Tucker Carlson Interviews Vladimir Putin

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin gives interview to American journalist Tucker Carlson, February 6, 2023. © Sputnik / Gavriil Grigorov

Source: RT

Ukraine conflict, fallout of NATO expansion, relations with US: Key takeaways from Putin’s interview with Tucker Carlson.

The Russian leader spoke on a variety of burning topics in the much-anticipated interview, focusing on the Ukraine conflict.

Conservative American journalist Tucker Carlson has released a much-anticipated interview that he conducted with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin on Tuesday.

The interview mainly centered on the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

In a video on X on Tuesday (See Video Below), Carlson claimed that Western media outlets “lie to their readers and viewers” by promoting Kiev’s position while downplaying Russia’s. “That’s wrong. Americans have the right to know all they can about a war they are implicated in,” he said.

The more than two-hour-long interview has garnered more than 46 million views on Carlson’s X account and just under a million views on YouTube in the first hours since its release. Here are the key takeaways:

[01] Ukraine ‘started the war in 2014. Our goal is to stop this war’ – Putin

Moscow did not start the war in 2022, but is trying to stop the war that Ukraine started in 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin said.

Putin announced the military operation in Ukraine on February 24, 2022, following eight years of Kiev’s suppression of the Donbass population.

Commenting on the 2014 and 2015 Minsk agreements that sought to end the hostilities in Donbass, Putin said he sincerely believed that the crisis in the region could have been settled if the local population had been convinced to return to Ukraine, and if Kiev agreed to fulfil its social welfare commitments. Policymakers in Kiev, however, wanted to quell the uprising by force, he added.

Russia and Ukraine were close to ending the hostilities in the early days of the conflict, Putin said. However, once Moscow pulled its troops away from the area near the Ukrainian capital in the spring of 2022, Kiev ditched all diplomacy, caving in to Western pressure to fight Moscow until the very end, according to the president.

[02] ‘Just threat mongering’ – Putin on claims that Russia wants to attack NATO

Russia would only engage in a military conflict with a NATO nation such as Poland or Latvia if it is attacked, Putin said. Any Western claims to the contrary are “just threat mongering.”

Speculation that Russia would use nuclear weapons against Ukraine or cause some kind of escalation of the conflict are “just horror stories for people in the street in order to extort additional money from US taxpayers and European taxpayers in the confrontation with Russia,” he claimed.

[03] ‘Unlike the US, Russia is not afraid of China’

Unlike the US, Russia is not afraid of the rise of China, Putin said, calling Carlson’s suggestion that BRICS risks being “completely dominated by the Chinese economy” a “boogeyman story.”

He went on to say that Beijing’s foreign policy is aimed at finding compromises, not aggression, adding that Russia has created balanced trade turnover with China.

[04] ‘If you want an end to the conflict, stop sending arms to Ukraine’

If the US wants to stop the Ukraine conflict, it should stop sending arms to Kiev, Putin said, adding that if this happened, the hostilities would end within weeks.

Putin went on to say it was “ridiculous and very sad” that Kiev listened to then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and refused to sign a draft truce with Russia that was agreed on during peace talks in 2022. The conflict continues on to this day, while Johnson himself is no longer in office, he noted.

[05] Relations with the West

Putin said Russia accepted the collapse of the Soviet Union and expected that once all ideological differences were eliminated, it could engage in cooperation with the West.

But this never happened, and the US and its “satellites” supported separatism and terrorism in the northern Caucasus in the 1990s by providing political, informational, financial, and military support to insurgents. The West was also involved in the coup d’etat in Ukraine in 2014.

[06] Putin on NATO expansion

NATO promised that it would not expand its territory eastwards, but quickly broke this promise by bringing all of Eastern Europe and Baltic states into the fold, Putin said. The US-led military bloc now intends to drag Ukraine in, he added.

Putin called the West’s approach to Ukraine a colossal political mistake, pointing to NATO’s 2008 promise to accept the country into the bloc, as well as the Western-supported coup d’etat in Kiev in 2014. The new Ukrainian government’s campaign to persecute those who opposed the coup was a threat to Crimea, forcing Moscow to take the region under its own protection, he added.

Putin noted that he had asked former US President Bill Clinton about whether Russia could join NATO, but Clinton said it would not be possible. If, however, the US leader had said yes, it would have ushered in a period of rapprochement between Moscow and the military alliance, Putin stated.

[07] ‘Who blew up Nord Stream?’ – Carlson to Putin

Asked by Carlson who he believes blew up the Nord Stream gas pipelines linking Russia and Germany through the Baltic Sea, Putin replied: “You,” referring to the US and its allies. When pressed whether he has any proof of CIA or NATO involvement, the Russian leader said that in cases like this, one should first look for those who would benefit from the attacks, and who had the capability to carry them out.

[08] Elon Musk ‘cannot be stopped’ – Putin

Billionaire Elon Musk, who is pushing forward technical progress, including by implanting a neurochip into a human brain, “cannot be stopped,” Putin said, adding that agreements and regulations on this technology should be reached. The president compared recent achievements in artificial intelligence and genetics to the development of nuclear weapons in the 20th century, explaining that when nations across the world started to sense the danger, they forged agreements to regulate the new technology.

