.jpg)
BACK STORY WITH DANA LEWIS
Dana Lewis is a veteran World Affairs Correspondent. He's been everywhere. From global war zones to the streets of London where he is based.
He has been based in Jerusalem, and Moscow.
And he loves talking to people about whats behind the headlines. Award winning. "A real in the trenches reporter". Great interviewing skills and easy to listen to.
BACK STORY WITH DANA LEWIS
Iran - Is Democracy Close? And Ukraine's Battle Field Strategy.
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.
And what they're very cleverly doing is having really a kind of attrition by over stretch. They're putting multiple dilemmas in the way of the Russians getting inside their sort of decision cycle about what they should do. If you look at that in terms of what's been happening around Crimea in that part of the deep battle, there have been four things there which had really occurred in the last two to three weeks which have been really important.
Dana Lewis :Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of Backstory. I'm Dana Lewis. That was Chip Chapman, a retired Major General in the British military. He was an advisor to America's Central Command and he was head of counter-terrorism in UK operations in the Ministry of Defense and he is brilliant to listen to on Ukraine, russia, putin's war. But before we get to Major General Chapman's interview on Ukraine, I want to talk about Iran. This week, the Biden administration won the release of five American hostages, but the price paid and it was paid was very high.
Dana Lewis :Before we get to our interview with human rights lawyer Azadeh Zabeti, I wanted to read part of the editorial by Miriam Rajavi of the National Council of Resistance on Iran Quote so how many has intensified repression? There have been more than 500 executions since January 2023, according to the international human rights organizations. While these tactics may ratchet up intimidation in the immediate term, they will ultimately inflame dissent over the long haul. Democratic change in Iran has ceased to be a matter of conjecture. It has evolved into an inescapable reality. The unyielding resolve of the people, coupled with the growing unrest within the regime, renders the status quo untenable.
Dana Lewis :A decisive and steadfast Western policy towards the Iranian regime can no longer be a mere exercise in prudence. It's become an imperative. Tehran's theocracy is at its weakest. It's never been more in need of appeasement and diplomatic 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 the Committee of Anglo-Iranian Lawyers and she has said in the past that women have paid an exceptionally high price for this resistance in Iran. These years of resistance quote unquote have resulted in thousands of political prisoners being tortured and executed as a day Welcome.
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights Lawyer:Thank you so much, Dana. Appreciate being on.
Dana Lewis :It has been an incredible year in Iran and where do you think it has brought women's movement in Iran?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights Lawyer:As you say, it has been an incredible year.
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights Lawyer:I should point out that the Iranian people really have, for some 44 years now, been resisting tyranny and oppression and savagery and brutality.
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights Lawyer:This really is, without exception, one of the worst and barbaric regimes, certainly of my generation.
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights Lawyer:I'm sure many of your viewers and listeners will know, but the Iranian regime, per capita of population, has executed more people than anywhere else on earth In terms of rights of women, ethnic minorities, linguistic minorities, religious minorities. This really is a regime where, without exception, the 88 million people who are currently living in Iran really do live in a state prison that is otherwise known as the Islamic Republic of Iran. As you will know, this weekend was the one year anniversary of the 2022 uprising where, sparked as it was by the death in police custody of Masa Amini, a young Kurdish girl who was visiting Tehran was brutally and savagely beaten in police custody when she was picked up by a routine sort of drive-thru Iran's very perversely named morality police. Since then, there have been, really, in terms of scope, we've never seen anything like this in Iran, whilst it's not by any means the first uprising, but very much in terms of scope is an indication of the fact that this regime is on its knees and it really is imminent and inevitable that it will be gone.
Dana Lewis :If I can kind of edge through this a little bit with you, because there's a lot of things that have happened even in the last week, but when we talk about the uprising that occurred since Masa Amini's death, did that change anything? Because I think a lot of people who don't follow Iran day by day get confused. There's more violence, there's more people in the street. It moves from page one to, kind of tragically, the back pages of some of the newspapers and newscasts. But people would say that women have gained ground in the last year. Is that me interpreting the news in a way that I shouldn't? Or has there been advances by women, do you think, by them standing up to the regime in the last year?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights Lawyer:I really wish that I could say, dana, with all my heart, that there have been advancements for women, but only in the news. Recently have we heard that within the past 24 hours or so, in the Iranian Majlis, that's, the Iranian parliament, a bill has been passed through parliament that is going to make things a lot worse for women. It's a very draconian bill that's being passed through which is, in effect, making the lives of women a lot more difficult, especially in terms of their dress code, and one of the issues that I think is going to be a big issue for women is the fact that there's going to be the possibility of a 10 year prison sentence for inappropriately dressing. So things are not getting better, they're certainly getting worse. But what I'm pleased to say is that really, this uprising, if anything, is really showing the West that a decision needs to be made in terms of what their relationship is going to be with the Iranian regime.
Dana Lewis :I want to ask you that, but the bill essentially changes what I mean, the measures. I don't even like using the terminology police, because they're not moral. They commit murders, so that's what they dub themselves, but the repressive foot soldiers of the regime might be more apropos. How does this law change anything, or possibly make it worse, when it was already so draconian?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights Lawyer:Exactly so draconian. How could it possibly be any worse, given that this is a regime who's one of the main pillars of this regime is really misogyny and a hatred of women, and really hatred of genuinely all of the values that we hold very dear in the free world? So this does make things a lot worse. But what I would say is the Iranian people have certainly never bowed down to tyranny and oppression and for 44 years have really been taking to the streets making their voices heard, and from my perspective, I see myself as someone who has really the immense fortune and the privilege of living in the free world. I have a duty and a responsibility to speak up for my countrymen and women and to really raise their voice in terms of giving a voice to them in the west, and that voice is really that the Iranian people want freedom, they want democracy, they want liberty and really a secular democracy and a republic.
