September 22, 2023 • 52 mins
On Back Story this week host Dana Lewis examines where does the West truly stand when it comes to Iran's volatile human rights scenario, particularly concerning women? This thought-provoking question sets the tone for our in-depth conversation with Azadeh Zabeti, from the Committee of Anglo-Iranian Lawyers. We shine a light on the distressing state of the women's movement in Iran and unpack a new bill passed in the Iranian parliament that could further bind the lives of Iranian women.
And, (Ret) Major General of the British military, Chip Chapman. Chapman's invaluable insights into the Ukraine war, focusing on Ukraine's strategic advancements and we discuss the possible arms deal between North Korea and Russia.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman (00:00):
And what they're very cleverly doing
is having really a kind ofattrition by over stretch.
They're putting multipledilemmas in the way of the
Russians getting inside theirsort of decision cycle about
what they should do.
If you look at that in terms ofwhat's been happening around
Crimea in that part of the deepbattle, there have been four
(00:21):
things there which had reallyoccurred in the last two to
three weeks which have beenreally important.
Dana Lewis (00:33):
Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of
Backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis.
That was Chip Chapman, aretired Major General in the
British military.
He was an advisor to America'sCentral Command and he was head
of counter-terrorism in UKoperations in the Ministry of
Defense and he is brilliant tolisten to on Ukraine, russia,
(00:56):
putin's war.
But before we get to MajorGeneral Chapman's interview on
Ukraine, I want to talk aboutIran.
This week, the Bidenadministration won the release
of five American hostages, butthe price paid and it was paid
was very high.
Before we get to our interviewwith human rights lawyer Azadeh
(01:17):
Zabeti, I wanted to read part ofthe editorial by Miriam Rajavi
of the National Council ofResistance on Iran Quote so how
many has intensified repression?
There have been more than 500executions since January 2023,
according to the internationalhuman rights organizations.
(01:38):
While these tactics may ratchetup intimidation in the
immediate term, they willultimately inflame dissent over
the long haul.
Democratic change in Iran hasceased to be a matter of
conjecture.
It has evolved into aninescapable reality.
The unyielding resolve of thepeople, coupled with the growing
(02:00):
unrest within the regime,renders the status quo untenable
.
A decisive and steadfast Westernpolicy towards the Iranian
regime can no longer be a mereexercise in prudence.
It's become an imperative.
Tehran's theocracy is at itsweakest.
It's never been more in need ofappeasement and diplomatic
(02:24):
maneuvering, which,unfortunately, it's getting.
Unquote.
All right as a day is a bet.
He is a human rights lawyer.
She is actually with theCommittee of Anglo-Iranian
Lawyers and she has said in thepast that women have paid an
exceptionally high price forthis resistance in Iran.
(02:47):
These years of resistance quoteunquote have resulted in
thousands of political prisonersbeing tortured and executed as
a day Welcome.
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Right (02:57):
Thank you so much, Dana.
Appreciate being on.
Dana Lewis (03:01):
It has been an incredible year in Iran and
where do you think it hasbrought women's movement in Iran
?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights L (03:11):
As you say, it has been an
incredible year.
I should point out that theIranian people really have, for
some 44 years now, beenresisting tyranny and oppression
and savagery and brutality.
This really is, withoutexception, one of the worst and
(03:32):
barbaric regimes, certainly ofmy generation.
I'm sure many of your viewersand listeners will know, but the
Iranian regime, per capita ofpopulation, has executed more
people than anywhere else onearth In terms of rights of
women, ethnic minorities,linguistic minorities, religious
minorities.
(03:52):
This really is a regime where,without exception, the 88
million people who are currentlyliving in Iran really do live
in a state prison that isotherwise known as the Islamic
Republic of Iran.
As you will know, this weekendwas the one year anniversary of
(04:12):
the 2022 uprising where, sparkedas it was by the death in
police custody of Masa Amini, ayoung Kurdish girl who was
visiting Tehran was brutally andsavagely beaten in police
custody when she was picked upby a routine sort of drive-thru
(04:36):
Iran's very perversely namedmorality police.
Since then, there have been,really, in terms of scope, we've
never seen anything like thisin Iran, whilst it's not by any
means the first uprising, butvery much in terms of scope is
an indication of the fact thatthis regime is on its knees and
(05:00):
it really is imminent andinevitable that it will be gone.
Dana Lewis (05:05):
If I can kind of edge through this a little bit
with you, because there's a lotof things that have happened
even in the last week, but whenwe talk about the uprising that
occurred since Masa Amini'sdeath, did that change anything?
Because I think a lot of peoplewho don't follow Iran day by
day get confused.
(05:27):
There's more violence, there'smore people in the street.
It moves from page one to, kindof tragically, the back pages
of some of the newspapers andnewscasts.
But people would say that womenhave gained ground in the last
year.
Is that me interpreting thenews in a way that I shouldn't?
(05:48):
Or has there been advances bywomen, do you think, by them
standing up to the regime in thelast year?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights La (05:56):
I really wish that I could say,
dana, with all my heart, thatthere have been advancements for
women, but only in the news.
Recently have we heard thatwithin the past 24 hours or so,
in the Iranian Majlis, that's,the Iranian parliament, a bill
has been passed throughparliament that is going to make
(06:17):
things a lot worse for women.
It's a very draconian billthat's being passed through
which is, in effect, making thelives of women a lot more
difficult, especially in termsof their dress code, and one of
the issues that I think is goingto be a big issue for women is
(06:40):
the fact that there's going tobe the possibility of a 10 year
prison sentence forinappropriately dressing.
So things are not gettingbetter, they're certainly
getting worse.
But what I'm pleased to say isthat really, this uprising, if
anything, is really showing theWest that a decision needs to be
(07:04):
made in terms of what theirrelationship is going to be with
the Iranian regime.
Dana Lewis (07:10):
I want to ask you that, but the bill essentially
changes what I mean, themeasures.
I don't even like using theterminology police, because
they're not moral.
They commit murders, so that'swhat they dub themselves, but
the repressive foot soldiers ofthe regime might be more apropos
(07:31):
.
How does this law changeanything, or possibly make it
worse, when it was already sodraconian?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rig (07:38):
Exactly so draconian.
How could it possibly be anyworse, given that this is a
regime who's one of the mainpillars of this regime is really
misogyny and a hatred of women,and really hatred of genuinely
all of the values that we holdvery dear in the free world?
(07:59):
So this does make things a lotworse.
But what I would say is theIranian people have certainly
never bowed down to tyranny andoppression and for 44 years have
really been taking to thestreets making their voices
heard, and from my perspective,I see myself as someone who has
(08:21):
really the immense fortune andthe privilege of living in the
free world.
I have a duty and aresponsibility to speak up for
my countrymen and women and toreally raise their voice in
terms of giving a voice to themin the west, and that voice is
really that the Iranian peoplewant freedom, they want
(08:42):
democracy, they want liberty andreally a secular democracy and
a republic.
Dana Lewis (08:48):
We know what the desire is and I don't in any way
treat any of that lightly.
I mean, the thirst for freedomhas gone on tragically for
decades in Iran.
But you know a lot of peoplefrom the West don't see progress
in Iran and they don't see alarger hope for them being able
(09:14):
to change the regime or breakaway from the regime.
So it's really important tohear from somebody like yourself
, who you've just come back frommeeting with the European Union
.
You obviously feel thatpressure can be applied.
What do you tell them?
What do you ask for?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Right (09:30):
Right .
Well, I think it's importantjust to point out that the
Iranian people have never sought, and nor do they desire in any
way, shape or form, whether it'smilitarily or financially, any
external interference in ourinternal affairs.
However, what we also will notaccept is this sitting on the
(09:51):
fence that has thus far been thepolicy that has been pursued,
in particular in the EuropeanUnion and certainly in the UK,
and really this policy ofappeasement or rapprochement.
I don't think there are enoughwords in the thesaurus to cover
the policies that have beenapplied and that have really
(10:13):
failed, but not only that.
I would go further and to saythat have made things a lot more
dangerous for citizens of theworld.
Dana Lewis (10:22):
Is that because the human rights discussion takes
kind of back of the, goes to theback of the bus, because the
nuclear discussion is so frontand center that in the end
people are.
Some western nations arewilling to make a deal or try to
appease around Somehow if theycan get them to step away from
(10:46):
nuclear development and maybesay to hell with human, human
rights in Iran.
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights (10:53):
Well , I think I would say that on
the one hand, it's desperatenaivety and, on the other hand,
perhaps a more sinisterfoolishness in terms of what the
Iranian regime stands for, whatit's capable of.
And I think it was WinstonChurchill who said that
appeasement is feeding thecrocodile, hoping that it will
(11:14):
eat you last.
And unfortunately, you know, Ithink the situation quite
recently that was in the newswith respect to the Biden
administration and the hostagesis very much the best, in my
opinion.
Recent example of appeasementand however much the Biden
administration would have us orhave their electorate see this
(11:39):
as more palatable, you know thisreally was.
It was a ransom money and alsoa deal with the devil, in my
opinion.
But there's also been a lot ofexamples of appeasement by the
UK government and the UKgovernment.
So today, Can we?
Dana Lewis (11:57):
just since you touched on hostages and I don't
mean to interrupt, but let'sjust deal with that so you have
five American hostages that arejoyously returned to their
families, people who had been,you know, in the worst prisons
in Iran for years.