[09] Putin does not rule out the release of Gershkovich

Asked whether Moscow is prepared to release US journalist Evan Gershkovich (who was arrested on espionage charges in Russia last year) as a gesture of goodwill, Putin said that Russia has been prepared to work with the West, but this has not been reciprocated. However, Putin did not rule out the release of Gershkovich, adding that this would require flexibility from Western intelligence services.

[10] ‘The US-led West’ will always support those who antagonize Russia – Putin on Zelensky

Zelensky was elected president on a platform of peace, but allied himself with “neo-Nazis and nationalists” after taking office, Putin said. He gave two reasons for this.

The first is that people like this are “aggressive and… you can expect anything from them,” and the second is that “the US-led West supports them and will always support those who antagonize Russia.” It was “beneficial and safe” for Zelensky, but obviously betrayed the promises he made to voters, Putin said, adding: After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine went on a quest to find its national identity, but found no better option other than promoting “false heroes” who collaborated with the Nazis during WWII.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Video Exclusive: Tucker Carlson Interviews Vladimir Putin

Video Source: Tucker Carlson

President Assad Interviewed by Dennis Kucinich & Fox News Sept 17, 2013

President Al-Assad's interview with Dennis Kucinich, former U.S. Congressman & Greg Palkot, senior foreign affairs correspondence, Fox News - 17 September 2013.

Exclusive interview with Bashar al-Assad of Syria (Video & Print)

Assad: Erdogan thinks he's Caliph, new sultan of the Ottoman (EXCLUSIVE)

Assad: Not a civil war, terrorism my enemy, no regrets for now (EXCLUSIVE

Source: Russia Today

In an exclusive interview with RT, President Bashar Assad said that the conflict in Syria is not a civil war, but proxy terrorism by Syrians and foreign fighters. He also accused the Turkish president of eyeing Syria with imperial ambitions.

Assad told RT that the West creates scapegoats as enemies – from communism, to Islam, to Saddam Hussein. He accused Western countries of aiming to turn him into their next enemy.

While mainstream media outlets generally report on the crisis as a battle between Assad and Syrian opposition groups, the president claims that his country has been infiltrated by numerous terrorist proxy groups fighting on behalf of other powers.

In the event of a foreign invasion of Syria, Assad warned, the fallout would be too dire for the world to bear.

­‘My enemy is terrorism and instability in Syria’

­RT: President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, thank very much for talking to us today.

Bashar Assad: You are most welcome in Damascus.

RT: There are many people who were convinced a year ago that you would not make it this far. Here again you are sitting in a newly renovated presidential palace and recording this interview. Who exactly is your enemy at this point?

BA: My enemy is terrorism and instability in Syria. This is our enemy in Syria. It is not about the people, it is not about persons. The whole issue is not about me staying or leaving. It is about the country being safe or not. So, this is the enemy we have been fighting as Syria.

RT: I have been here for the last two days and I had the chance to talk to a couple of people in Damascus. Some of them say that whether you stay or go at this point does not really matter anymore. What do you say about this?

BA: I think for the president to stay or leave is a popular issue. It is related to the opinion of some people and the only way can be done through the ballot boxes. So, it is not about what we hear. It is about what we can get through that box and that box will tell any president to stay or leave very simply.

RT: I think what they meant was that at this point you are not the target anymore; Syria is the target.

BA: I was not the target; I was not the problem anyway. The West creates enemies; in the past it was the communism then it became Islam, and then it became Saddam Hussein for a different reason. Now, they want to create a new enemy represented by Bashar. That's why they say that the problem is the president so he has to leave. That is why we have to focus of the real problem, not to waste our time listening to what they say.

­‘The fight now is not the president’s fight – it is Syrians’ fight to defend their country’

­RT: Do you personally still believe that you are the only man who can hold Syria together and the only man who can put an end to what the world calls a ‘civil war’?

BA: We have to look at it from two aspects. The first aspect is the constitution and I have my authority under the constitution. According to this authority and the constitution, I have to be able to solve the problem. But if we mean it that you do not have any other Syrian who can be a president, no, any Syrian could be a president. We have many Syrians who are eligible to be in that position. You cannot always link the whole country only to one person.

RT: But you are fighting for your country. Do you believe that you are the man who can put an end to the conflict and restore peace?

BA: I have to be the man who can do that and I hope so, but it is not about the power of the President; it is about the whole society. We have to be precise about this. The president cannot do anything without the institutions and without the support of the people. So, the fight now is not a President’s fight; it is Syrians’ fight. Every Syrian is involved in defending his country now.

RT: It is and a lot of civilians are dying as well in the fighting. So, if you were to win this war, how would you reconcile with your people after everything that has happened?

BA: Let’s be precise once again. The problem is not between me and the people; I do not have a problem with the people because the United States is against me and the West is against me and many other Arab countries, including Turkey which is not Arab of course, are against me. If the Syrian people are against me, how can I be here?!

Bashar Assad speaking with RT's Sophie Shevardnadze

‘Syria faces not a civil war, but terrorism by proxies’

­RT: They are not against you?

BA: If the whole world, or let us say a big part of the world, including your people, are against you, are you a superman?! You are just a human being. So, this is not logical. It is not about reconciling with the people and it is not about reconciliation between the Syrians and the Syrians; we do not have a civil war. It is about terrorism and the support coming from abroad to terrorists to destabilize Syria. This is our war.

