are you ready to come along? the, the issue is nancy and welcome back to going, undergoing rule costing you around the world from the you a all tied to is back and this time with a country aided by nato as strikes caesar sanctions in the us occupation vital energy and food regions. bus or our last side flooded the entrance. if you have damascus for asylum in moscow, even nato subsidized zalinski sent soldiers to help outright or indeed live this week. the truck is flag is loaded over the citadel and the level of the one is invaded in the north, killing c i a backed codes nature, one of these wireless compet bone syria and invaded from the south and destroying supply line for palestine by 11 in nature propaganda mediator of defects. chemical

attacks is i'm just trying to rehabilitate a move of how many l gilani wants his real name as the president of syria. the terrorist with a tony blinking $10000000.00 bounty on his head is already done an interview address like ukraine dictates as a landscape for cnn. an ice is now kind of lead out. he was tortured at abu ghraib by the us facilitating american soldiers in iraq, as is genocide continues in palestine. netanyahu times israel secured the black flags, devices flying over the ad mosque in damascus. in chicago is professor john measure . i'm a co author of these rel lobby and u. s. foreign policy, and how states think the rationality of foreign policy is the best, the best time. a thank so much for coming back on going underground. i guess 1st your reaction the victory of the united states and is rarely neutralizing palestine facilitates a techie and bathing in the north israel. as i said from the south, russia losing its military bases, presumably we can talk more about the china,

the end of its belt road as far as its ports in the west to yeah, i mean there's so many implications of what's going on as a result of the collapse of syria is. ready hard to know where to start. i mean it's quite clear that the losers in this conflict were rand. uh, russia and has. ready ha, uh there's no question that for ran, this is a big blow. ready in the sense that syria was an ally and important now i and very importantly, syria was a conduit for a rainy and weapons to get to has the law inside of lab and on. and for the time being at least that conduit has been shut down. i think the russians also last because they were supporting syria and of course has the last for the reasons i just described in the winter is are clear. ready ready is real, the united states and turkey. how this all plays out moving forward is almost

impossible to say. other than it's looks like there will be considerable chaos in syria for the foreseeable future, because it's hard to see a co here in government for me in damascus. they can control the entire country, i presume, in short term success as regards the united states, i don't know when the, when the majority, another great deal of success in afghanistan against the soviets. there was celebrating, in some nature prop, attend newspapers in television. and that arguably would lead to $911.00 is a short term success in terms of the united states. and do you see the hand of a phonetic blinking state department here ahead of the an organization of trump on the 20th of january? i mean, it is a short term success. there's no question about that. what happens in the long term is somewhat difficult to say, but it is possible that as

a result of what's happened in syria that a ran will acquire nuclear weapons. and if a rand requires to clear weapons, that would be disastrous for israel. and it would also be disastrous for the united states and who's to say whether that will happen or not. it's also just not clear what the implications are for turkey and all of this. i think the turks believe that over throwing aside would lead to a new syria. it would be friends. ready with turkey and allowed turkey to solve a lot of his problems, especially with the kurtz. but i wouldn't bet a lot of money on that. i think there's going to be a great deal of unrest in syria for the foreseeable future. and the short term victory for us for turkey will not turn out to be a positive development in the long term. so, well, i want to do what i want to go to around in a 2nd. but on to a case you just said, i mean how it's your american weapon we did these good. just groups have to attack

a. i took a symmetric like and we expect the bombs and assembled in ankara. there's christmas, a cement or it is very hard to say. i mean, they'll certainly be incentives to do that. but i'm not sure what's going to happen on that front and in terms of timing. i mean, if the state department in the bible regime is desperate to get things moving and the chaos in place, iran, but they make a move on about the nuclear weapon, of course. come any on rec, what the thing it was on his left make. but a, do they need the nuclear weapon before january, and can they produce a nuclear weapon in that sort of time they called to can they run they don't need a nuclear weapon before january. i mean, is every indication that the by did ministration is as hard line on iran as the trump administration will be. so i think what happens on january 20th doesn't matter to the iranians with regard to develop into but they have not made that

decision yet. as best we could tell, but they're all sorts of good reasons to think they, well, there's no question that they can produce enough. is i on material for a bomb in a couple weeks time. they're that close. but having this designed material is not the same as having a bomb. and it, but in my opinion, take them a good year to develop a bomb and the capability to deliver that bomb. yeah, on the january 20 of that dinah was actually saying jump was the more the peaceful side of things, arguably then divide to ministration. so iran has to get approval. and because trump would try and seek some sort of peas on like the blinking state, which is what i was referring to. i mean, do, oh, is it your understanding that this by the ministration wants to so as much chaos as possible for trump as well? i think there's not much question about that i think with regard to both ukraine

