In case anyone wants to know, this apparently is from Southfront.
A good interview is a conversation. And yes, telling me that the Saker is one of the participants of a conversation is enough to get me interested. But, it is useful to know who is on the other side of the conversation.
Message to the moderators: I propose you repost this interview when it has been concluded. I had trouble logging into it, and now I am listening only to it’s final parts.
It will be available in its entirety when finished – mod
Listening to the interview was equally educating and enjoyable — a work very well done. A big thank you to Saker and his colleagues.
A minor point of contention about the Ukraine: Saker suggests that the US didn’t really have a clear goal there. That might have been true 10 – 15 years ago, but is absolutely contrafactual as far as the 5 last years are concerned. Each and every one of the imbeciles and Bandera Nazi apes — Klichko, Lyashko, Tyagnibok, Poroshenko, etc. — had been recruited for one crucial assignment in particular which all of them utterly failed to accomplish: Evict the Russian Navy from Crimea, kill off or force the Russian population there to flee so as to turn the entire place into a giant NATO compound. The occupation and genocide perpetrated against the inhabitants of Diego Garcia in the 1960s by the Anglo-American Military-Industrial Complex would be the template for the Ukronazis to follow with gusto.
Bottom line: The Ukronazis’ Crimean fiasco really sealed the fate of Ukraine forever. Had they succeeded, the Abomi-Nation of Ukraine wouldn’t be today’s fascist basket case greeted by well-deserved contempt and ridicule everywhere — it would be the harbinger of truly pitch-black fascist reaction in general and very explicit, genocidal Russophobia in particular, backed up to the hilt by the collective West.
Again: The interview was a very rewarding piece for the listener — hats off.
Excellent interview, as always. However, I am slightly surprised that The Saker has stated that the intent of the West was to create a crisis situation in the Donbass, so that Russia could be provoked for an overt attack against Ukraine. Surely the intent of NATO was to have the Donbass placed under Ukrainian control, so that NATO missile systems could be placed next to Russias borders. By creating a crisis situation in the Donbass, a buffer zone between Russia and Ukraine was in fact created. Worse, the Donbass is now an inspiration for other Russian inhabited regions of Ukraine.
As for an attack against Donbass, I dont think it is inevitable, although a strong possibility certainly exists. I think NATO is more concerned about repercussions than Poroshenko the ‘Chocolate King’, who has already sold his assets in the country. Yes, he would like to be President again. However, he knows he cannot win the elections. He also knows what can happen if he attacks, as does NATO: a Maidan in reverse, and a complete defeat of the demoralized Ukrainian Army, which is seeing mass desertions. Also, attacking in the winter would make no sense, as any attack would be slowed down. It would further demoralize the Ukrainian conscripts, who have no desire to fight in the first place. I think that a no win situation has been created, and it may well last on a permanent basis until Ukraine implodes financially and ethnically. But then again, we shall see what NATO has decided.
Ukraine can already place missiles on Russia’s borders. Donbas is the southeast corner of the nation that was formerly known as Ukraine. From some point a bit north of Luganskl, Ukraine has a long, direct border with Russia. I remember laughing at pictures of a chain link fence that was supposed to be a section of their mighty border wall.
Donbas isn’t all that big, and many missiles have long ranges. Thus, even if a particular missile had to be backed up to behind the cease-fire line between Ukraine and Donbas, that may not matter a whole lot.
The one practical thing thing that keeping Ukraine from placing NATO missiles in Donbas does gain is to keep short-range anti-air missiles and short range surface to surface missiles away from the city of Rostov. Not having terrorists with surface to air or surface to surface missiles on the other side of the river from a city is a good thing, but its not a great something that allows NATO to declare CheckMate!
Sevastapol was indeed the prize that the American neocons had their sights upon. Frankly though, I thought it was funny that they could even imagine Russia just giving up Sevastapol because of some street thugs in Kiev staging a coup. It always seemed obvious that such thing was never going to happen.
”Frankly though, I thought it was funny that they could even imagine Russia just giving up Sevastapol because of some street thugs in Kiev staging a coup. It always seemed obvious that such thing was never going to happen.”