RT: Do you still not believe it is a civil war because I know there are a lot who think that there are terrorist acts which everyone believes take place in Syria, and there are also a lot of sectarian-based conflicts. For example we all heard about the mother who has two sons; one son is fighting for the government forces and the other son is fighting for the rebel forces, how this is not a civil war?

BA: You have divisions, but division does not mean civil war. It is completely different. Civil wars should be based on ethnic problems or sectarian problems. Sometimes you may have ethnic or sectarian tensions but this do not make them problem. So, if you have division in the same family or in a bigger tribe or whatever or in the same city, it does not mean a civil war. This is completely different and that is normal. We should expect that.

RT: When I asked about reconciling with your people, this is what I meant: I heard you say on many different occasions that the only thing you care about is what the Syrian people think of you and what Syrian people feel towards you and whether you should be a president or not. Are you not afraid that there has been so much damage done for whatever reason that at the end of the day Syrians won’t care about the truth; they will just blame you for the carnage that they have suffered?

BA: This is a hypothetical question because what the people think is the right thing, and regarding what they think, we have to ask them. But I don’t have this information right now. So, I am not afraid about what some people think; I am afraid about my country. We have to be focused on that.

RT: For years there have been so many stories about almighty Syrian army, important and strong Syrian secret services, but then we see that, you know, the government forces are not able to crush the enemy like people expected it would, and we see terrorist attacks take place in the middle of Damascus almost every day. Were those myths about the Syrian army and about the strong Syrian secret services?

BA: Usually, in normal circumstances when you have the army and the secret services and the intelligence, we focus on the external enemy even if we have an internal enemy, like terrorism because the society is helping us at least not to provide terrorist’s incubator. Now in this case, it is a new kind of war; terrorism through proxies, either Syrians living in Syria or foreign fighters coming from abroad. So, it is a new style of war, this is first and you have to adapt to this style and it takes time, it is not easy. And to say this is as easy as the normal or, let us say, the traditional or regular war, no, it is much more difficult. Second, the support that has been offered to those terrorists in every aspect, including armaments, money and political aspect is unprecedented. So, you have to expect that it is going to be a tough war and a difficult war. You do not expect a small country like Syria to defeat all those countries that have been fighting us through proxies just in days or weeks.

RT: Yes, but when you look at it, I mean on one hand, you have one leader with an army, and he orders this army go straight, go left, go right and the army obeys. On the other hand, you have fractions of terrorists who are not unified and have no one unified strategy to fight you. So, how does that really happen when it comes to fighting each other?

BA: This is not the problem. The problem is that those terrorists are fighting from within the cities, and in the cities you have civilians. When you fight this kind of terrorists, you have to be aware that you should do the minimum damage to the infrastructure and minimum damage to the civilians because you have civilians and you have to fight, you cannot leave terrorists just killing and destroying. So, this is the difficulty in this kind of war.

Bashar Assad speaking with RT's Sophie Shevardnadze

Without foreign rebel fighters and smuggled weapons, ‘we could finish everything in weeks’

­RT: You know that the infrastructure and economy are suffering; it is almost as if Syria is going to be fall into decay very soon and the time is against you. In your opinion, how much time do you need to crush the enemy?

BA: You cannot answer this question because no one claimed that he had the answer about when to end the war unless when we have the answer to when they are going to stop smuggling foreign fighters from different parts of the world especially the Middle East and the Islamic world, and when they are going to stop sending armaments to those terrorists. If they stop, this is when I can answer you; I can tell that in weeks we can finish everything. This is not a big problem. But as long as you have continuous supply in terrorists, armaments, logistics and everything else, it is going to be a long-term war.

RT: Also, when you think about it, you have 4,000 km of loosely controlled borders, so you have your enemy that can at any time cross over into Jordan or Turkey to be rearmed, get medical care and come back to fight you!

BA: No country in the world can seal the border. Sometime they use this word which is not correct, even the United Stated cannot seal its border with Mexico for example. The same can be applied to Russia which is a big country. So, no country can seal the border. You can only have a better situation on the border when you have good relations with your neighbor and this is something we do not have at least with Turkey now. Turkey supports more than any other country the smuggling of terrorists and armaments.

Bashar Assad speaking with RT's Sophie Shevardnadze

‘The Syrian Army has no orders to shell Turkish land’

­RT: Can I say to you something? I have been in Turkey recently and people there are actually very worried that a war will happen between Syria and Turkey. Do you think a war with Turkey is a realistic scenario?

BA: Rationally, no I do not think so – for two reasons. The war needs public support and the majority of the Turkish people do not need this war. So, I do not think any rational official would think of going against the will of the public in his country and the same for the Syrian people. So, the conflict or difference is not between the Turkish people and the Syrian people; it is about the government and officials, it is between our officials and their officials because of their politics. So, I do not see any war between Syria and Turkey on the horizon.

RT: When was the last time you spoke to Erdogan and how did the talk end?

BA: May 2011, after he won the election.

RT: So, you just congratulated him, and it was the last time

BA: Yes and it was the last time.

RT: Who is shelling Turkey? Is it the government forces or the rebels?