and with regard to the middle east. what the by did ministration would like to do is lot from been a and get him as little me do of a room as possible. but i don't think they have to worry that much. i don't think that trump is going to radically alter american foreign policy. is the middle east for one second. the administration is filled with hawks who wanna destroy or ran if they can, or at least affect regime change. and trump himself is a hawk on a rad. i think of trump is going to have any effect on foreign policy. in other words, if he's going to change foreign policy in any meaningful way, it will be in ukraine, not in the middle these. i think there was some hopeful people who support letting me approve and saying, perhaps it was russia taking outside out of the situation in damascus to us. so the

chaos because he believes it'll blow back somehow. wishful thinking, arguably as ro was the wishful thinking coming out the russian foreign ministry that the to bases was safe on the mediterranean. how important to these bases, and does this mean the end of russian power in the middle east? certainly uh, in terms of um, an expression of power if the bases and talk to us and a lot takia are going well, i think there's no question that syria was important for russia for purposes of having influence in the middle east. they don't have any basis any place else. and if they lose those bases serious, it's hard to see where they can go. and you know, it's not clear they're going to lose the bases. and in my, do you think, what do you think? i don't know. i mean, it's just impossible to say at this point in time when sees evidence that the

regime is cooperating with the russians and not interested in throwing the russians out, the new regime. and one can make an argument that the russians have an interest in state. one could also make an argument that the russians or to just cut their losses and get out because it just doesn't matter that much. i think what's happened in syria is a bigger blow to a ran than it is to russia. from russia's point of view. this is basically a side show for russia. what really matters is what's happy, the ukraine they would have preferred that us remain in power in syria. but it was not altogether that important to them because again, throwing their weight around in the middle east is not of great importance to. ready russians at this point in time. well, it's connected to brick, so the belgian road initiative for china and it is kaylee. uh, important, if you have that mediterranean presence, i think it's somewhat important for the russians. i don't deny that. i think all

things considered the russians would prefer the side stay in power for sure, and that they keep the bases. but i think if they lose the bases, it's not that big a deal because will be an influence. but at least in the final analysis is not that important to the russians. and if they prefer that it was that cheap to support syria for iran and russia as compared to i agree, obviously it's more important to run which existential, i'll give you the, to a run, and that's how we were to around, would see it. why didn't they pour the money into was needed to assure up the all positions rises out kaiser in syria or i think they were committed to helping syria defend itself against the h t. s. and the other groups. there is no question about that. but the problem they

face is that syria was incapable of defending itself, and there were just limits to, with both the radians and the russians could doke. there's all sorts of evidence the russians and your radians were talking to a side about the problems in his military and the need to fix the military. and the need to reach some sort of a combination with or the one at turkey and with the rebels. to head off this problem, and it's also quite clear that they were doing what they could to provide assistance once the conflicts started. but the fact is that the syrian military was so hollowed out, it was. so we did, it just couldn't stand up, give a rebel, certaintly. they were giving as much money as your generous us public money. and the manufacturers you owe us tax payers were giving way more money so much money that ukraine was able, able to send the soldiers directly to train the guy to people according to the what

i need both money is not the issue here. i mean, just go back to the vietnam war, we gave huge amounts of money and huge amounts of equipment to the south vietnamese military, much more cells in the soviets or the chinese gave to the north vietnamese. but the fact is, the south vietnamese military was an incompetent military. and when the north vietnamese attacked in 1975, the south vietnamese military quickly collapse. and this is an analogous situation . the syrian army was simply incapable of standing up to the rebels. it collapsed almost overnight. the russians tried to help. there were wagner forces in there, the russians were using their air force. but if the syrians are not going to put up a flight, there's not much the russians can do, or not much the uranium can do. and you might say, well, why didn't they try to fix this problem beforehand? and my problem is the, my point is there's a lot of evidence that they were trying to fix the problem. they were warning and

saw that he had to do something. they had this problem off at the bass, but they couldn't make any progress with his side. he was a remarkably stubborn and foolish man in the at and as a result, he's now sitting in moscow and his country is occupied by the raffles proposal. mash, i'm or i'll stop you the law from the university of chicago scholar after this, right, the the

the welcome back to going underground. i was still here with professor political science of university of chicago. so i'm not sure i'm a president bush, i me, you were telling me about how stubborn aside was in the syria, but sanctions on syria would clearly important although historically they've never

worked us sanctions. they obviously have worked on russia. they have their work in cuba, venezuela. their work on north korea has been you need a us troop presence like, occupying the energy fields that it added to the sanctions for it to make an impact . what do you think this means for us sanctions? the fact that they successfully destroyed syria using sanctions or well, it was not just sanctions that destroyed syria. i mean there were a number of other key factors that play as well. uh, 1st of all that. ready just a huge amount of corruption by almost all accounts inside of the syrian military. furthermore, there were these oil fields out in the eastern part of syria, that before the war produced about $400000000000.00 in revenue. and what happened is that the americans and the kurtz basically took over those oil