Actually, it could have succeeded with a sufficient number of committed traitors in sufficient high places in Russia proper. If the Ukronazis didn’t think it was even necessary to check the prevalent political spine of ’the filthy Moskals’, then yes — a clear case of wishful thinking all along the line.
Mahan
Yes, Ukraine does indeed have a border with Russia, Donbass excluded. However, the point is that it does not have the entire border. What’s the point of placing missile systems along the Russian border when these very same missile systems can be outflanked from the Donbass.
Surely the intent of NATO was to have the Donbass placed under Ukrainian control, so that NATO missile systems could be placed next to Russias borders.
Nope. NATO missiles can reach Russia without being deployed in the Donbass. Furthermore, even if the Ukronazis reconquer the Donbass, they would be dealing with a neverending insurgency. In fact, neither NATO nor Kiev want/need the Donbass (well, the Ukronazi regime would like to get the Donbass, but without its population, which ain’t happening). No, the only value of the Donbass is as a bait to force Russia into an intervention.
Sick? Yes, but so typical of the Empire…
Cheers,
The Saker
The Saker
Yes, NATO missile systems can indeed reach Russia without being placed in the Donbass. However, the point is that the closer these missile systems are to the Russian border, the less time they will need to reach their targets, thus giving NATO an advantage.
I, of course, agree with you that the Empire wants Russia to intervene in the Donbass. However, as I have written before, NATO did not do it’s homework properly when it comes to Ukraine’s history. The only troops Poroshenko and NATO can rely on are, perhaps, the neo-Nazi thugs from western Ukraine, the former Galicia. Even their combat efficiency is debatable, as they would probably prefer to butcher civilians instead of fighting. The bulk of the Ukrainian conscripts do not wish to fight, and you do not fight a war with that kind of material. Instead of provoking Russia into a war, NATO ended up getting a buffer zone between Russia and Ukraine, and one that is an inspiration to other Russian spreaking regions of Ukraine.
Yes, absolutely correct The Saker. And echoing Mahan above, “Sevastapol was indeed the prize that the American neocons had their sights upon.”
Overt Russian intervention in the Donbass would provide the pretext for the Empire to adopt the poor defenceless victim, Ukraine, as a full-fledged Nato member. The Ukraine-RF conflict would be a ‘just cause’ for Nato then to put troops there and to make a move on the Crimea, specifically Sevastopol, seeing that the Black Sea Fleet is the only RF naval force that can reach the Med in double quick time (provided Turkey plays ball) and threaten Europe’s underbelly. Nato will also not miss the opportunity provided by the RF intervention to convince the somewhat recalcitrant significant partners in the Coalition of the Willing, namely Germany and maybe the French, to jump on the Ukraine bandwagon. And I might add that as usual, of course, the Ukrainians will do the dying.
In that kind of scenario I won’t be surprised if well-trained and well-armed Ukrainian ‘freedom fighters’ were suddenly to pop up to stir trouble in the Crimea — their main job would be to disrupt RF naval operations out of Sevastopol.
After the disappointment of the Kerch affair, the war-mongering criminals in the Empire would be delirious with joy should the RF openly intervene in the Donbass.
”In that kind of scenario I won’t be surprised if well-trained and well-armed Ukrainian ‘freedom fighters’ were suddenly to pop up to stir trouble in the Crimea — their main job would be to disrupt RF naval operations out of Sevastopol.”
Thus far, what passes for Ukro ”freedom fighters” looks very much like their Syrian counterparts: rabid zombies, only substituting their Ukro agit-prop for the Wahhabi noises of the IS. If given the chance, they would ecstatically slaughter — in Breivik fashion — defenceless civilians to avenge their manifest worthlessness, but even that doesn’t win wars nowadays, unless you find your reward in the very carnage itself.
Amusingly, despite the fact that the title reads ”Interview with The Saker. Russian-Israeli relations and the conflict in Syria”, no comment has so far opined on anything but Ukraine. Looking at Syria, the given similarity to Ukraine is, of course, the application of Western state terrorism and ditto rampant lawlessness, initially with the aim of ousting the lawful Syrian government (Ba’ath / Bashar al-Assad). But, unlike in Ukraine, there was no fertile soil in Syria to cultivate for rabble-rousing; to promote a foreign take-over. So in Syria’s case, the West had to resort to foreigners all along the line: Turks and assorted Takfiri slobs from literally everywhere. In Ukraine, this kind of people was available in abundance already.