BA: In order to find the answer, you need a joint committee between the two armies in order to know who shells who because on the borders you have a lot of terrorists who have mortars; so, they can do the same. You have to go and investigate the bomb in that place itself and that did not happen. We asked the Turkish government to have this committee but they refused; so, you cannot have the answer. But when you have these terrorists on your borders, you do not exclude them from doing so because the Syrian army does not have any order to shell the Turkish land because we do not find any interest in this, and we do not have any enmity with the Turkish people. We consider them as brothers, so why do it; unless that happened by mistake, then it needs investigation.

RT: Do you accept that it may be mistakenly from the government forces?

BA: That could happen. This is a possibility and in every war you have mistakes. You know in Afghanistan, they always talk about friendly fire if you kill your soldier; this means that it could happen in every war, but we cannot say yes.

Bashar Assad speaking with RT's Sophie Shevardnadze

‘Erdogan thinks he is a Caliph’

­RT: Why has Turkey, which you call a friendly nation, become a foothold for the opposition?

BA: Not Turkey, but only Erdogan’s government in order to be precise. Turkish people need good relations with the Syrian people. Erdogan thinks that if Muslim Brotherhood takes over in the region and especially in Syria, he can guarantee his political future, this is one reason. The other reason, he personally thinks that he is the new sultan of the Ottoman and he can control the region as it was during the Ottoman Empire under a new umbrella. In his heart he thinks he is a caliph. These are the main two reasons for him to shift his policy from zero problems to zero friends.

RT: But it is not just the West that opposes you at this point; there are so many enemies in the Arab world and that is to say like two years ago when someone heard you name in the Arab world they would straighten their ties, and now in the first occasion they betrayed you, why do you have so many enemies in the Arab world?

BA: They are not enemies. The majority of Arab governments support Syria in their heart but they do not dare to say that explicitly.

RT: Why not?

BA: Under pressure by the West, and sometimes under pressure of the petrodollars in the Arab world.

RT: Who supports you from the Arab world?

BA: Many countries support Syria by their hearts but they do not dare to say that explicitly. First of all, Iraq which played a very active role in supporting Syria during the crisis because it is a neighboring country and they understand and recognize that if you have a war inside Syria you will have war in the neighboring countries including Iraq. I think there are other countries which have good position like Algeria, and Oman mainly and there are other countries I would not count all of them now but I would say they have positive position without taking actions.

RT: Saudi Arabia and Qatar, why are they so adamant about you resigning and how would an unstable Middle East fit their agenda?

BA: Let’s be frank, I cannot answer on their behalf. They have to answer this question but I could say that the problem between Syria and many countries whether in the Arab world or in the region or in the West, is that we kept saying no when we think that we have to say no, that is the problem. And some countries believe that they can control Syria through orders, through money or petrodollars and this is impossible in Syria, this is the problem. May be they want to play a role. We do not have a problem, they can play a role whether they deserve this or not, they can play a role but not to play a role at the expense of our interests.

RT: Is it about controlling Syria or about exporting their vision of Islam to Syria?

BA: You cannot put it as a government policy sometimes. Sometimes you have institutions in certain country, sometime you have persons who try to promote this but they do not announce it as an official policy. So, they did not ask us to promote their, let’s say, extremist attitude of their institutions but that happened in reality whether through indirect support of their government or through the foundation from institutions and personnel. So, this is part of the problem, but when I want to talk as a government, I have to talk about the announced policy. The announced policy is like any other policy; it is about the interest, it is about playing a role, but we cannot ignore what you mentioned.

RT: Iran which is a very close ally also is exposed to economic sanctions, also facing a threat of military invasion. If you were faced with an option to cut ties with Iran in exchange for peace in your country, would you go for it?

BA: We do not have contradicting options in this regard because we had good relations with Iran since 1979 till today, and it is getting better every day, but at the same time we are moving towards peace. We had peace process and we had peace negotiations. Iran was not a factor against peace. So, this is misinformation they try to promote in the West that if we need peace, we do not have to have good relation with Iran. There is no relation; it is two completely different subjects. Iran supported Syria, supported our cause, the cause of the occupied land and we have to support them in their cause. This is very simple. Iran is a very important country in the region. If we are looking for stability, we need good relations with Iran. You cannot talk about stability while you have bad relations with Iran, Turkey and your neighbors and so on. This is it.

Bashar Assad speaking with RT's Sophie Shevardnadze

‘Al-Qaeda’s final aim is an Islamic emirate in Syria’

­RT: Do you have any information that the Western intelligence is financing rebel fighters here in Syria?

BA: No, so far what we know is that they are offering the know-how support for the terrorists through Turkey and sometimes through Lebanon mainly. But there is other intelligence, not the Western, but the regional intelligence which is very active and more active than the Western one under the supervision of the Western intelligence.

RT: What is the role of Al-Qaeda in Syria at this point? Are they controlling any of the rebel coalition forces?

BA: No, I do not think they are looking to control; they are looking to create their own kingdoms or emirates in their language, but they mainly try now to scare the people through explosions, assassinations, suicide bombers and things like this to push the people towards desperation and to accept them as reality. So, they go step by step but their final aim is to have this, let’s say, Islamic Emirate in Syria where they can promote their own ideology in the rest of the world.

RT: From those who are fighting you and those who are against you, who would you talk to?

BA: We talk to anyone who has genuine will to help Syria, but we do not waste our time with anyone who wants to use our crisis for his own personal interests.

RT: There has been many times…not you but the government forces have been accused for many times of war crimes against your own civilians, do you accept that the government forces have committed war crimes against their own civilians?