Why is that not an achievementby the Biden administration?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human (12:19):
Absolutely look.
I mean, as somebody who has hadfamily members who have spent a
great deal of time in Evinprison, both under the
dictatorial regime of the Shahand under the dictatorial regime
of the current theocracy, Iknow more than anyone the
despicable conditions that thosehostages will have been held in
(12:39):
in Evin prison.
So absolutely, we empathizewith the families but and, of
course, are very happy for themthat they have been released.
But you know, our stance isthey should never have been
taken in the first place andunfortunately, hostage taking
since the inception of theIranian regime has really been
(13:01):
an incredibly lucrative businessand it pays because governments
will pay.
So, as I said, however much theBiden administration wants to
dress this up and tell us thatthis money will be going to I
think they called ithumanitarian organizations that
are non sanctionable, safermedicine and for food, the truth
(13:21):
of the matter is we all knowwhere that money is going to go
and that money is going to go tothrough, I am sure, a labyrinth
of entities and organizationsand companies.
What that money will do is makeits way up straight to the very
top to fund the IRGC, who wereresponsible for repression
inside of Iran but alsoterrorism outside of Iran, but
(13:44):
also it will.
Also the money will make itsway to the very highest echelons
of Iranian society, to theSupreme Leader and to other
individuals.
So, unfortunately, from myperspective, what the Biden
administration has done has madelife a lot more dangerous for
individuals who hold UScitizenship and European
(14:06):
citizenship, and I really wouldbe afraid, with those passports,
to be traveling anywhere whereI'm in reach of the Iranian
regime because, as I said, itpays.
Dana Lewis (14:18):
I mean, that's going to frighten a lot of
people.
You know cash for hostages,which the US administration of
Washington denied, but certainlythey have their critics on the
other side of the of the Houseand the Senate that said this
was an outrageous thing to doand it was the wrong thing to do
, but is returning to the streetand people protesting for
(14:44):
rights?
What is going to happen now?
You're saying the laws aregoing to get tougher.
The Iranian regime hasapparently not learned anything
from demonstrations that sweptthe nation and every, every city
that I could see in there.
It was constant and it wasbloody, so they won't step back,
(15:09):
and it looks like the Iranianpeople won't step back either.
What happens?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights L (15:16):
So , in terms of the scope of the
uprising, you're absolutelyright.
It was in over 282 cities, everysingle province in Iran.
So, whilst we had had uprisingsbefore, this was very, very
different in terms of the agegroups involved, in terms of the
fact that it was all walks oflife and very much all over the
(15:36):
country.
But really, what will happen nowis that we are on a course for
the overthrow of this regime.
The ferocity of, and the angerof the chance on the streets
very much is an indication ofthe fact that the Iranian people
want this regime overthrown.
But also the fact that theIranian regime, I think in
(16:00):
Tehran alone, had over 50,000state police onto the streets
really shows that they were verymuch expecting.
The fact that there were, Ibelieve, several hundred
incidences of people againtaking to the streets and really
chanting their slogans, whichis that they wanted regime
(16:21):
change in its entirety, and Ithink the fact that the Iranian
regime has introduced, forexample, this new hijab law, is
very much an indication of itsweakness.
The Iranian regime, I believe,and the people at the very top
of the regime do know that theirdays are numbered and the
suppression is very much anindication of really trying to.
(16:45):
If they let go of any of thatsuppression, then that really
will be the end of this regime.
Dana Lewis (16:51):
People have been saying that for years, though,
that the Iranian regime is onits last legs.
Is it wishful thinking, or doyou believe in your heart that
we're entering that chapter?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights La (17:01):
I don't believe that it is
wishful thinking.
Honestly, I think that it's ofcourse.
As an Iranian in exile, it'swhat I would like to see more
than anything else in the world.
But I really am optimisticbecause I'm seeing real changes
and in order for theseachievements really to be made,
(17:21):
I think it's very important forgovernments in the world to take
a responsible policy withrespect to the Iranian regime,
and that involves not appeasingthe regime.
You know, whilst verbalcondemnation is absolutely
welcome, this kind of fingerwagging at the regime although
it were, you know, an unrulytoddler is absolutely not
(17:44):
acceptable when we're dealingwith a regime as vile, as
despicable as this one, but alsoa regime that very much wants
to see, as I said, the end ofthe liberties that we do enjoy
in the West.
Dana Lewis (17:57):
If you delivered that message to the European
Union in your meetings, whatwhen they asked you, okay, well,
and I assume they did.
What do you want to happen?
What is the specifics of ifit's not criticism and warning
and finger wagging, what did yourecommend to them?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights (18:16):
Well , certainly in this respect, I
would say that the US is ahead.
What we would like to see inEurope and in the United Kingdom
is for the IRGC to beprescribed as a terrorist
organization, and the reluctanceof the EU and the UK government
in doing so is really ratherbaffling to the Iranian people
(18:40):
and also those of us in exile.
There is this extraordinarysituation that we have certainly
in the UK, where we have thechildren of the terrorists, the
Godfather of terrorism,prescribed as terrorist
organizations, but not reallythe Godfather itself.
It's long overdue for the IRGCto be recognized as a terrorist
(19:03):
organization, but also there areother steps.
I mean as an Iranian exile.
Dana Lewis (19:06):
By the way, that's the Iranian Revolutionary Guard
Corps.
Corps, absolutely, and they arethe muscle, the henchmen of the
regime.
Azadeh Zabeti/Human (19:18):
Absolutely .
Dana Lewis (19:18):
And what does classifying them as a terrorist
organization do exactly?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights (19:23):
Well , it stops the money train it
really does.
This is an organization that isresponsible for internal
repression, but, moreimportantly, it has its
tentacles in Syria and in Yemen.
It has its tentacles in Iraqand in Afghanistan, in Gaza and
the West Bank and also, moreimportantly or more recently,
(19:46):
should I say it's interferencein the Ukraine.
So, which leads me to the nextpoint, what else would we like
to see?
I would like to see really arecognition of the right of the
Iranian people to stand up tothe tyranny and the oppression
of the Iranian regime.
I would like the West torecognize our people's right to
(20:11):
really defend themselves againstthe IRGC, and it's really in
tone, so it's, I guess it's theway that it's put across, the
way that we have, very rightly,support for the Ukrainian people
.
I do truly believe that theIranian people are deserving of
support.
Dana Lewis (20:34):
In terms of arms, or what do you suggest?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights L (20:37):
No no, no but for me it's a
recognition of the right todefend themselves and it's the
way that it's portrayed, so thatto me would give the very much
a message to the Iranian peoplethat they have the support of
the West in principle, and alsoit would give a message a strong
(20:59):
and robust and concrete messageto the Iranian regime that
really the West means businessin terms of the fact that the
rights of the Iranian people arebeing recognized and supported.
Dana Lewis (21:11):
Last question to you and I know you're not a
nuclear expert, you're a lawyerbut do you believe that this
regime, despite all the smokeand mirrors, is still pursuing a
nuclear weapon?
And in knowing everything thatyou know about them, what would
the Mullahs, the Iranian regime,represent to the world if they
(21:34):
had a nuclear weapon, if they'reable to obtain one?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights L (21:39):
In terms of, are they pursuing?
I would say absolutely.
I mean, there is no doubt in mymind that they are, and I say
this because that would reallybe to them the trump card in
terms of keeping the regime inplace.
It would be a very powerfulreally tool for them to have.
(22:03):
I mean, to have the bomb reallywould, I guess, would then make
it very, very difficult for theregime to be overthrown.
Dana Lewis (22:12):
So they are absolutely pursuing it in terms
of, and what would that regimelook like with a nuclear weapon,
in possession of a nuclearweapon?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human (22:22):
Absolutely terrifying one.
Really, the thought of theIranian regime having a nuclear
bomb is one that really shouldterrify all of us, given the
fact that this is a regime thathas very openly said that it
wants to see the destruction ofIsrael as well as other states.
So, as I said, a terrifying one, and one that we should be
(22:45):
doing everything in our power tomake sure that it's not an
ambition that is realized.
Dana Lewis (22:52):
As it is, Abeddi, it's great to talk to you.
Thank you so much.
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights L (22:55):
My pleasure.
Thank you so much for having meLive.
Dana Lewis (23:02):
Chip Chapman is a retired major general in the
British military.
He spent years as a paratrooper, an instructor, he deployed the
battle zones, he was an advisorto America's CENTCOM Central
Command and he was also the headof counterterrorism and UK
operations in the Ministry ofDefense.
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chap (23:23):
Welcome sir, Good afternoon Dana.
Dana Lewis (23:28):
As we speak, president Zelensky is in the
United States this week.
He'll talk to the UN and thenhe'll also meet with President
Biden.
What do you think kind ofunfettered that he will tell
President Biden?
What message do you think willbe important, coming directly
from President Zelensky to theWhite House?
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman (23:50):
Well , the first thing is he, of
course, needs unlimited andcontinuing support, so that's
growth from an Americanperspective and the
international community'sperspective.
And, of course, in terms ofcapabilities, they still need
certain capabilities, includingthe long range a TACCANs, but it
would be useful to have moretanks and more F-16s, and in a
(24:14):
more timely fashion.
So that's the first thing, andthere are always these three
variables about internal support, alliance support and
perceptions of Russia, whichCloud has things done within the
framework of World War End ornot.
