Press TV, Iran: A six minute summary of Vladimir Putin’s warning to NATO and its consequences
For those who want a recapitulation of the warning given in St Petersburg on Thursday and its consequences in Washington on Friday, here is a six minute summary which I provided to Iran’s English-language global broadcaster Press TV yesterday:
https://www.urmedium.net/c/presstv/130785
Transcription of the interview below submitted by a reader
Transcription below by a reader
PressTV: 0:00
Well, we're now joined by independent international affairs analyst Gilbert Doctorow, who's joining us from Brussels. Mr. Doctorow, welcome to the program. First of all, walk us through Russia's warning yet again to the US and its NATO allies at this point. And what are you expecting? What kind of a response are you expecting to see from Moscow?
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 0:24
Moscow issued its warning, or to be precise, President Putin put together remarks that had appeared in the last several weeks made by his subordinates. Now, it was he who took charge of this, when he was in St. Petersburg for several meetings on Thursday and gave an interview to one of state television's leading hosts, one on a program that's called "Moscow, Kremlin, Putin."
In this five-minute question-answer, he said very calmly, very cogently, and without any sense of emotion, what Russia's position is on the possible US and NATO permission for use of long-range precision missiles supplied by the West to Ukraine in Ukraine's war, the intention of Zelensky being to use these for long-range strikes inside the interior, central Russia.
1:32
What Mr. Putin said was first explaining what we've heard in the past. The Russian position is that it is not an issue of permission, it is an issue of actual operation of those missiles by NATO countries that supplied them, which makes them co-belligions, or makes them clearly waging a war on Russia, if this practice is made the open policy of the United States and its allies. I say if it's made the open policy, because de facto the missiles that are in question right now, the American-made ATACMSs and the British-made Storm Shadow, have in fact been used by Ukraine to strike within Russian borders.
2:19
They struck in Crimea, which Russia considers to be its own, and they have struck in areas near the border between Ukraine and the Russian Federation over the past several months. Both of these missiles are well known now to Russians, who have successfully destroyed them, either by interception or by electronic warfare means. Nonetheless, they pose a significant threat. You never can have 100% air defense.
And if, for example, Storm Shadow were directed at the Kerch Bridge-- which is entirely thinkable, since the British are behind this and the British have been seeking to destroy that symbolic and enormous investment of Russian Federation in a bridge that connects mainland Russia to the Crimean Peninsula-- if that were to happen, then it would have a devastating effect on Russian morale, Russian self-confidence, and on the Russian public, who would question the ability of the government to defend them.
3:25
So there is in question here not so much a military impact of the given weapon systems, but an attempt to destabilize the country's political system, which from the very beginning of the conflict between Russia and the West over Ukraine has been about that. The intention of the United States and its allies to deal a humiliating defeat on Russia has, as is always the case in such defeats, a political impact to create instability and overthrow an existing government.
4:01
Now, Mr. Putin said not only that these missiles were going to be controlled by the NATO suppliers, because the Ukraine has no ability to maintain them, to target them on its own, and is dependent on reconnaissance from satellites supplied by the United States and its allies, and on technicians on the ground in Ukraine, who actually do everything except push the button for them to be fired. That is point one.
4:34
Point two is that Russia considers this to mean that the suppliers of these missiles are de facto co-belligerents, that they are engaging in a war on Russia and that Russia must take steps accordingly, depending on the level of threat that it perceives by these strikes. Now this is a very clear message. to Britain, who are foremost in proposing that their storm shadow be available to Ukraine for striking anywhere in the heartland of Russia, and to the United States for its ATACMSs, which, as I say, have already been used and could potentially be used in the same way, to attack 500 kilometers into the Russian Federation.
5:27
The impact of this in the West was immediate, although you will not know that from any statement by the US government and from mainstream media. who will in no way, shape or form admit that Mr. Putin could be taken seriously by their leadership, de facto he was. The first thing that happened within hours of Mr. Putin's demarche is that the White House-- ahead of the arrival of the British prime minister, Keir Starmer, to discuss precisely this question of missiles to Ukraine-- the White House stated that there is no change in policy. which is not allowing use of its weapons in Ukraine for striking the interior.
PressTV: 6:21
Right. Thanks a lot. Independent international affairs
analyst Gilbert Doctorow, joining us from Brussels.