BA: We are fighting terrorism. We are implementing our constitution by protecting the Syrian people. Let’s go back to what happened in Russia more than a decade ago when you faced terrorism in Chechnya and other places; they attacked people in theaters and schools and so on, and the army in Russia protected the people, would you call it war crimes?! No, you would not. Two days ago, Amnesty International recognized the crimes that were committed few days ago by the armed groups when they captured soldiers and executed them. Also Human Rights Watch recognized this. Human Rights Watch recognized more than once the crimes of those terrorist groups and few days ago it described these crimes as war crimes, this is the first point. The second point, if you have an army that committed a crime against its own people, this is devoid of logic because the Syrian Army is made up of Syrian people. If you want to commit a crime against your people, then the army will divide, will disintegrate. So, you cannot have a strong army while you are killing your people. Third, the army cannot withstand for twenty months in these difficult circumstances without having the embrace of the public in Syria. So, how could you have this embracement while you are killing your people?! This is a contradiction. So, this is the answer.

Bashar Assad speaking with RT's Sophie Shevardnadze

‘I must live in Syria and die in Syria’

­RT: When was the last time you spoke to a Western leader?

BA: It was before the crisis.

RT: Was there any time at which they try to give you conditions that if you left the post of presidency then there will be peace in Syria or no?

BA: No, they did not propose it directly, no, but whether they propose that directly or indirectly, it is a matter of sovereignty; only the Syrian people will talk about this. Whoever talks about this in the media or in a statement directly or indirectly has no meaning and has no weight in Syria.

RT: Do you even have a choice because from what it seems from the outside that would not have anywhere to go. Where would you go if you want to leave?

BA: To Syria. I would go from Syria to Syria. This is the only place where we can live. I am not a puppet. I was not made by the West to go to the West or to any other country. I am Syrian, I was made in Syria, I have to live in Syria and die in Syria.
­

‘I believe in democracy and dialogue – but we must be realistic’

­RT: Do you think that at this point there is any chance for diplomacy or talks or only the army can get it done?

BA: I always believe in diplomacy and I always believe in dialogue even with those who do not understand or believe in it. We have to keep trying. I think that we will always achieve a partial success. We have to look for this partial success before we achieve the complete success. But we have to be realistic. You do not think that only dialogue can make you achieve something because those people who committed these acts they are of two kinds: one of them does not believe in dialogue, especially the extremists, and you have the outlaws who have been convicted by the court years ago before the crisis and their natural enemy is the government because they are going to be detained if we have a normal situation in Syria. The other part of them is the people who have been supplied by the outside, and they can only be committed to the governments which paid them the money and supplied them with the armament; they do not have a choice because they do not own their own decision. So, you have to be realistic. And you have the third part of the people whether militants or politicians who can accept the dialogue. That’s why we have been in this dialogue for months now even with militants and many of them gave up their armaments and they went back to their normal life.

Bashar Assad speaking with RT's Sophie Shevardnadze

‘The price of a foreign invasion will be more than the world can afford’

­RT: Do you think a foreign invasion is imminent?

BA: I think the price of this invasion if it happened is going to be more than the whole world can afford because if you have a problem in Syria, and we are the last stronghold of secularism and stability in the region and coexistence, let’s say, it will have a domino effect that will affect the world from the Atlantic to the Pacific and you know the implication on the rest of the world. I do not think the West is going in that direction, but if they do so, nobody can tell what is next.

RT: Mr. President, do you blame yourself for anything?

BA: Normally you have to find mistakes you do with every decision, otherwise you are not human.

RT: What is your biggest mistake?

BA: I do not remember now to be frank. But I always, even before taking the decision, consider that part of it will be wrong but you cannot tell about your mistakes now. Sometimes, especially during crisis, you do not see what is right and what is wrong until you overcome the situation that you are in. I would not be objective to talk about mistakes now because we still in the middle of the crisis.

RT: So, you do not have regrets yet?

BA: Not now. When everything is clear, you can talk about your mistakes, and definitely you have mistakes and that is normal.

RT: If today was March 15, 2011, that is when the protest started to escalate and grow, what would you do differently?

BA: I would do what I did on March 15.

RT: Exactly the same?

BA: Exactly the same: ask different parties to have dialogue and stand against terrorists because that is how it started. It did not start as marches; the umbrella or cover was the marches, but within those marches you had militants who started shooting civilians and the army at the same time. May be on the tactical level, you could have done something different but as a president you are not tactical, you always take the decision on a strategic level which is something different.

RT: President al-Assad, how do you see yourself in ten-years’ time?

BA: I see myself through my country; I cannot see myself but my country in ten-years’ time. This is where I can see myself.

RT: Do you see yourself in Syria?

BA: Definitely, I have to be in Syria. It is not about the position. I do not see myself whether a president or not. This is not my interest. I can see myself in this country as safe country, stable country and more prosperous country.

RT: President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, thank you for talking to RT.

BA: Thank you for coming to Syria, again.

Suppliers of arms to opposition want to destroy the Syrian people – Iraqi PM

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki

Source: Russia Today

http://rt.com/news/iraqi-pm-maliki-interview-703/

States that send arms to Syria face upheavals and unrest due to sectarian violence, their stability will be in jeopardy and the state of affairs will be no better than in Syria, warned Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki in an interview to RT.