The second thing, I think, isthe United Nations General
Assembly meetings are alwaysimportant, and I recall that at
(24:38):
the first year anniversary ofthe war, there was a vote which
took place on a non-bindingresolution, which was that
Russia should end its violenceand Russia should withdraw its
troops.
Now, only six countries votedagainst that, adding to Russia,
of course.
That was Belarus, syria,eritrea, north Korea, mali and
(25:02):
Nicaragua.
So he'll be trying to reinforcethe morality and the ethics of
the Ukrainian position in theUnited Nations General Assembly.
I think that's a given, and Ithink there'll also be some
background talk about Russia'sposition on the Security Council
.
Now, this is an interesting onebecause technically, there is a
(25:25):
procedure called the credentialsprocedure which could lead to a
vote at some time about Russiabeing voted off the United
Nations Security Council.
Now people might say, well,that's absolutely farcical.
But of course when the UNCharter came about in 1945, it
wasn't Russia that occupied theposition in the Security Council
(25:48):
, it was the United USSR.
And with the breakup of theSoviet Union it was then just by
default that Russia occupiedthat position.
But it could have been Belarus,it could have been Ukraine and
if you've broken the UN Charteryou could make a good legal and
moral case that that shouldpertain.
It has happened once beforewith South Africa, I think in
(26:10):
1971.
And the route you do thecredentials procedure could mean
that you couldn't be vetoed bya UN, a P5 member to do that.
So I think those are the threestrands which we'll see in
Sylvesteren's visit this week.
Dana Lewis (26:26):
Because you've just mentioned the UN Security
Council, which is never before,according to the head of the UN,
gutara.
It says never before have webeen paralyzed like this I mean
unable to agree on anythingbetween China and the United
States, russia and he says,never before has the need been
greater for the Security Councilto be effective and to take
(26:51):
action.
Are you hearing that there'sactually some traction in that
discussion?
I mean, is that something thatpeople joke about over coffee,
or do you think there's reallytraction in removing Russia from
the Security Council?
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman (27:08):
I think it should become a basis
for talking about it.
But of course, there are alwaysthese centrifugal and
centripetal forces going bothways, and we saw this in a way
with what came out of the G20 inthe last couple of weeks, where
I would say we got to the pointof discursive diplomacy.
And what I mean by discursivediplomacy really wasn't any
(27:31):
substantive statement about thewar in Ukraine and Russia's
position within it, ie thatthey'd invaded, and I call it
discursive diplomacy because,effectively, they were
discussing everything else butthat key point.
So we've really gone from aposition where, prior to the war
, we had coercive diplomacyRussia trying to achieve its
(27:53):
objectives by diplomacy given toour demands or else then to a
position where we've invaded andit's still really within the
war, had a position of giving toour demands, or else that is
what's ours is ours and what'syours is negotiable, and now
we've got to this position ofdiscursive diplomacy so it could
(28:13):
gain traction.
It's still a fairly lowpercentage of that happening at
the moment, but it's one ofthose scenarios that one could
see for the future and, like allthese things, there are no
certainties.
There were only scenarios inthe future, both in diplomacy
and on the battles here.
Dana Lewis (28:30):
Right.
Here's another scenario for you.
What if you're right?
President Zelensky no doubtwill be in the White House
saying more, give me more, giveme more ammunition.
Maybe give me attack arms,which I want to ask you about.
Give me to Germany.
They will ask for these othermissiles, the Taurus missiles, I
(28:51):
think.
What if President Biden is justlooking down the election road
increasingly seeing theRepublicans capitalize on the
$70 billion that's the numbernow $70 billion that has gone to
Ukraine, and she starts readingthe room and just says I'm not
(29:15):
going to give more becausethat's not going to help the
Democrats win the presidentialrace?
Is there another scenario whereUkraine can continue on with
the support of others, withoutAmerica's full support?
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman (29:37):
Well , of course, in a way I sort of
said that the three variablesthere are internal politics
within our country, alliancepolitics and perceptions of
Russia.
So, in the internal politics,of course, we have a fairly
fractured House ofRepresentatives where we have,
typically from the Republicanside, the Freedom Caucus, which
(29:57):
is trying to either make surethat either a supplemental in
the spending in terms ofUkrainian support or some sort
of other mechanism is tied intoother spending cuts.
That is essentially why we'vegot a bit of a hiatus at the
moment and, of course, the endof the financial year in America
is the end of September and sothat's why we've got that
(30:20):
discussion at the moment.
Now, in terms of the DemocraticParty, the support from the
Democrats, from those whosupport the Democrats, is still
a lot higher than those from theRepublican Party who would give
willing support to Ukraine.
And, of course, the looms ofspecter, not of the end of
September and shutting down thegovernment that always happens
(30:43):
on a yearly basis or doing whatI was in America but of course
the specter of the November 24election.
Now, of course, again, scenarioterms, the war could be over by
November 24.
It could also be a long war.
So in a long war scenario thelongest I ever saw of when
someone articulating a timeframe I'm not sure on what basis
(31:05):
she did.
This was when Liz Truss beforeshe became Prime Minister, was
our foreign secretary in the UKat the time suggested that the
war in Ukraine could last for 10years.
Now, again, there were nocertainties.
There were scenarios.
The long war scenario issomething that no one really had
planned for and, of course,there was a theory certainly
(31:29):
from Mark Milley, the outgoingchairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff that the way number ofmyths that we needed to get rid
of.
One of those myths is, ofcourse, that wars may well be
short.
He said that originally in 2017, when he was the Chief of the
Army.
Of course, in the five yearsonwards from that particular war
(31:50):
, before we got to the Ukrainianor Russian invasion of Ukraine
in February 2022, you couldargue that it did look like wars
were short, and the GornogKarabat war was 44 days upguard
into the war and Israel hadmassed 10 days.
But this isn't.
This is a long war, and one ofthe things about wars which look
(32:11):
to be becoming long is that theleast likely time for a
ceasefire in wars is generallyaround the two-year mark Now.
The offensive from Ukrainehasn't petered out yet?
I don't think it will, at leastfor the next month.
And that's also an interestingone, and looking at the
(32:32):
variables of what the DefenseIntelligence Agency said
recently, on the 8th ofSeptember, that they said that
there was a realisticpossibility of Ukraine breaking
through both the second andthird lines of defense, which
would put them within firecontrol range of the M14.
That's the key highway whichlinks Malitopol to Marriottpol
(32:55):
and therefore could sever theline of communications and put
Crimea at risk, with thetimeframe which Mark Milley
articulated on the 10th ofSeptember, which was that there
were only 30 or 40 to 45 daysfighting time left this year,
(33:15):
based on either the weather,reserves, lack of supplies and
all those things.
Dana Lewis (33:21):
So you've got a change of course and a lot of
people would debate thattimeframe.
But okay, he said.
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman (33:27):
Yeah , I don't think fighting stops
because of that, and there arelots of examples in history
which would tell you that, inclimates which are far worse
than podology, soil science,which is far worse than that in
that part of the world, andthat's not the appropriate
marshes.
Neither is it the Finnish frontfrom 1940, when, of course,
russia was very successful in acounterattack war which brought
(33:49):
the winter war of 1939 to 1940to a conclusion.
Dana Lewis (33:55):
I was going to save this, but I mean, you've deeply
waded into what's happening inUkraine and in the war front, so
let me just ask you about that.
So I heard an interview thatyou did recently where you said
and I'm saying this, not you,but you kind of, I think,
(34:19):
evaporated this idea that it'sfrozen.
You laid out some prettycritical, linear, step by step
advances that Ukraine is takingand a lot of that centered on
Crimea that they're just nothitting and running and we're
(34:40):
having a headline one or twodays later in a newspaper, but
in fact they are chipping awaycritically and methodically and
advancing.
So can you, as a military man,sort of lay that out for me and
tell me how do you read that andwhy do you think they're being
successful right now and in avery logical, linear way?
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman (35:03):
Well , I think to understand that you
need to understand theframework of the battlefield.
So in terms of the framework ofthe battlefield, we talk about
close operation, sort of fourthon fourth fighting which you're
seeing particularly around thesort of back moot, south of back
moot, north of back moot areasand in the Zaporizhia where the
advances on the Goga teammateand that towards Zodogny.
(35:26):
So that is the close battle.
Now, really important thinghere is the deep battle that
beyond the close battle whichsets the conditions for what you
want to achieve at theoperational level in the future.
Now the operational level, wereally talk about tactical
battles, a sequence to achieveoperational effect and the
(35:48):
operational effects that they'regoing after at the moment to
set that condition for either areoccupation of the Kremlin or
for a collapse of the Russianmorale, the military morale,
political morale, because one ofthe decisive battles might be
in the Kremlin or in the elite.
(36:09):
Defections is in what they'vebeen doing in terms of what we
call the A2AD battle, that's,anti-access area denial battle,
and what they're very cleverlydoing is having really a kind of
attrition by over stretch.
They're putting multipledilemmas in the way of the
Russians getting inside theirsort of decision cycle about
(36:31):
what they should do.
If you look at that in terms ofwhat's been happening around
Crimea in that part of the deepbattle, there have been four
things there which have reallyoccurred in the last two to
three weeks which have beenreally important.
The first one was thesignificant hit on Cape Tarhakut
(36:52):
around the end of August, whichtook out a number of electronic
warfare systems, radars and anS-400 system, one of the long
range over the horizonsurface-to-air missile systems
of the Russian.