But neither in Syria, nor in the Ukraine can we possibly speak of the West’s paid mercenaries as ”well-trained and well-armed freedom fighters” (the silly ’freedom fighters’ meme not being the point here). The terminally rotting West just doesn’t spawn this kind of soldiery, if it ever did. So what we see in both Syria and Ukraine are rabid zombies itching to kill.
Bottom line: The setbacks for imperialism in Syria make the prospects for Maidanite Ukraine look appreciably weaker and bleaker. And the setbacks for imperialism in the Ukraine spell additional doom for the ISIS cesspit in Syria.
Very informative interview and comments. There’s one point of view that I would like to add. I have thought, from the beginning, that the US pull-out from the INF treaty is mainly a threat meant for Europe – US is officially elevating the danger level of nuclear threat in Europe as a punishment. The EU has been openly pursuing a path toward Eurasian integration in the financial and energy matters. They are actually ready to be independent of the SWIFT if the situation calls for it. They have announced it. This is a huge defiance against the US hegemony. The US doesn’t like that at all. The US didn’t have to announce the pull-out – they ignore treaties and do whatever they want to all the time without saying so. So, I think that the pull-out is mainly a message to Europe.
Video for the deaf?
OK, time for a pet peeve!
I can watch mouths flap, but unless the video has scrolling words, I have NOT a clue what is being said.
I suspect I might not be the only one?
No chance to view. Blocked ?
Has not started at time of your post. – mod
I would suggest go directly to youtube … here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFOWBfAJPx4
Interview has not started yet … 5 minutes or so
Seems to work now.
But the active video starts at 5:29. Earlier video is silent.
In case anyone wants to know, this apparently is from Southfront.
A good interview is a conversation. And yes, telling me that the Saker is one of the participants of a conversation is enough to get me interested. But, it is useful to know who is on the other side of the conversation.
OK, interview has started
Message to the moderators: I propose you repost this interview when it has been concluded. I had trouble logging into it, and now I am listening only to it’s final parts.
It will be available in its entirety when finished – mod
Listening to the interview was equally educating and enjoyable — a work very well done. A big thank you to Saker and his colleagues.
A minor point of contention about the Ukraine: Saker suggests that the US didn’t really have a clear goal there. That might have been true 10 – 15 years ago, but is absolutely contrafactual as far as the 5 last years are concerned. Each and every one of the imbeciles and Bandera Nazi apes — Klichko, Lyashko, Tyagnibok, Poroshenko, etc. — had been recruited for one crucial assignment in particular which all of them utterly failed to accomplish: Evict the Russian Navy from Crimea, kill off or force the Russian population there to flee so as to turn the entire place into a giant NATO compound. The occupation and genocide perpetrated against the inhabitants of Diego Garcia in the 1960s by the Anglo-American Military-Industrial Complex would be the template for the Ukronazis to follow with gusto.
Bottom line: The Ukronazis’ Crimean fiasco really sealed the fate of Ukraine forever. Had they succeeded, the Abomi-Nation of Ukraine wouldn’t be today’s fascist basket case greeted by well-deserved contempt and ridicule everywhere — it would be the harbinger of truly pitch-black fascist reaction in general and very explicit, genocidal Russophobia in particular, backed up to the hilt by the collective West.
Again: The interview was a very rewarding piece for the listener — hats off.
Excellent interview, as always. However, I am slightly surprised that The Saker has stated that the intent of the West was to create a crisis situation in the Donbass, so that Russia could be provoked for an overt attack against Ukraine. Surely the intent of NATO was to have the Donbass placed under Ukrainian control, so that NATO missile systems could be placed next to Russias borders. By creating a crisis situation in the Donbass, a buffer zone between Russia and Ukraine was in fact created. Worse, the Donbass is now an inspiration for other Russian inhabited regions of Ukraine.