"He who starts a fire will be destroyed by fire in the end,” Al-Maliki stated, predicting that sponsorship of the Syrian opposition will backfire on supporting states.

RT: What do Iraq and Russia have in common in terms of their approach to the Syrian crisis; and do you think the two countries can come up with a joint proposal on how to settle it?

Nouri Al-Maliki: Of course, the crisis is a matter of serious concern both for the countries in the region and for the world’s major powers. And it’s not only countries – this issue has been on the agenda of many international organizations. We have repeatedly said that we take the Syrian crisis as our own problem. It is a very important country, with its own political position. We did warn everyone earlier – and keep reminding – that the fire that started in Syria will spill over the borders to engulf other countries of the region and, in the end, it will have a global impact. The Middle East is one of the major energy producers of the world.

Just like Russia, we believe that the use of force cannot be a solution to the crisis. Many other countries now share this approach, even those that used to think that supplying arms to the opposition would be sufficient to generate regime change. They now recognize that it is impossible to settle the Syrian crisis through the use of force. This is also Russia’s position.

Russia, Iraq and many other countries are united in their conviction that force will not end the crisis in Syria – we need to look for a peaceful solution through political dialogue. It is our joint task – I mean Iraq, Russia and the whole international community – to help both sides find common ground, to agree on a mutually-acceptable form of government.

This new government must be based on the principles of freedom and democracy. The Syrians must have the right to vote, they must have a Constitution. These are the things that the Syrian people demanded when they started the revolution. But of course, not everybody in Syria agrees with these demands, some groups don’t think that reforms are needed. We’ve heard different statements and demands. Of course dialogue will continue, because we are very much concerned about what’s going on in Syria. We have been seriously affected by the situation in Syria. We have experienced some spillover effects of the Syrian crisis here in Iraq.

We will discuss this issue with our Russian counterparts; we will talk about possible ways to make existing initiatives effective, including the original peace plan put forward by the Arab League, as opposed to the flawed proposals made during the sessions of the ministerial committee and the Geneva agreements. According to them, there is no military solution to the conflict. The agreements call for an end to arms supplies both to the opposition and the regime. Unfortunately, a number of states ignore these initiatives and continue to send arms to Syria, which only makes the situation worse.

This is where Russia, Iraq, China, and many Muslim and Arab countries in the region agree. It is our duty to address this issue and try to find ways out of this turmoil which, we are afraid, might turn into a fully-fledged regional war.

RT: How would you assess the calls by some countries, especially Arab countries that have the support of the West, for military intervention in order to resolve the crisis in Syria?

NM: I’d give them a piece of brotherly advice: “Forget it! He who starts a fire will be destroyed by fire in the end.” Those who want Syria to follow this path have to understand that it will destroy the Syrian people. This is what’s happening in Syria right now. Cities lie in ruins, the war rages on and is likely to spill over involving new actors – international, regional, religious and political ones. If they care about themselves and their people, if they seek stability and security, if they care about Syria and its people, they have to stop sowing the seeds of discord by supplying arms. They also have to stop thinking it will be them who will shape Syria’s future.

I met with several representatives of the Syrian opposition and I felt they understand the threat that is coming from the Arab forces that provide them with weapons. These forces openly declare that they want to interfere in Syria’s affairs. But the Syrian nation is against it.

RT: Do you share the view that it’s foreign interference in Syria’s affairs that’s made the situation in the country so dangerous?

NM: Absolutely. And they will keep driving it to an even more dangerous degree until eventually it will backfire on the states that are now sponsoring the Syrian opposition. All these states will face upheavals and unrest due to sectarian violence, foreign interference, the spillover effect and expansion. They’re already feeling it. If these countries keep sending arms and using force for a regime change, their stability will be in jeopardy, and the situation inside these countries will be no better than in Syria.

RT: What do you think about the “national partnership government”? Is this the best form of governance to help to move Iraq forward or are there any negative aspects that make that government less effective? What do you think of “the majority government”, something many other countries rely on?

NM: A partnership government has exhausted both its capacity and agenda. It was necessary during previous stages, but not any longer. Right now everyone, even the people of Iraq, feel that the regime of national partnership keeps our hands tied, hinders our development, stands in the way of the breakthrough that Iraq could make in the development of infrastructure, the services sector and economic recovery.

We hear more and more voices now, in our society and in parliament, calling for a shift to a majority government, to make parliament united so that it can pass decisions and laws that would help to rule the state; because right now the government is paralyzed. It can’t do anything. The partnership originally built to pursue a major breakthrough has now degraded to a partnership that generates obstacles. Because of that we need a majority government, and I am working hard to make it a reality.

RT: Both the Iraqi government and its citizens still suffer from regular terror attacks. Who is behind this violence – international players interfering in your affairs or Al-Qaeda militants opposing the political process? Or are there any other reasons that the Iraqi people are not aware of? Why is it so hard to take out these armed groups that are still out there?

NM: Violence continues and it’s been down to all the factors you have mentioned. Foreign intervention is fully underway. What they want to do is to use these acts of violence to prepare for the next, post-Syrian stage. It’s the same states that are now interfering in Syria. They are sending arms and militants there, over and over again. Their goal is to change Syria, then Iraq, and ultimately the entire region. Also, Al-Qaeda is back, it came to life again – regrettably, as part of the Arab Spring. It flooded the streets in the capitals of Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen. Its slogans, groups and terrorist attacks are clear signs of its revival, and Iraq couldn’t escape that. And those states that are interfering won’t escape it either.