fields and the amount of money that the syrians are getting from those were getting from those oil fields had been remarkably reduced. so they didn't have a lot of they didn't much of an economy at home. the sanctions were all alone. there was a great deal of corruption. and as a result of the army was hollowed out. and what we have seen happened in the past few weeks, is it that army collapse because it was hollowed out? so can we expect a turkey costs our gas pipeline to compete with us sell in g, coming to your above to the north stream was destroyed. is this actually not so good for the united states in terms of uh, a geo political realignment in this region? financially, it's very hard to say,

i'm just not sure what's going to happen on that front. there just so many questions that are open here that are hard to answer it. this is just another one of those. why do you think of the state department? they would just blank. i mean, they're always blank faces of those press conferences, but the $10000000.00 bounty is still on the website that the us state department is doing the blinking. so what i can get 10000000 dollars of i tell you will government to information about the kill july and e, whatever his real name is you're, you're asking me, am i surprised that that's up there? i am surprised that they haven't taken it down. i mean, it's quite clear that the administration of the mainstream media in the united states is doing everything they can to clean up al gilani and portray him as a changed man to make him look like he's now thomas jefferson and no longer an allocate operative. so the fact that they've left that up on the website is somewhat

surprising. what do you think? go through the heads of old as john list on the news rooms on the coal face that your broadcast is and your big newspapers. knowing full well. the pictures coming through on social media of judge is being destroyed. half is our assets was a liam being destroyed, and the executions and the isis flags all across syria. i will go through the, i think, i think the most of them are not going to be surprised at all. i mean, it's just not surprising. we basically to, we're locked in with a number of out cade and isis offered tips and they won and they have scores to settle different, sorry, sorry to interrupt, but they keep telling the public in the united states, i know the united states more interested in uh, united healthcare, so you can play, but certainly in the information in western europe on uses. know this guy's good,

and look how terrible asset was, what a torture he was is if going down to move a didn't exist. what goes through the trend is going full. well, they most know who the ice is, all kinds of people that killed american soldiers. of course, i mean these journalists understand full well. most americans understand full well . there's all sorts of this course, you know, in the media here on this very issue that the united states is supporting a terrace and that the terrorists are the rebels call them with you on have one. but i think when you ask what's going through their head, i mean, it's pretty simple. everybody knows the basic story here. as you know, a lot of people say the us policy is about creating chaos. actually, they need to be the president, very tray, a country i'll give you the most sanctioned in the world. and he said it was all

about k us. i know you'd be in predicting the defeat for the land scan ukraine. but you don't think that the, there's some of the state department do believe at least create as much chaos as i think it was a number of another so many b2xb from the united states as part of 50000000000 g 7 loan paid by interest unfrozen russian people's money to kill russian soldiers. how well do you think the chaos is going in georgia? romania moved over as a by john wayne blinking his go. all seeing eyes here is an incredibly competent state department. i don't think the american policy is to create chaos in places like ukraine or, or in places like syria. i think what we were interested in in syria was regime change. we wanted to get rid of a saw, and we thought that we could put in place for government that would be friendly to the united states. and most importantly,

friendly to israel. i think the united states believes that chaos and syria would not work to our advantage, and it would not work. israel's advantage with regard to ukraine. i think our basic goal there was to d. o, the russians a severe blow to defeat them on the battlefield in ukraine, we can rush it to the point where it was knocked out of the ranks of the great powers. i don't believe that we wanted to purposely. so k us and ukraine and effectively rec, ukraine. i don't think that was the goal. one could argue that the end result is that we're ranking ukraine. that's been my argument all along. and one can argue that the end result of what we're doing in syria is to create chaos. but that's not the same thing and saying that that was the intended goal to start with. it's just a way of saying that the united states because of its bone headed policies, often times does end up creating chaos,

which is at odds with what it wants to do. so they actually believed that they could defeat russia, i think, gives no question that they believe that good defeat russia. i think if you look at how the ukranian military performed on the battle field in 2022, that was when the war started, the war started in february 2022. if you look at how the ukrainian military performed on the battlefield, if you look at the fact that the russians in the summer, late summer, early fall re treated from the western part of her son and retreated from hart keys. and also if you look at the fact that the west or the united states especially thought that sanctions would bring the russians to their knees. uh, the west concluded, based on those 2 factors that it could deal russia a devastating blow. that seems ridiculous. now when you think about what's happened