As for an attack against Donbass, I dont think it is inevitable, although a strong possibility certainly exists. I think NATO is more concerned about repercussions than Poroshenko the ‘Chocolate King’, who has already sold his assets in the country. Yes, he would like to be President again. However, he knows he cannot win the elections. He also knows what can happen if he attacks, as does NATO: a Maidan in reverse, and a complete defeat of the demoralized Ukrainian Army, which is seeing mass desertions. Also, attacking in the winter would make no sense, as any attack would be slowed down. It would further demoralize the Ukrainian conscripts, who have no desire to fight in the first place. I think that a no win situation has been created, and it may well last on a permanent basis until Ukraine implodes financially and ethnically. But then again, we shall see what NATO has decided.
Ukraine can already place missiles on Russia’s borders. Donbas is the southeast corner of the nation that was formerly known as Ukraine. From some point a bit north of Luganskl, Ukraine has a long, direct border with Russia. I remember laughing at pictures of a chain link fence that was supposed to be a section of their mighty border wall.
Donbas isn’t all that big, and many missiles have long ranges. Thus, even if a particular missile had to be backed up to behind the cease-fire line between Ukraine and Donbas, that may not matter a whole lot.
The one practical thing thing that keeping Ukraine from placing NATO missiles in Donbas does gain is to keep short-range anti-air missiles and short range surface to surface missiles away from the city of Rostov. Not having terrorists with surface to air or surface to surface missiles on the other side of the river from a city is a good thing, but its not a great something that allows NATO to declare CheckMate!
Sevastapol was indeed the prize that the American neocons had their sights upon. Frankly though, I thought it was funny that they could even imagine Russia just giving up Sevastapol because of some street thugs in Kiev staging a coup. It always seemed obvious that such thing was never going to happen.
”Frankly though, I thought it was funny that they could even imagine Russia just giving up Sevastapol because of some street thugs in Kiev staging a coup. It always seemed obvious that such thing was never going to happen.”
Actually, it could have succeeded with a sufficient number of committed traitors in sufficient high places in Russia proper. If the Ukronazis didn’t think it was even necessary to check the prevalent political spine of ’the filthy Moskals’, then yes — a clear case of wishful thinking all along the line.
Mahan
Yes, Ukraine does indeed have a border with Russia, Donbass excluded. However, the point is that it does not have the entire border. What’s the point of placing missile systems along the Russian border when these very same missile systems can be outflanked from the Donbass.
Surely the intent of NATO was to have the Donbass placed under Ukrainian control, so that NATO missile systems could be placed next to Russias borders.
Nope. NATO missiles can reach Russia without being deployed in the Donbass. Furthermore, even if the Ukronazis reconquer the Donbass, they would be dealing with a neverending insurgency. In fact, neither NATO nor Kiev want/need the Donbass (well, the Ukronazi regime would like to get the Donbass, but without its population, which ain’t happening). No, the only value of the Donbass is as a bait to force Russia into an intervention.
Sick? Yes, but so typical of the Empire…
Cheers,
The Saker
The Saker
Yes, NATO missile systems can indeed reach Russia without being placed in the Donbass. However, the point is that the closer these missile systems are to the Russian border, the less time they will need to reach their targets, thus giving NATO an advantage.
I, of course, agree with you that the Empire wants Russia to intervene in the Donbass. However, as I have written before, NATO did not do it’s homework properly when it comes to Ukraine’s history. The only troops Poroshenko and NATO can rely on are, perhaps, the neo-Nazi thugs from western Ukraine, the former Galicia. Even their combat efficiency is debatable, as they would probably prefer to butcher civilians instead of fighting. The bulk of the Ukrainian conscripts do not wish to fight, and you do not fight a war with that kind of material. Instead of provoking Russia into a war, NATO ended up getting a buffer zone between Russia and Ukraine, and one that is an inspiration to other Russian spreaking regions of Ukraine.
Yes, absolutely correct The Saker. And echoing Mahan above, “Sevastapol was indeed the prize that the American neocons had their sights upon.”