But the really embarrassing thing is that the national partnership government cannot be effective in the fight against terrorism. That’s the problem. When your partner supports both security measures and terrorist acts, you get problems. I wouldn’t like to go into detail now. I am only saying that this is one of the downsides to the national partnership. How can we expect security agencies to control the situation when the government’s own money, arms, transport, and the nature of the government are used to support those seeking to carry out terrorist attacks?

RT: Mr. Maliki, when Iraq was about to buy F-16 fighter jets, Iraqi Kurds, along with some neighboring states, including the Gulf countries voiced their concerns over the future deal. Are these concerns justified? And can they be allayed?

NM: They are totally unsubstantiated. These people might still have old stereotypes of Iraq that go back to the times of dictatorship that were characterized by reckless operations, wars and invasions. Some regimes, both big and small, still have expansionist ambitions. Sadly, they have learned no lessons from Saddam Hussein’s experience. He had it all: troops and offensive capabilities, but the end of his career was a disaster. These people still believe that just like in the past, Iraq is still capable of invading its neighbors, concocting conspiracies, attacking other countries like Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia or slaughtering people in its southern or northern regions.

But today Iraq is a different country. It does not wage war on its own people. The Kurds who believe that Iraq is taking up arms to fight them are seriously deluded.

These talks are no more than political maneuvering used to make up for the mistakes and failures of the past. These countries are aware that present-day Iraq has nothing in common with the dictatorship of the past. It is a democratic country which is against the use of force, as set forth in the laws adopted by its parliament. Generally speaking, our main principle is non-interference in the affairs of other states. But we would like this to be a two-way street.

But the reality is that Iraq is located in an arms-infested region. All the neighboring states have impressive arsenals of modern weapons. Even the smaller states in the region have more weapons than Iraq, a large state with a rich history. Iraq is entitled to self-defense, so it has the right to use different armaments to protect its sovereignty. And so it can have the same weapons as other countries who claim they need the same weapons as Iraq to defend their sovereignty.

I would like to allay their concerns by saying that Iraq is not interested in offensive weapons, only defensive ones. Indeed, we would like to have very strong defensive weapons to repel any attack on Iraq’s sovereignty. But primitive weapons won’t be enough. What we need is something very strong and absolutely sophisticated to counter any possible aggression. This would make anyone who plans to breach our sovereignty to think twice before attacking Iraq.

RT: Mr Prime Minister, as commander-in-chief, when do you expect Iraq’s armed forces to reach combat readiness in terms of the size of personnel and materials?

NM: We already have the number of troops that we need, but we are still working on the list of weapons and hardware. We are receiving weapons supplies from the US, former Soviet nations and possibly from Russia, too, in line with the contracts that we signed earlier. However, we expect to ensure maximum defensive capabilities by 2020, according to the plans we have at the moment. By that time we expect to re-equip the armed forces with powerful weapons to protect Iraq on land and in the air. So currently we would still be able to defend the nation but our capabilities need to be maintained and further improved.

 

Assange’s premiere: Credit protest, Twitter trends & M.I.A.'s theme

A still frame shows Julian Assange as he is interviewing Hezbollah leader Sayyid Nasrallah as broadcast by RT on April 17, 2012

Source: Russia Today
http://rt.com/news/assange-show-response-credits-mia-media-282/

Julian Assange’s interview with Hezbollah leader Sayyid Nasrallah sparked a wave of media reaction and saw Twitter trends set as Assange’s crew blacked out show credits in a controversial protest.

Watch the full show on RT's video page

Assange’s team told RT "Many of the people who were credited in the Collateral Murder video [exposing US troops killing Iraqi civilians in 2007] are now wrapped up with the US Grand Jury against us as a result. The 1st Amendment in the US and its protection of journalists is under assault by the US government and we have redacted the names of the crew in protest."

Credits black-out?

The decision by Assange’s production crew to blur the show’s credits to protect themselves from possible threats by security agencies was “…a nice touch but there may also be serious political and legal reasons for this,” according to RT’s Crosstalk host Peter Lavelle.

“The US, Israel, Canada and The Netherlands deem Hezbollah a “terrorist group,” while the UK and Australia deem Hezbollah’s military wing a terrorist group, and there may be laws against contact with this political party”, explained Lavelle.

“In a recent US Supreme Court decision (Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, June 21, 2010) the Court upheld material support provisions that prohibit otherwise protected free speech. The Court said that Congress could prohibit conflict resolution, humanitarian aid and other groups from providing training or expert advice to terrorist groups, even when that assistance is aimed at preventing violence.”

See the blanked-out credits in the video below



The long anticipated premiere saw tweeters take #ExpectAssange and #TheWorldTomorrow to global trend status on Tuesday. The Mainstream media’s response, foreseen by RT and the Wikileaks co-founder, runs the gamut from “hats off” to the more predictable “that’s off.”

“Interviewing Hassan Nasrallah [is a] clever move by Assange. He's a perfectly legitimate Lebanese power player to i/v and will generate headlines,” tweeted Jerome Taylor, a reporter with The Independent newspaper.