So that was the first enablerto make them get closer.
(37:13):
The second one was the Boykogo-claps, that's, the gas and
oil platforms.
So, again, by eroding theelectronic warfare in some of
the sensors there, we're makingthe airspace management from a
Ukraine perspective easier, andthat means you can bring more
assets to bear with a greaterprobability of success, because
(37:35):
one of the things you look at iswhat we call NEA Unitions
Effectiveness Assessment.
The third thing, then, was thatit enabled those two things was
the really successful strike onthe base at Sevastopol, with
the submarine being destroyedalong with the landing craft.
Now, that landing craft isreally important in terms of
(37:59):
landing craft and the dry dockin terms of two things.
Firstly, the loss ofmaintenance facilities for the
Russians.
Secondly, if the Ukrainians areable to sever the land bridge
and at some time significantlydestroy or call it the Kerch-er
bridge, then the supply linethat runs through to Ukraine
(38:24):
effectively by land has gone andtherefore you can only really
supply it by car seat, and thoselanding craft have actually
been utilized as supply ships asmuch as anything.
So that is now two that havebeen destroyed effectively.
So you're chipping away, and ifyou do that in the deep battle
(38:46):
there comes a point when Putinreally has as a choice it's guns
or butter, because you can't doboth with the logistic support
to the population and themilitary in Crimea, and that's
why the decisive battle might bein the Kremlin, because Crimea,
(39:07):
from his perspective, is deemedto be kind of holy land.
Now neither is, and they allfight for it, or it's not, and
there's a significantconsequence for Putin at home.
Dana Lewis (39:19):
I mean there's a lot of analysis that say that
the Ukrainians don't necessarilyhave to take Crimea, that just
by cutting it off and making ituntenable for Russian forces
they can collapse the Russianarmy.
I don't know, but they cancertainly collapse that major
launch pad which is being usedto attack Ukraine.
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman (39:42):
Well , I think that's true.
I mean we always really talkabout two parts to war, a
physical part and apsychological part, and I think
we're already seeing some ofthose psychological wrinkles
which can be amplified.
And then military theory terms.
Here again we're really talkingabout class fits in Trinity, so
war's really end.
I mean fighting stops eitherbecause of decisive military
(40:05):
victory the improbability ofmilitary victory or because the
costs the military, economic,industrial, whatever are too
great.
Now in class fits, in termsthat translates into the
military no longer are able orwilling to fight.
And we saw that, for example, in1917, when two and a half
million people walked off thebattlefield to the Russian army,
(40:27):
which led to the tree ofBrestletov.
Or we can see it in thecollapse of the political polity
.
That is why the decisive battlemight be in the Kremlin.
In terms of the psychologicalaspect of the Prismas Dilemma,
one of the great psychologicalmodels Do you stay loyal or do
you defect.
That was the same sort of thingthat we really saw around the
(40:50):
pregishing.
Or the third thing is that thegovernment defects, and that is
the defections, because theconsequences for those the Stina
, vicky, the man of forcesurrounding is too great In that
situation, it is the securityservices who become important in
the future in czar making.
Now that doesn't mean, if Putingoes, that you're going to have
(41:12):
a regime of sweetness and lightin Russia.
You might just have someonewho's even worse than Putin, but
that doesn't mean that youstill don't have the same
dilemmas about you know Triddy,for example.
Either Putin or a successormobilise the country either
economically or in manpowerterms to continue this war, and
(41:32):
that's one of the key dilemmashe also faces at the moment.
Dana Lewis (41:35):
What if Biden says yes to attack him?
In layman terms, a lot ofpeople don't even know what that
is.
It's the army tactical missilesystem.
If Biden says yes to attack him, they get more range.
What happens on the battlefieldand can happen pretty quickly?
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman (41:51):
Well , what it does is it pushes this
A2AD bubble backwards, so theanti-axis area denial of the
Russian is pushed further back,giving the Ukrainians greater
access to using other systems toattack.
So, for example, early in thewar we heard a lot about TV2 by
(42:12):
Raktor.
Now that things are limited byranging payload and all that
sort of stuff, it brings othersystems to bear and brings
systems to bear which previouslyreally had been either jammed
by electronic warfare, beingable to shot over the sky.
So the extended range of ATACMsand of course, if the Germans
do give tours, which youmentioned earlier on just pushes
(42:35):
this ability of the Russians tocontrol the airspace further
back and that again means thatthe Ukrainians can prosecute a
deep battle more effectively onhigh-value targets.
They're not going after smallthings, it's high-value targets.
That's why we see these S-400sbeing taken out.
(42:56):
Electronic warfare systems, biglogistic dumps, command and
control moves, the things whichreally both the brains of an
operation and the things whichgive you the real big enablers
for the future.
Dana Lewis (43:10):
Will you comment on North Korea?
And we don't know what the dealwas behind closed doors.
But they have a lot more tooffer than just millions of
rounds of old artillery shells.
I mean, they have some otherweapons systems Presumably Putin
is going to get access to that.
Is it a big factor, do youthink, when you kind of went
through the shopping list ofwhat is available from North
(43:32):
Korea to Russia?
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman (43:35):
It's not a done deal yet.
I mean, of course, we know thatthe number of artillery systems
in the North Korean inventoryis suddenly large and that is
why, for example, in the firstthree to four days of any war,
should there be one in theKorean Peninsula across the 38th
parallel, the left and right ofarc in terms of casualties from
(43:58):
a South Korean perspective isbetween 30,000 and 300,000.
Now that variable is so greatbecause of the proximity to
Seoul, to the DMZ, to the DMZ,it's in artillery range 25 miles
away.
Now, one of the key things isreally what ammunition and
(44:20):
systems and at what age do theygive them?
Now, one of the big differenceshistorically between NATO
countries and Russia, which isso unique as it was, is the way
that they manage stocks andstock inventory.
So the NATO countries had farlower operational stocks,
(44:41):
because the thing aboutmunitions is that they degrade,
so propellants degrade androcket motors degrade.
And that is one of the things.
For example, why, in inventoryterms, not looking at North
Koreans but looking at theAmericans and the ATACOMs some
of the ATACOMs are 30 years oldand therefore were taken out of
(45:03):
the operational stocks of theAmericans.
But if they looked at them,which they are and then said
this is still fit to go, or ifwe replace a rocket motor, then
it could still be used.
That's why you often see amismatch between inventories
when we look at this from a NATOperspective.
(45:23):
So it really depends on whatthey give them.
If they give them stuff whichwas manufactured last year I'm
assuming that North Koreantolerances of manufacturing are
pretty good that could be aworry.
If they give them stuff whichis 30, 40, 50 years old because
the North Koreans have notfought anything significant
encounter since 1953, it couldactually be more dangerous to
(45:45):
the Russians.
So again, like all these things, there's a big variable about
what, if anything, they givethem and what quality that is.
Dana Lewis (45:54):
Major General Chapman.
I have traveled Russia as acorrespondent there and I can
tell you I mean, the one thingthat I can bring to the
discussion is that when you takea look at some of the secret
cities in the manufacturing base, whatever they're able to
kickstart from Soviet times isincredible.
(46:17):
I mean, this is a country thatcan produce weapons, probably
like no other maybe the UnitedStates can but there is a huge
assembly line out there waitingand gaining steam.
So your overall assessment ofthe war in Ukraine?
(46:37):
I think sometimes the media istoo positive, being the fall of
a village and crediting Ukrainewith a major advancement, and
maybe it's not.
Sometimes we're too negativebecause we have short attention
spans and war takes a long timeto play out in the battlefield.
So when you get asked to shutup for a minute, the media
(47:00):
people who don't always knowenough about warfare, but talk
about it all the time what isyour feeling?
What's your assessment in termsof where this is headed?
And is there enough sand in theclock as it drips down for
Ukraine to be able to get thisdone with Western support
(47:20):
continuing?
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman (47:22):
Well , a lot of media commentators
and military commentators,including Mark Milley, from time
to time have said that Russiahas already lost tactically,
operationally and strategically.
Now, of course, I don't takethat view because, again, it's
really to do with the fact thatthere are so many multiple
scenarios, there are so manyvariables, and you have to look
(47:47):
at the time frames that Russiaworks in and really the fact
that I always say that leadersmay change.
If you think you could go.
Vital interests rarely changeand we think we know that Russia
has defined it with vitalinterests.
We gained, lost territory inspheres of influence, but
(48:10):
geography doesn't change.
So, like all these things, youcould either have a frozen piece
and a land for peace, whichwould reward the aggressor, but
that doesn't mean thatultimately, if you look in grand
strategic terms and in terms ofvital interests, that the thing
would be over, because grandstrategic, vital interests
should be measured in tens ofyears, not in one year or three
(48:33):
years or five years.
So it is far too early to saythat Russia has lost at any of
those levels tactically,operationally or strategically.
Of course, you could say at themoment that, tactically, russia
, to my mind, is being outthought and out thought by the
Ukrainians.
But tactical success is not thebuilding block necessarily of
(48:56):
strategic warfare.
So we will have to wait and see, as they always say.
Dana Lewis (49:02):
Major General Chip Chapman.
Sir, what a pleasure to talk toyou.
I really appreciate your timeand it's an honor to get some of
your thoughts.
I really do appreciate yourtime, Thank you.
Thank you again, and that's ourbackstory this week.