Overt Russian intervention in the Donbass would provide the pretext for the Empire to adopt the poor defenceless victim, Ukraine, as a full-fledged Nato member. The Ukraine-RF conflict would be a ‘just cause’ for Nato then to put troops there and to make a move on the Crimea, specifically Sevastopol, seeing that the Black Sea Fleet is the only RF naval force that can reach the Med in double quick time (provided Turkey plays ball) and threaten Europe’s underbelly. Nato will also not miss the opportunity provided by the RF intervention to convince the somewhat recalcitrant significant partners in the Coalition of the Willing, namely Germany and maybe the French, to jump on the Ukraine bandwagon. And I might add that as usual, of course, the Ukrainians will do the dying.
In that kind of scenario I won’t be surprised if well-trained and well-armed Ukrainian ‘freedom fighters’ were suddenly to pop up to stir trouble in the Crimea — their main job would be to disrupt RF naval operations out of Sevastopol.
After the disappointment of the Kerch affair, the war-mongering criminals in the Empire would be delirious with joy should the RF openly intervene in the Donbass.
Basil
”In that kind of scenario I won’t be surprised if well-trained and well-armed Ukrainian ‘freedom fighters’ were suddenly to pop up to stir trouble in the Crimea — their main job would be to disrupt RF naval operations out of Sevastopol.”
Thus far, what passes for Ukro ”freedom fighters” looks very much like their Syrian counterparts: rabid zombies, only substituting their Ukro agit-prop for the Wahhabi noises of the IS. If given the chance, they would ecstatically slaughter — in Breivik fashion — defenceless civilians to avenge their manifest worthlessness, but even that doesn’t win wars nowadays, unless you find your reward in the very carnage itself.
Amusingly, despite the fact that the title reads ”Interview with The Saker. Russian-Israeli relations and the conflict in Syria”, no comment has so far opined on anything but Ukraine. Looking at Syria, the given similarity to Ukraine is, of course, the application of Western state terrorism and ditto rampant lawlessness, initially with the aim of ousting the lawful Syrian government (Ba’ath / Bashar al-Assad). But, unlike in Ukraine, there was no fertile soil in Syria to cultivate for rabble-rousing; to promote a foreign take-over. So in Syria’s case, the West had to resort to foreigners all along the line: Turks and assorted Takfiri slobs from literally everywhere. In Ukraine, this kind of people was available in abundance already.
But neither in Syria, nor in the Ukraine can we possibly speak of the West’s paid mercenaries as ”well-trained and well-armed freedom fighters” (the silly ’freedom fighters’ meme not being the point here). The terminally rotting West just doesn’t spawn this kind of soldiery, if it ever did. So what we see in both Syria and Ukraine are rabid zombies itching to kill.
Bottom line: The setbacks for imperialism in Syria make the prospects for Maidanite Ukraine look appreciably weaker and bleaker. And the setbacks for imperialism in the Ukraine spell additional doom for the ISIS cesspit in Syria.
American – Russian – Jewish relation
Trump’s Ties to Russia – Part 1- From Watergate to Russiagate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAaj9tEgga4&t=70s
Trump’s Ties to Russia – Part 2 – The Russian Mafia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Mt9iXp8Qoo
Putin gave Israel one, just one chance to mess with him….And no more.
https://southfront.org/new-rules-of-engagement-between-syria-and-israel-as-russia-changes-its-position/
Very informative interview and comments. There’s one point of view that I would like to add. I have thought, from the beginning, that the US pull-out from the INF treaty is mainly a threat meant for Europe – US is officially elevating the danger level of nuclear threat in Europe as a punishment. The EU has been openly pursuing a path toward Eurasian integration in the financial and energy matters. They are actually ready to be independent of the SWIFT if the situation calls for it. They have announced it. This is a huge defiance against the US hegemony. The US doesn’t like that at all. The US didn’t have to announce the pull-out – they ignore treaties and do whatever they want to all the time without saying so. So, I think that the pull-out is mainly a message to Europe.
After the Saker s request I sent some amount to help the survival of Sothfront. Hope more follow.
Video for the deaf?
OK, time for a pet peeve!
I can watch mouths flap, but unless the video has scrolling words, I have NOT a clue what is being said.
I suspect I might not be the only one?
sound starts at 05:28 …mod
Me too. I am hard of hearing, I need to see the print.