in 20232024, where we are at today. but if you go back to late 2022. it looked like we were in excellent shape. it looked like the sanctions might work. and also it looked like the ukrainians were doing very well on the battlefield. and there was all sorts of talked about how when confident the russian army was. so that led us to believe that we could actually defeat the rush. you never believed it. the profess and find all through it, like i did. and obviously they, they would clearly not listening to you. but now of course, infamously, when the boots in said that the nuclear doctrine was changing as regards nuclear weapons. uh, i think one of your papers is it could have been sold the biggest deal times with the business, the washington post that it was just a yawn in this gave the 500 when uh, these uh, new ideas of the use of nuclear weapons were emerging from moscow, well,

is producing, going to do as these a new longer range weapons are increasingly being engaged against russia as well. you wouldn't remember the 2 as 2 goals here. one is to win the war in ukraine, and number 2 is to make sure that the conflict doesn't escalate into world war 3. put has a deep seated interest into freight in ukraine. and it also has a deep seated interest in avoiding nuclear war. so i don't believe the pool is likely to use nuclear weapons unless he is in a position where it looks like russia is going to lose the war of ukraine. but that's not going to happen. so i think that there's little chance at this point in time that the rush, it will use nuclear weapons, but there's no question that the russians understand that they're facing the next a central threat in ukraine. and there is no doubt that the russians understand that the united states has its cross hairs on russia. and that's not going to

change even when donald trump comes into power. so as a consequence, the russians are sending a very clear signal that if the americans push too far and they do back rush it into a corner, they should fully understand that russia has lowered the nuclear threshold. which means that it is likely to use nuclear weapons. if it's in that situation, it kind of rush, i can still hear by then you hypersonic a miss i, i, we talking literally about this christmas, really because the head of trump senior organization, trump, who is said, i mean, as you say, he's going to to all these old civil war with roger, but the jump says he's going to change policy. so it's all about the next 3 weeks. and russia has to come up with some strategy and some responses on how to reply to increasing provocation avoided by blinking jake sullivan. and the rest of them

literally in the next 3 weeks. and so we're going to happen now. but the problem is that these prob occasions are, are not that significant. it's not like these a tac homes that ukraine is firing at russia or having a major impact on the course of the war. they're just not. so there's no questions the russians have to retaliate and it has to be a forceful retaliation against any use of a tac them's or storm shadows, or what have you. but the russians don't have to do too much. they certainly don't have to use nuclear weapons. and what's gonna happen here is that in a few weeks, we're going to have a new government and we'll see what happens then. and just finally, how soon can we expect the blow back for these policies or the by me at era of simple or the guys outside or in syria of means or lensky is supporting with

american weapons. the ice is all kinds of elements in syria. all these years, 4 years of foreign policy, billions of dollars of your public money. how soon of the blow back and we felt in uh, in the mainland to the united states with a symmetric warfare. i was i said to you before, it's just impossible. ready to say with any certainty when we should expect flow back. first of all, we just don't know exactly how things are going to play out in syria. but furthermore, we find it very difficult to guess as to when the blow back will take place. i think there's going to be significant blow back. i think you'll be significant. blow back for what's happening in gaza. many people around the world think that the united states is complicit. the genocide, they think the germany and west europe more generally is complicit in genocide and one can i potter sized all sorts of plausible scenarios where you get blow back

there. so i think the potential for a blow back in the west as a result of what's been happening in the middle east since october 7th is a huge, but predicting exactly when that will happen and what it will look like is upset the site impossible promises you'll measure i thank you you're more than welcome. that's after the show continued condolences to those surviving u. k u s. u, i'm genocide here in this region where we back on monday with the legendary pink floyd trunk ben roger waters. and you'll then keep in touch probably will i social media. it's not expensive, no country. and how do i channel going on? going to be on rumbler. com to watch new and old episodes on going undergrad. see you monday, the the,

the least return to the russian states. never is as tight as on the phone in the most sense community, best of all sense and up to 5 must be the one else calls. question about this, even though we will then in the european union, the kremlin media mission, the state on the russians cruising and split the ortiz full neck, even our video agency, roughly all the band on youtube tv services. for the question, did you say a request which is the

the whole from the fi, you know, just like dozens of other ukrainian souls might have gone unnoticed. but the pirates contact a journalist to ensure this boils would go public. and so the name of the ship that home the biggest shipment of arms, became known all over the world of dissipation. on the other 350 conquered chase to fellow grads for is the new hosting. the them, there is to pick this up at a booger. assume there's the phone. yeah. somebody, me on the safe and realize i'm going to do my phone when i've asked me to follow up in ensure newest though i said you have any problem with the put in motion like it was a know what the billing, unscrupulous to people, based on what kind of wiser sonics but the moment before stuff is not the thing on

the score and that almost nipples.