“How fitting: Julian Assange's first guest is Hassan Nasrallah, both in dire need of some good PR after creating messes, for being obnoxious,” remarks Emile Hokayem, a Mid-East analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, via her Twitter account.



A collection of Twitter responses to the premier of "The World Tomorrow" show

Business Insider International was impressed. “While watching Julian Assange's new [RT] talk show, "The World Tomorrow", is not going to convince anyone that the embattled Wikileaks founder isn't a megalomaniac, we have to say we were pleasantly surprised by the relatively tasteful show.”

“Assange show less-than-gripping. Were questions agreed in advance? And how much is Kremlin paying Julian?” was the response from The Guardian’s Luke Harding, a former Moscow correspondent who fell out with Assange after publishing a book on the Wikileaks cables affair.

Before the premiere, RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan had suggested some might call for RT to be censured over the highly controversial subject of Assange’s first interview. A truthful voice to many, Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah and his Lebanese Hezbollah party are branded terrorists in six countries and he himself has not made a Western media appearance in a decade.

M.I.A. doubles Assange effect

Artistic support for Assange’s cause (he’s been under UK house arrest without charge for 500 days) was audible in the “The World Tomorrow” theme tune – coming from none other than M.I.A. herself.

The Sri Lankan hip-hop star says she met Assange in London prior to the show’s launch. M.I.A. has been an outspoken supporter of Wikileaks since the website’s early days, even dedicating an album to the online whistleblower. In turn, Wikileaks referred to M.I.A. (real name Maya Arulpragasam) as the “the Julian Assange of pop music.”

Despite the multi-media storm over Assange’s first guest, and the stance taken by his crew against what they perceive as threats to their wellbeing, The World Tomorrow guest list remains tightly under wraps.

Expect the unexpected.

Nasrallah to Assange: Hezbollah talked to Syria opposition; we want dialogue, US & Israel want civil war

Nasrallah to Assange: Hezbollah talked to Syria opposition; we want dialogue, US & Israel want civil war

Source: Russia Today
http://rt.com/news/assange-hezbollah-nasrallah-syria-263/

Hezbollah urged the Syrian opposition to engage in dialogue with Assad's regime, but they refused.

Hezbollah leader Sayyid Nasrallah confirmed this in his first interview in six years, the world premiere of Julian Assange’s The World Tomorrow on RT.

Watch the full show on RT's video page

Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah told Assange that Hezbollah supports Syrian president Bashar al-Assad as Syria supported resistance in Lebanon and “hasn't backed down in the face of Israeli and American pressure.”

Nasrallah, a freedom fighter to millions though a terrorist to the US, Israel, Canada and the Netherlands, says Assad’s regime “served the Palestinian cause very well.”

This is why Hezbollah supported the so-called Arab Spring in Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt and elsewhere, but when it came to Syria, Hezbollah urged the opposition to engage in dialog with President Bashar al-Assad.

“This is the first time I say this – We contacted […] the opposition to encourage them and to facilitate the process of dialogue with the regime. But they rejected dialogue,” he revealed. “Right from the beginning we have had a regime that is willing to undergo reforms and prepared for dialogue. On the other side you have an opposition which is not prepared for dialogue and it is not prepared to accept reforms. All it wants is to bring down the regime. This is a problem.”

Nasrallah called for balance on the Syrian issue as “armed groups in Syria have killed very many civilians” though international blame is leveled squarely at President Assad.

Several Arab & non-Arab states are arming and funding the rebels while in the Hezbollah leader’s opinion Al-Qaeda simply wants to turn Syria into a battle ground.

“There is fighting in Syria – when one party retreats, the other will advance, it will go on as long as doors to dialogue are shut,” he told Assange.

Stressing that Hezbollah supports dialogue, Nasrallah points out that without it, "civil war is the only alternative." In his words "this is exactly what America and Israel want… Arab states are ready for tens of years of dialogue with Israel but won't have two months to try a political solution in Syria."



'Israel is illegal state'

To this day Nasrallah believes Israel “is and will be an illegal state… It was established on the basis of occupying the lands of others,” he says. “If I occupy your house by force it doesn't become mine in 50 or 100 years.”

While “Hezbollah does not want to kill anyone”, the only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is establishing a democratic state on Palestinian land where Muslims, Jews and Christians live in peace but the US “won't let people listen to Hezbollah.”

“Our priority is still the liberation of our land and the protection of Lebanon from the Israeli threat", he told Assange, "Israel's hi-tech surveillance will never crack the code of the Lebanese resistance – they use local village dialects.”

Assange show premieres

Sayyid Nasrallah is the first guest on Julian Assange's The World Tomorrow – one of the most anticipated news programs of 2012.The first-episode, with Nasrallah's identity kept secret until broadcast, coincides with the 500th day of financial blockade on WikiLeaks.

The 10-episode series features Assange in conversation with “iconoclasts, visionaries and power insiders.” Speaking before the premiere, Assange revealed he expects a storm around the show, with media labeling him an "enemy combatant, traitor who interviews “terrible radicals from around the world.”

The announcement that RT would host Assange's show created a global media stir, with many questioning the RT/Assange link-up. In a pre-show interview Assange explained his rationale.

“A lot of the things that we have been trying to report have not been carried accurately in the mainstream press. There are many, many fine exceptions, but when we look at international networks there’s really only two that are worth speaking about, and that’s RT and Al Jazeera.”