This is a new season, seasonsix.
We have 90,000 listens and tensof thousands more views of our
interviews on YouTube.
Thank you for your support.
(49:22):
I'm Dana Lewis.
Thanks for listening toBackstory and I'll talk to you
again soon.
Поти, music, music, music,music, music, music, music,
(52:14):
music, music, music, music,music, music, music.
And what they're very cleverly doing
is having really a kind ofattrition by over stretch.
They're putting multipledilemmas in the way of the
Russians getting inside theirsort of decision cycle about
what they should do.
If you look at that in terms ofwhat's been happening around
Crimea in that part of the deepbattle, there have been four
(00:21):
things there which had reallyoccurred in the last two to
three weeks which have beenreally important.
Dana Lewis (00:33):
Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of
Backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis.
That was Chip Chapman, aretired Major General in the
British military.
He was an advisor to America'sCentral Command and he was head
of counter-terrorism in UKoperations in the Ministry of
Defense and he is brilliant tolisten to on Ukraine, russia,
(00:56):
putin's war.
But before we get to MajorGeneral Chapman's interview on
Ukraine, I want to talk aboutIran.
This week, the Bidenadministration won the release
of five American hostages, butthe price paid and it was paid
was very high.
Before we get to our interviewwith human rights lawyer Azadeh
(01:17):
Zabeti, I wanted to read part ofthe editorial by Miriam Rajavi
of the National Council ofResistance on Iran Quote so how
many has intensified repression?
There have been more than 500executions since January 2023,
according to the internationalhuman rights organizations.
(01:38):
While these tactics may ratchetup intimidation in the
immediate term, they willultimately inflame dissent over
the long haul.
Democratic change in Iran hasceased to be a matter of
conjecture.
It has evolved into aninescapable reality.
The unyielding resolve of thepeople, coupled with the growing
(02:00):
unrest within the regime,renders the status quo untenable
.
A decisive and steadfast Westernpolicy towards the Iranian
regime can no longer be a mereexercise in prudence.
It's become an imperative.
Tehran's theocracy is at itsweakest.
It's never been more in need ofappeasement and diplomatic
(02:24):
maneuvering, which,unfortunately, it's getting.
Unquote.
All right as a day is a bet.
He is a human rights lawyer.
She is actually with theCommittee of Anglo-Iranian
Lawyers and she has said in thepast that women have paid an
exceptionally high price forthis resistance in Iran.
(02:47):
These years of resistance quoteunquote have resulted in
thousands of political prisonersbeing tortured and executed as
a day Welcome.
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Right (02:57):
Thank you so much, Dana.
Appreciate being on.
Dana Lewis (03:01):
It has been an incredible year in Iran and
where do you think it hasbrought women's movement in Iran
?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights L (03:11):
As you say, it has been an
incredible year.
I should point out that theIranian people really have, for
some 44 years now, beenresisting tyranny and oppression
and savagery and brutality.
This really is, withoutexception, one of the worst and
(03:32):
barbaric regimes, certainly ofmy generation.
I'm sure many of your viewersand listeners will know, but the
Iranian regime, per capita ofpopulation, has executed more
people than anywhere else onearth In terms of rights of
women, ethnic minorities,linguistic minorities, religious
minorities.
(03:52):
This really is a regime where,without exception, the 88
million people who are currentlyliving in Iran really do live
in a state prison that isotherwise known as the Islamic
Republic of Iran.
As you will know, this weekendwas the one year anniversary of
(04:12):
the 2022 uprising where, sparkedas it was by the death in
police custody of Masa Amini, ayoung Kurdish girl who was
visiting Tehran was brutally andsavagely beaten in police
custody when she was picked upby a routine sort of drive-thru
(04:36):
Iran's very perversely namedmorality police.
Since then, there have been,really, in terms of scope, we've
never seen anything like thisin Iran, whilst it's not by any
means the first uprising, butvery much in terms of scope is
an indication of the fact thatthis regime is on its knees and
(05:00):
it really is imminent andinevitable that it will be gone.
Dana Lewis (05:05):
If I can kind of edge through this a little bit
with you, because there's a lotof things that have happened
even in the last week, but whenwe talk about the uprising that
occurred since Masa Amini'sdeath, did that change anything?
Because I think a lot of peoplewho don't follow Iran day by
day get confused.
(05:27):
There's more violence, there'smore people in the street.
It moves from page one to, kindof tragically, the back pages
of some of the newspapers andnewscasts.
But people would say that womenhave gained ground in the last
year.
Is that me interpreting thenews in a way that I shouldn't?
(05:48):
Or has there been advances bywomen, do you think, by them
standing up to the regime in thelast year?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights La (05:56):
I really wish that I could say,
dana, with all my heart, thatthere have been advancements for
women, but only in the news.
Recently have we heard thatwithin the past 24 hours or so,
in the Iranian Majlis, that's,the Iranian parliament, a bill
has been passed throughparliament that is going to make
(06:17):
things a lot worse for women.
It's a very draconian billthat's being passed through
which is, in effect, making thelives of women a lot more
difficult, especially in termsof their dress code, and one of
the issues that I think is goingto be a big issue for women is
(06:40):
the fact that there's going tobe the possibility of a 10 year
prison sentence forinappropriately dressing.
So things are not gettingbetter, they're certainly
getting worse.
But what I'm pleased to say isthat really, this uprising, if
anything, is really showing theWest that a decision needs to be
(07:04):
made in terms of what theirrelationship is going to be with
the Iranian regime.
Dana Lewis (07:10):
I want to ask you that, but the bill essentially
changes what I mean, themeasures.
I don't even like using theterminology police, because
they're not moral.
They commit murders, so that'swhat they dub themselves, but
the repressive foot soldiers ofthe regime might be more apropos
(07:31):
.
How does this law changeanything, or possibly make it
worse, when it was already sodraconian?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rig (07:38):
Exactly so draconian.
How could it possibly be anyworse, given that this is a
regime who's one of the mainpillars of this regime is really
misogyny and a hatred of women,and really hatred of genuinely
all of the values that we holdvery dear in the free world?
(07:59):
So this does make things a lotworse.
But what I would say is theIranian people have certainly
never bowed down to tyranny andoppression and for 44 years have
really been taking to thestreets making their voices
heard, and from my perspective,I see myself as someone who has
(08:21):
really the immense fortune andthe privilege of living in the
free world.
I have a duty and aresponsibility to speak up for
my countrymen and women and toreally raise their voice in
terms of giving a voice to themin the west, and that voice is
really that the Iranian peoplewant freedom, they want
(08:42):
democracy, they want liberty andreally a secular democracy and
a republic.
Dana Lewis (08:48):
We know what the desire is and I don't in any way
treat any of that lightly.
I mean, the thirst for freedomhas gone on tragically for
decades in Iran.
But you know a lot of peoplefrom the West don't see progress
in Iran and they don't see alarger hope for them being able
(09:14):
to change the regime or breakaway from the regime.
So it's really important tohear from somebody like yourself
, who you've just come back frommeeting with the European Union
.
You obviously feel thatpressure can be applied.
What do you tell them?
What do you ask for?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Right (09:30):
Right .
Well, I think it's importantjust to point out that the
Iranian people have never sought, and nor do they desire in any
way, shape or form, whether it'smilitarily or financially, any
external interference in ourinternal affairs.
However, what we also will notaccept is this sitting on the
(09:51):
fence that has thus far been thepolicy that has been pursued,
in particular in the EuropeanUnion and certainly in the UK,
and really this policy ofappeasement or rapprochement.
I don't think there are enoughwords in the thesaurus to cover
the policies that have beenapplied and that have really
(10:13):
failed, but not only that.
I would go further and to saythat have made things a lot more
dangerous for citizens of theworld.
Dana Lewis (10:22):
Is that because the human rights discussion takes
kind of back of the, goes to theback of the bus, because the
nuclear discussion is so frontand center that in the end
people are.
Some western nations arewilling to make a deal or try to
appease around Somehow if theycan get them to step away from
(10:46):
nuclear development and maybesay to hell with human, human
rights in Iran.
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights (10:53):
Well , I think I would say that on
the one hand, it's desperatenaivety and, on the other hand,
perhaps a more sinisterfoolishness in terms of what the
Iranian regime stands for, whatit's capable of.
And I think it was WinstonChurchill who said that
appeasement is feeding thecrocodile, hoping that it will
(11:14):
eat you last.
And unfortunately, you know, Ithink the situation quite
recently that was in the newswith respect to the Biden
administration and the hostagesis very much the best, in my
opinion.
Recent example of appeasementand however much the Biden
administration would have us orhave their electorate see this
(11:39):
as more palatable, you know thisreally was.
It was a ransom money and alsoa deal with the devil, in my
opinion.
But there's also been a lot ofexamples of appeasement by the
UK government and the UKgovernment.
So today, Can we?
Dana Lewis (11:57):
just since you touched on hostages and I don't
mean to interrupt, but let'sjust deal with that so you have
five American hostages that arejoyously returned to their
families, people who had been,you know, in the worst prisons
in Iran for years.
Why is that not an achievementby the Biden administration?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human (12:19):
Absolutely look.
I mean, as somebody who has hadfamily members who have spent a
great deal of time in Evinprison, both under the
dictatorial regime of the Shahand under the dictatorial regime
of the current theocracy, Iknow more than anyone the
despicable conditions that thosehostages will have been held in
(12:39):
in Evin prison.
