during the Second Karabakh War.
France even went as far as trying to get the UNSC to pass five resolutions against Azerbaijan, and after failing, it then turned to the EU to sanction Azerbaijan simply for protecting its sovereignty. This unprovoked aggression against Azerbaijan distracts from France’s merciless exploitation of its colonies’ resources as well as the rampant poverty and political unrest in these imperial-era holdovers like New Caledonia and Mayotte among others.
Aliyev accordingly described Macron’s government as a dictatorship and regime due to France’s terrible treatment of its colonies. He also mentioned how the Corsican language is banned, thus discrediting France’s claims of supporting human rights and democracy in the South Caucasus when it won’t even do so inside of Europe itself. On the foreign policy front, Aliyev mentioned that Macron is turning France into a failed state after its spree of failed policies in the Sahel, Lebanon, Azerbaijan, and Georgia.
The French leader also suffered a devastating defeat during summer’s EU Parliamentary elections and Moody’s continues downgrading his country month after month due to its enormous external debt. Aliyev’s reference to Georgia segued into some comments about that country’s political crisis, which he said is due to foreign NGOs, adding that the Biden Administration’s obtrusiveness is also to blame. Unlike Azerbaijan, Georgia waited too long to address these problems, and it’s now paying the price.
What’s happening there right now is part of what Aliyev described as a “Battle for the Caucasus”. In his view, Armenia has already chosen its side, but hasn’t de jure withdrawn from the CSTO because the State Department won’t yet give the go-ahead. Azerbaijan is fully independent and neutral, while Georgia’s geopolitical fate is presently being determined. Reading between the lines, Aliyev clearly prefers for the West to be defeated in Georgia.
Wrapping everything up, the Azerbaijani leader confirmed that there have never been nor ever will be any restrictions on the Russian language in his country, and he in fact even wants to expand its use. There are already 320 schools teaching Russian, the most in the South Caucasus by far, and he hopes that more will soon open. Knowledge of Russian provides Azerbaijanis with a window into its science and literature, facilitates their communication within the CIS, and makes the Russian minority comfortable.
Aliyev also said that he’ll never allow Azerbaijan to become a nest of subversive emigrant activities aimed against Russia, something that Putin no doubt deeply appreciates. About Putin, Aliyev said that they and their people are brought together due to their commitment to national roots and traditional values, something that they also share with Trump. They all want to reverse socio-cultural trends that harm humanity and end this debauchery. These were optimistic words on which to end the interview.
Reflecting on everything that he shared, there’s no doubt that Aliyev is one of Eurasia’s most visionary leaders and Azerbaijan is playing an increasingly important role in the emerging Multipolar World Order. He’s mastered the art of geopolitical balancing and remains committed to his people’s comprehensive development, especially in the economic and socio-cultural domains. Many leaders across the Global South can learn from him and he’s more than willing to help those who are interested.