So absolutely, we empathizewith the families but and, of
course, are very happy for themthat they have been released.
But you know, our stance isthey should never have been
taken in the first place andunfortunately, hostage taking
since the inception of theIranian regime has really been
(13:01):
an incredibly lucrative businessand it pays because governments
will pay.
So, as I said, however much theBiden administration wants to
dress this up and tell us thatthis money will be going to I
think they called ithumanitarian organizations that
are non sanctionable, safermedicine and for food, the truth
(13:21):
of the matter is we all knowwhere that money is going to go
and that money is going to go tothrough, I am sure, a labyrinth
of entities and organizationsand companies.
What that money will do is makeits way up straight to the very
top to fund the IRGC, who wereresponsible for repression
inside of Iran but alsoterrorism outside of Iran, but
(13:44):
also it will.
Also the money will make itsway to the very highest echelons
of Iranian society, to theSupreme Leader and to other
individuals.
So, unfortunately, from myperspective, what the Biden
administration has done has madelife a lot more dangerous for
individuals who hold UScitizenship and European
(14:06):
citizenship, and I really wouldbe afraid, with those passports,
to be traveling anywhere whereI'm in reach of the Iranian
regime because, as I said, itpays.
Dana Lewis (14:18):
I mean, that's going to frighten a lot of
people.
You know cash for hostages,which the US administration of
Washington denied, but certainlythey have their critics on the
other side of the of the Houseand the Senate that said this
was an outrageous thing to doand it was the wrong thing to do
, but is returning to the streetand people protesting for
(14:44):
rights?
What is going to happen now?
You're saying the laws aregoing to get tougher.
The Iranian regime hasapparently not learned anything
from demonstrations that sweptthe nation and every, every city
that I could see in there.
It was constant and it wasbloody, so they won't step back,
(15:09):
and it looks like the Iranianpeople won't step back either.
What happens?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights L (15:16):
So , in terms of the scope of the
uprising, you're absolutelyright.
It was in over 282 cities, everysingle province in Iran.
So, whilst we had had uprisingsbefore, this was very, very
different in terms of the agegroups involved, in terms of the
fact that it was all walks oflife and very much all over the
(15:36):
country.
But really, what will happen nowis that we are on a course for
the overthrow of this regime.
The ferocity of, and the angerof the chance on the streets
very much is an indication ofthe fact that the Iranian people
want this regime overthrown.
But also the fact that theIranian regime, I think in
(16:00):
Tehran alone, had over 50,000state police onto the streets
really shows that they were verymuch expecting.
The fact that there were, Ibelieve, several hundred
incidences of people againtaking to the streets and really
chanting their slogans, whichis that they wanted regime
(16:21):
change in its entirety, and Ithink the fact that the Iranian
regime has introduced, forexample, this new hijab law, is
very much an indication of itsweakness.
The Iranian regime, I believe,and the people at the very top
of the regime do know that theirdays are numbered and the
suppression is very much anindication of really trying to.
(16:45):
If they let go of any of thatsuppression, then that really
will be the end of this regime.
Dana Lewis (16:51):
People have been saying that for years, though,
that the Iranian regime is onits last legs.
Is it wishful thinking, or doyou believe in your heart that
we're entering that chapter?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights La (17:01):
I don't believe that it is
wishful thinking.
Honestly, I think that it's ofcourse.
As an Iranian in exile, it'swhat I would like to see more
than anything else in the world.
But I really am optimisticbecause I'm seeing real changes
and in order for theseachievements really to be made,
(17:21):
I think it's very important forgovernments in the world to take
a responsible policy withrespect to the Iranian regime,
and that involves not appeasingthe regime.
You know, whilst verbalcondemnation is absolutely
welcome, this kind of fingerwagging at the regime although
it were, you know, an unrulytoddler is absolutely not
(17:44):
acceptable when we're dealingwith a regime as vile, as
despicable as this one, but alsoa regime that very much wants
to see, as I said, the end ofthe liberties that we do enjoy
in the West.
Dana Lewis (17:57):
If you delivered that message to the European
Union in your meetings, whatwhen they asked you, okay, well,
and I assume they did.
What do you want to happen?
What is the specifics of ifit's not criticism and warning
and finger wagging, what did yourecommend to them?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights (18:16):
Well , certainly in this respect, I
would say that the US is ahead.
What we would like to see inEurope and in the United Kingdom
is for the IRGC to beprescribed as a terrorist
organization, and the reluctanceof the EU and the UK government
in doing so is really ratherbaffling to the Iranian people
(18:40):
and also those of us in exile.
There is this extraordinarysituation that we have certainly
in the UK, where we have thechildren of the terrorists, the
Godfather of terrorism,prescribed as terrorist
organizations, but not reallythe Godfather itself.
It's long overdue for the IRGCto be recognized as a terrorist
(19:03):
organization, but also there areother steps.
I mean as an Iranian exile.
Dana Lewis (19:06):
By the way, that's the Iranian Revolutionary Guard
Corps.
Corps, absolutely, and they arethe muscle, the henchmen of the
regime.
Azadeh Zabeti/Human (19:18):
Absolutely .
Dana Lewis (19:18):
And what does classifying them as a terrorist
organization do exactly?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights (19:23):
Well , it stops the money train it
really does.
This is an organization that isresponsible for internal
repression, but, moreimportantly, it has its
tentacles in Syria and in Yemen.
It has its tentacles in Iraqand in Afghanistan, in Gaza and
the West Bank and also, moreimportantly or more recently,
(19:46):
should I say it's interferencein the Ukraine.
So, which leads me to the nextpoint, what else would we like
to see?
I would like to see really arecognition of the right of the
Iranian people to stand up tothe tyranny and the oppression
of the Iranian regime.
I would like the West torecognize our people's right to
(20:11):
really defend themselves againstthe IRGC, and it's really in
tone, so it's, I guess it's theway that it's put across, the
way that we have, very rightly,support for the Ukrainian people
.
I do truly believe that theIranian people are deserving of
support.
Dana Lewis (20:34):
In terms of arms, or what do you suggest?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights L (20:37):
No no, no but for me it's a
recognition of the right todefend themselves and it's the
way that it's portrayed, so thatto me would give the very much
a message to the Iranian peoplethat they have the support of
the West in principle, and alsoit would give a message a strong
(20:59):
and robust and concrete messageto the Iranian regime that
really the West means businessin terms of the fact that the
rights of the Iranian people arebeing recognized and supported.
Dana Lewis (21:11):
Last question to you and I know you're not a
nuclear expert, you're a lawyerbut do you believe that this
regime, despite all the smokeand mirrors, is still pursuing a
nuclear weapon?
And in knowing everything thatyou know about them, what would
the Mullahs, the Iranian regime,represent to the world if they
(21:34):
had a nuclear weapon, if they'reable to obtain one?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights L (21:39):
In terms of, are they pursuing?
I would say absolutely.
I mean, there is no doubt in mymind that they are, and I say
this because that would reallybe to them the trump card in
terms of keeping the regime inplace.
It would be a very powerfulreally tool for them to have.
(22:03):
I mean, to have the bomb reallywould, I guess, would then make
it very, very difficult for theregime to be overthrown.
Dana Lewis (22:12):
So they are absolutely pursuing it in terms
of, and what would that regimelook like with a nuclear weapon,
in possession of a nuclearweapon?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human (22:22):
Absolutely terrifying one.
Really, the thought of theIranian regime having a nuclear
bomb is one that really shouldterrify all of us, given the
fact that this is a regime thathas very openly said that it
wants to see the destruction ofIsrael as well as other states.
So, as I said, a terrifying one, and one that we should be
(22:45):
doing everything in our power tomake sure that it's not an
ambition that is realized.
Dana Lewis (22:52):
As it is, Abeddi, it's great to talk to you.
Thank you so much.
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights L (22:55):
My pleasure.
Thank you so much for having meLive.
Dana Lewis (23:02):
Chip Chapman is a retired major general in the
British military.
He spent years as a paratrooper, an instructor, he deployed the
battle zones, he was an advisorto America's CENTCOM Central
Command and he was also the headof counterterrorism and UK
operations in the Ministry ofDefense.
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chap (23:23):
Welcome sir, Good afternoon Dana.
Dana Lewis (23:28):
As we speak, president Zelensky is in the
United States this week.
He'll talk to the UN and thenhe'll also meet with President
Biden.
What do you think kind ofunfettered that he will tell
President Biden?
What message do you think willbe important, coming directly
from President Zelensky to theWhite House?
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman (23:50):
Well , the first thing is he, of
course, needs unlimited andcontinuing support, so that's
growth from an Americanperspective and the
international community'sperspective.
And, of course, in terms ofcapabilities, they still need
certain capabilities, includingthe long range a TACCANs, but it
would be useful to have moretanks and more F-16s, and in a
(24:14):
more timely fashion.
So that's the first thing, andthere are always these three
variables about internal support, alliance support and
perceptions of Russia, whichCloud has things done within the
framework of World War End ornot.
The second thing, I think, isthe United Nations General
Assembly meetings are alwaysimportant, and I recall that at
(24:38):
the first year anniversary ofthe war, there was a vote which
took place on a non-bindingresolution, which was that
Russia should end its violenceand Russia should withdraw its
troops.
Now, only six countries votedagainst that, adding to Russia,
of course.
That was Belarus, syria,eritrea, north Korea, mali and
(25:02):
Nicaragua.
So he'll be trying to reinforcethe morality and the ethics of
the Ukrainian position in theUnited Nations General Assembly.
I think that's a given, and Ithink there'll also be some
background talk about Russia'sposition on the Security Council
.
Now, this is an interesting onebecause technically, there is a
(25:25):
procedure called the credentialsprocedure which could lead to a
vote at some time about Russiabeing voted off the United
Nations Security Council.
Now people might say, well,that's absolutely farcical.
But of course when the UNCharter came about in 1945, it
wasn't Russia that occupied theposition in the Security Council
(25:48):
, it was the United USSR.
And with the breakup of theSoviet Union it was then just by
default that Russia occupiedthat position.
But it could have been Belarus,it could have been Ukraine and
if you've broken the UN Charteryou could make a good legal and
moral case that that shouldpertain.
It has happened once beforewith South Africa, I think in
(26:10):
1971.
And the route you do thecredentials procedure could mean
that you couldn't be vetoed bya UN, a P5 member to do that.
So I think those are the threestrands which we'll see in
Sylvesteren's visit this week.
Dana Lewis (26:26):
Because you've just mentioned the UN Security
Council, which is never before,according to the head of the UN,
gutara.
It says never before have webeen paralyzed like this I mean
unable to agree on anythingbetween China and the United
States, russia and he says,never before has the need been
greater for the Security Councilto be effective and to take
(26:51):
action.
Are you hearing that there'sactually some traction in that
discussion?
I mean, is that something thatpeople joke about over coffee,
or do you think there's reallytraction in removing Russia from
the Security Council?
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman (27:08):
I think it should become a basis
for talking about it.
But of course, there are alwaysthese centrifugal and
centripetal forces going bothways, and we saw this in a way
with what came out of the G20 inthe last couple of weeks, where
I would say we got to the pointof discursive diplomacy.
And what I mean by discursivediplomacy really wasn't any
(27:31):
substantive statement about thewar in Ukraine and Russia's
position within it, ie thatthey'd invaded, and I call it
discursive diplomacy because,effectively, they were
discussing everything else butthat key point.
So we've really gone from aposition where, prior to the war
, we had coercive diplomacyRussia trying to achieve its
(27:53):
objectives by diplomacy given toour demands or else then to a
position where we've invaded andit's still really within the
war, had a position of giving toour demands, or else that is
what's ours is ours and what'syours is negotiable, and now
we've got to this position ofdiscursive diplomacy so it could
(28:13):
gain traction.
It's still a fairly lowpercentage of that happening at
the moment, but it's one ofthose scenarios that one could
see for the future and, like allthese things, there are no
certainties.
There were only scenarios inthe future, both in diplomacy
and on the battles here.
Dana Lewis (28:30):
Right.
Here's another scenario for you.
What if you're right?
President Zelensky no doubtwill be in the White House
saying more, give me more, giveme more ammunition.
Maybe give me attack arms,which I want to ask you about.
Give me to Germany.
They will ask for these othermissiles, the Taurus missiles, I
(28:51):
think.
What if President Biden is justlooking down the election road
increasingly seeing theRepublicans capitalize on the
$70 billion that's the numbernow $70 billion that has gone to
Ukraine, and she starts readingthe room and just says I'm not
(29:15):
going to give more becausethat's not going to help the
Democrats win the presidentialrace?
Is there another scenario whereUkraine can continue on with
the support of others, withoutAmerica's full support?
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman (29:37):
Well , of course, in a way I sort of
said that the three variablesthere are internal politics
within our country, alliancepolitics and perceptions of
Russia.
So, in the internal politics,of course, we have a fairly
fractured House ofRepresentatives where we have,
typically from the Republicanside, the Freedom Caucus, which
(29:57):
is trying to either make surethat either a supplemental in
the spending in terms ofUkrainian support or some sort
of other mechanism is tied intoother spending cuts.
That is essentially why we'vegot a bit of a hiatus at the
moment and, of course, the endof the financial year in America
is the end of September and sothat's why we've got that
(30:20):
discussion at the moment.
Now, in terms of the DemocraticParty, the support from the
Democrats, from those whosupport the Democrats, is still
a lot higher than those from theRepublican Party who would give
willing support to Ukraine.
And, of course, the looms ofspecter, not of the end of
September and shutting down thegovernment that always happens
(30:43):
on a yearly basis or doing whatI was in America but of course
the specter of the November 24election.
Now, of course, again, scenarioterms, the war could be over by
November 24.
It could also be a long war.
So in a long war scenario thelongest I ever saw of when
someone articulating a timeframe I'm not sure on what basis
(31:05):
she did.
This was when Liz Truss beforeshe became Prime Minister, was
our foreign secretary in the UKat the time suggested that the
war in Ukraine could last for 10years.
Now, again, there were nocertainties.
There were scenarios.
The long war scenario issomething that no one really had
planned for and, of course,there was a theory certainly
(31:29):
from Mark Milley, the outgoingchairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff that the way number ofmyths that we needed to get rid
of.
One of those myths is, ofcourse, that wars may well be
short.
He said that originally in 2017, when he was the Chief of the
Army.
Of course, in the five yearsonwards from that particular war
(31:50):
, before we got to the Ukrainianor Russian invasion of Ukraine
in February 2022, you couldargue that it did look like wars
were short, and the GornogKarabat war was 44 days upguard
into the war and Israel hadmassed 10 days.
But this isn't.
This is a long war, and one ofthe things about wars which look
(32:11):
to be becoming long is that theleast likely time for a
ceasefire in wars is generallyaround the two-year mark Now.
The offensive from Ukrainehasn't petered out yet?
I don't think it will, at leastfor the next month.
And that's also an interestingone, and looking at the
(32:32):
variables of what the DefenseIntelligence Agency said
recently, on the 8th ofSeptember, that they said that
there was a realisticpossibility of Ukraine breaking
through both the second andthird lines of defense, which
would put them within firecontrol range of the M14.
That's the key highway whichlinks Malitopol to Marriottpol
(32:55):
and therefore could sever theline of communications and put
Crimea at risk, with thetimeframe which Mark Milley
articulated on the 10th ofSeptember, which was that there
were only 30 or 40 to 45 daysfighting time left this year,
(33:15):
based on either the weather,reserves, lack of supplies and
all those things.
Dana Lewis (33:21):
So you've got a change of course and a lot of
people would debate thattimeframe.
But okay, he said.
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman (33:27):
Yeah , I don't think fighting stops
because of that, and there arelots of examples in history
which would tell you that, inclimates which are far worse
than podology, soil science,which is far worse than that in
that part of the world, andthat's not the appropriate
marshes.
Neither is it the Finnish frontfrom 1940, when, of course,
russia was very successful in acounterattack war which brought
(33:49):
the winter war of 1939 to 1940to a conclusion.
Dana Lewis (33:55):
I was going to save this, but I mean, you've deeply
waded into what's happening inUkraine and in the war front, so
let me just ask you about that.
So I heard an interview thatyou did recently where you said
and I'm saying this, not you,but you kind of, I think,
(34:19):
evaporated this idea that it'sfrozen.
You laid out some prettycritical, linear, step by step
advances that Ukraine is takingand a lot of that centered on
Crimea that they're just nothitting and running and we're
(34:40):
having a headline one or twodays later in a newspaper, but
in fact they are chipping awaycritically and methodically and
advancing.
So can you, as a military man,sort of lay that out for me and
tell me how do you read that andwhy do you think they're being
successful right now and in avery logical, linear way?
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman (35:03):
Well , I think to understand that you
need to understand theframework of the battlefield.
So in terms of the framework ofthe battlefield, we talk about
close operation, sort of fourthon fourth fighting which you're
seeing particularly around thesort of back moot, south of back
moot, north of back moot areasand in the Zaporizhia where the
advances on the Goga teammateand that towards Zodogny.
(35:26):
So that is the close battle.
Now, really important thinghere is the deep battle that
beyond the close battle whichsets the conditions for what you
want to achieve at theoperational level in the future.
Now the operational level, wereally talk about tactical
battles, a sequence to achieveoperational effect and the
(35:48):
operational effects that they'regoing after at the moment to
set that condition for either areoccupation of the Kremlin or
for a collapse of the Russianmorale, the military morale,
political morale, because one ofthe decisive battles might be
in the Kremlin or in the elite.
(36:09):
Defections is in what they'vebeen doing in terms of what we
call the A2AD battle, that's,anti-access area denial battle,
and what they're very cleverlydoing is having really a kind of
attrition by over stretch.
They're putting multipledilemmas in the way of the
Russians getting inside theirsort of decision cycle about
(36:31):
what they should do.
If you look at that in terms ofwhat's been happening around
Crimea in that part of the deepbattle, there have been four
things there which have reallyoccurred in the last two to
three weeks which have beenreally important.
The first one was thesignificant hit on Cape Tarhakut
(36:52):
around the end of August, whichtook out a number of electronic
warfare systems, radars and anS-400 system, one of the long
range over the horizonsurface-to-air missile systems
of the Russian.
So that was the first enablerto make them get closer.
(37:13):
The second one was the Boykogo-claps, that's, the gas and
oil platforms.
So, again, by eroding theelectronic warfare in some of
the sensors there, we're makingthe airspace management from a
Ukraine perspective easier, andthat means you can bring more
assets to bear with a greaterprobability of success, because
(37:35):
one of the things you look at iswhat we call NEA Unitions
Effectiveness Assessment.
The third thing, then, was thatit enabled those two things was
the really successful strike onthe base at Sevastopol, with
the submarine being destroyedalong with the landing craft.
Now, that landing craft isreally important in terms of
(37:59):
landing craft and the dry dockin terms of two things.
Firstly, the loss ofmaintenance facilities for the
Russians.
Secondly, if the Ukrainians areable to sever the land bridge
and at some time significantlydestroy or call it the Kerch-er
bridge, then the supply linethat runs through to Ukraine
(38:24):
effectively by land has gone andtherefore you can only really
supply it by car seat, and thoselanding craft have actually
been utilized as supply ships asmuch as anything.
So that is now two that havebeen destroyed effectively.
So you're chipping away, and ifyou do that in the deep battle
(38:46):
there comes a point when Putinreally has as a choice it's guns
or butter, because you can't doboth with the logistic support
to the population and themilitary in Crimea, and that's
why the decisive battle might bein the Kremlin, because Crimea,
(39:07):
from his perspective, is deemedto be kind of holy land.
Now neither is, and they allfight for it, or it's not, and
there's a significantconsequence for Putin at home.
Dana Lewis (39:19):
I mean there's a lot of analysis that say that
the Ukrainians don't necessarilyhave to take Crimea, that just
by cutting it off and making ituntenable for Russian forces
they can collapse the Russianarmy.
I don't know, but they cancertainly collapse that major
launch pad which is being usedto attack Ukraine.
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman (39:42):
Well , I think that's true.
I mean we always really talkabout two parts to war, a
physical part and apsychological part, and I think
we're already seeing some ofthose psychological wrinkles
which can be amplified.
And then military theory terms.
Here again we're really talkingabout class fits in Trinity, so
war's really end.
I mean fighting stops eitherbecause of decisive military
(40:05):
victory the improbability ofmilitary victory or because the
costs the military, economic,industrial, whatever are too
great.
Now in class fits, in termsthat translates into the
military no longer are able orwilling to fight.
And we saw that, for example, in1917, when two and a half
million people walked off thebattlefield to the Russian army,
(40:27):
which led to the tree ofBrestletov.
Or we can see it in thecollapse of the political polity
.
That is why the decisive battlemight be in the Kremlin.
In terms of the psychologicalaspect of the Prismas Dilemma,
one of the great psychologicalmodels Do you stay loyal or do
you defect.
That was the same sort of thingthat we really saw around the
(40:50):
pregishing.
Or the third thing is that thegovernment defects, and that is
the defections, because theconsequences for those the Stina
, vicky, the man of forcesurrounding is too great In that
situation, it is the securityservices who become important in
the future in czar making.
Now that doesn't mean, if Putingoes, that you're going to have
(41:12):
a regime of sweetness and lightin Russia.
You might just have someonewho's even worse than Putin, but
that doesn't mean that youstill don't have the same
dilemmas about you know Triddy,for example.
Either Putin or a successormobilise the country either
economically or in manpowerterms to continue this war, and
(41:32):
that's one of the key dilemmashe also faces at the moment.
Dana Lewis (41:35):
What if Biden says yes to attack him?
In layman terms, a lot ofpeople don't even know what that
is.
It's the army tactical missilesystem.
If Biden says yes to attack him, they get more range.
What happens on the battlefieldand can happen pretty quickly?
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman (41:51):
Well , what it does is it pushes this
A2AD bubble backwards, so theanti-axis area denial of the
Russian is pushed further back,giving the Ukrainians greater
access to using other systems toattack.
So, for example, early in thewar we heard a lot about TV2 by
(42:12):
Raktor.
Now that things are limited byranging payload and all that
sort of stuff, it brings othersystems to bear and brings
systems to bear which previouslyreally had been either jammed
by electronic warfare, beingable to shot over the sky.
So the extended range of ATACMsand of course, if the Germans
do give tours, which youmentioned earlier on just pushes
(42:35):
this ability of the Russians tocontrol the airspace further
back and that again means thatthe Ukrainians can prosecute a
deep battle more effectively onhigh-value targets.
They're not going after smallthings, it's high-value targets.
That's why we see these S-400sbeing taken out.
(42:56):
Electronic warfare systems, biglogistic dumps, command and
control moves, the things whichreally both the brains of an
operation and the things whichgive you the real big enablers
for the future.
Dana Lewis (43:10):
Will you comment on North Korea?
And we don't know what the dealwas behind closed doors.
But they have a lot more tooffer than just millions of
rounds of old artillery shells.
I mean, they have some otherweapons systems Presumably Putin
is going to get access to that.
Is it a big factor, do youthink, when you kind of went
through the shopping list ofwhat is available from North
(43:32):
Korea to Russia?
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman (43:35):
It's not a done deal yet.
I mean, of course, we know thatthe number of artillery systems
in the North Korean inventoryis suddenly large and that is
why, for example, in the firstthree to four days of any war,
should there be one in theKorean Peninsula across the 38th
parallel, the left and right ofarc in terms of casualties from
(43:58):
a South Korean perspective isbetween 30,000 and 300,000.
Now that variable is so greatbecause of the proximity to
Seoul, to the DMZ, to the DMZ,it's in artillery range 25 miles
away.
Now, one of the key things isreally what ammunition and
(44:20):
systems and at what age do theygive them?
Now, one of the big differenceshistorically between NATO
countries and Russia, which isso unique as it was, is the way
that they manage stocks andstock inventory.
So the NATO countries had farlower operational stocks,
(44:41):
because the thing aboutmunitions is that they degrade,
so propellants degrade androcket motors degrade.
And that is one of the things.
For example, why, in inventoryterms, not looking at North
Koreans but looking at theAmericans and the ATACOMs some
of the ATACOMs are 30 years oldand therefore were taken out of
(45:03):
the operational stocks of theAmericans.
But if they looked at them,which they are and then said
this is still fit to go, or ifwe replace a rocket motor, then
it could still be used.
That's why you often see amismatch between inventories
when we look at this from a NATOperspective.
(45:23):
So it really depends on whatthey give them.
If they give them stuff whichwas manufactured last year I'm
assuming that North Koreantolerances of manufacturing are
pretty good that could be aworry.
If they give them stuff whichis 30, 40, 50 years old because
the North Koreans have notfought anything significant
encounter since 1953, it couldactually be more dangerous to
(45:45):
the Russians.
So again, like all these things, there's a big variable about
what, if anything, they givethem and what quality that is.
Dana Lewis (45:54):
Major General Chapman.
I have traveled Russia as acorrespondent there and I can
tell you I mean, the one thingthat I can bring to the
discussion is that when you takea look at some of the secret
cities in the manufacturing base, whatever they're able to
kickstart from Soviet times isincredible.
(46:17):
I mean, this is a country thatcan produce weapons, probably
like no other maybe the UnitedStates can but there is a huge
assembly line out there waitingand gaining steam.
So your overall assessment ofthe war in Ukraine?
(46:37):
I think sometimes the media istoo positive, being the fall of
a village and crediting Ukrainewith a major advancement, and
maybe it's not.
Sometimes we're too negativebecause we have short attention
spans and war takes a long timeto play out in the battlefield.
So when you get asked to shutup for a minute, the media
(47:00):
people who don't always knowenough about warfare, but talk
about it all the time what isyour feeling?
What's your assessment in termsof where this is headed?
And is there enough sand in theclock as it drips down for
Ukraine to be able to get thisdone with Western support
(47:20):
continuing?
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman (47:22):
Well , a lot of media commentators
and military commentators,including Mark Milley, from time
to time have said that Russiahas already lost tactically,
operationally and strategically.
Now, of course, I don't takethat view because, again, it's
really to do with the fact thatthere are so many multiple
scenarios, there are so manyvariables, and you have to look
(47:47):
at the time frames that Russiaworks in and really the fact
that I always say that leadersmay change.
If you think you could go.
Vital interests rarely changeand we think we know that Russia
has defined it with vitalinterests.
We gained, lost territory inspheres of influence, but
(48:10):
geography doesn't change.
So, like all these things, youcould either have a frozen piece
and a land for peace, whichwould reward the aggressor, but
that doesn't mean thatultimately, if you look in grand
strategic terms and in terms ofvital interests, that the thing
would be over, because grandstrategic, vital interests
should be measured in tens ofyears, not in one year or three
(48:33):
years or five years.
So it is far too early to saythat Russia has lost at any of
those levels tactically,operationally or strategically.
Of course, you could say at themoment that, tactically, russia
, to my mind, is being outthought and out thought by the
Ukrainians.
But tactical success is not thebuilding block necessarily of
(48:56):
strategic warfare.
So we will have to wait and see, as they always say.
Dana Lewis (49:02):
Major General Chip Chapman.
Sir, what a pleasure to talk toyou.
I really appreciate your timeand it's an honor to get some of
your thoughts.
I really do appreciate yourtime, Thank you.
Thank you again, and that's ourbackstory this week.
This is a new season, seasonsix.
We have 90,000 listens and tensof thousands more views of our
interviews on YouTube.
Thank you for your support.
(49:22):
I'm Dana Lewis.
Thanks for listening toBackstory and I'll talk to you
again soon.
Поти, music, music, music,music, music, music, music,
(52:14):
music, music, music, music,music, music, music.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.