Dana Lewis :We know what the desire is and I don't in any way treat any of that lightly. I mean, the thirst for freedom has gone on tragically for decades in Iran. But you know a lot of people from the West don't see progress in Iran and they don't see a larger hope for them being able to change the regime or break away from the regime. So it's really important to hear from somebody like yourself, who you've just come back from meeting with the European Union. You obviously feel that pressure can be applied. What do you tell them? What do you ask for?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights Lawyer:Right. Well, I think it's important just to point out that the Iranian people have never sought, and nor do they desire in any way, shape or form, whether it's militarily or financially, any external interference in our internal affairs. However, what we also will not accept is this sitting on the fence that has thus far been the policy that has been pursued, in particular in the European Union and certainly in the UK, and really this policy of appeasement or rapprochement. I don't think there are enough words in the thesaurus to cover the policies that have been applied and that have really failed, but not only that. I would go further and to say that have made things a lot more dangerous for citizens of the world.
Dana Lewis :Is that because the human rights discussion takes kind of back of the, goes to the back of the bus, because the nuclear discussion is so front and center that in the end people are. Some western nations are willing to make a deal or try to appease around Somehow if they can get them to step away from nuclear development and maybe say to hell with human, human rights in Iran.
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights Lawyer:Well, I think I would say that on the one hand, it's desperate naivety and, on the other hand, perhaps a more sinister foolishness in terms of what the Iranian regime stands for, what it's capable of. And I think it was Winston Churchill who said that appeasement is feeding the crocodile, hoping that it will eat you last. And unfortunately, you know, I think the situation quite recently that was in the news with respect to the Biden administration and the hostages is very much the best, in my opinion. Recent example of appeasement and however much the Biden administration would have us or have their electorate see this as more palatable, you know this really was. It was a ransom money and also a deal with the devil, in my opinion. But there's also been a lot of examples of appeasement by the UK government and the UK government. So today, Can we?
Dana Lewis :just since you touched on hostages and I don't mean to interrupt, but let's just deal with that so you have five American hostages that are joyously returned to their families, people who had been, you know, in the worst prisons in Iran for years. Why is that not an achievement by the Biden administration?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights Lawyer:Absolutely look. I mean, as somebody who has had family members who have spent a great deal of time in Evin prison, both under the dictatorial regime of the Shah and under the dictatorial regime of the current theocracy, I know more than anyone the despicable conditions that those hostages will have been held in in Evin prison. So absolutely, we empathize with the families but and, of course, are very happy for them that they have been released. But you know, our stance is they should never have been taken in the first place and unfortunately, hostage taking since the inception of the Iranian regime has really been an incredibly lucrative business and it pays because governments will pay.
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights Lawyer:So, as I said, however much the Biden administration wants to dress this up and tell us that this money will be going to I think they called it humanitarian organizations that are non sanctionable, safer medicine and for food, the truth of the matter is we all know where that money is going to go and that money is going to go to through, I am sure, a labyrinth of entities and organizations and companies. What that money will do is make its way up straight to the very top to fund the IRGC, who were responsible for repression inside of Iran but also terrorism outside of Iran, but also it will. Also the money will make its way to the very highest echelons of Iranian society, to the Supreme Leader and to other individuals. So, unfortunately, from my perspective, what the Biden administration has done has made life a lot more dangerous for individuals who hold US citizenship and European citizenship, and I really would be afraid, with those passports, to be traveling anywhere where I'm in reach of the Iranian regime because, as I said, it pays.
Dana Lewis :I mean, that's going to frighten a lot of people. You know cash for hostages, which the US administration of Washington denied, but certainly they have their critics on the other side of the of the House and the Senate that said this was an outrageous thing to do and it was the wrong thing to do, but is returning to the street and people protesting for rights? What is going to happen now? You're saying the laws are going to get tougher. The Iranian regime has apparently not learned anything from demonstrations that swept the nation and every, every city that I could see in there. It was constant and it was bloody, so they won't step back, and it looks like the Iranian people won't step back either. What happens?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights Lawyer:So, in terms of the scope of the uprising, you're absolutely right.
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights Lawyer:It was in over 282 cities, every single province in Iran.
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights Lawyer:So, whilst we had had uprisings before, this was very, very different in terms of the age groups involved, in terms of the fact that it was all walks of life and very much all over the country.
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights Lawyer:But really, what will happen now is that we are on a course for the overthrow of this regime. The ferocity of, and the anger of the chance on the streets very much is an indication of the fact that the Iranian people want this regime overthrown. But also the fact that the Iranian regime, I think in Tehran alone, had over 50,000 state police onto the streets really shows that they were very much expecting. The fact that there were, I believe, several hundred incidences of people again taking to the streets and really chanting their slogans, which is that they wanted regime change in its entirety, and I think the fact that the Iranian regime has introduced, for example, this new hijab law, is very much an indication of its weakness. The Iranian regime, I believe, and the people at the very top of the regime do know that their days are numbered and the suppression is very much an indication of really trying to. If they let go of any of that suppression, then that really will be the end of this regime.
Dana Lewis :People have been saying that for years, though, that the Iranian regime is on its last legs. Is it wishful thinking, or do you believe in your heart that we're entering that chapter?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights Lawyer:I don't believe that it is wishful thinking. Honestly, I think that it's of course. As an Iranian in exile, it's what I would like to see more than anything else in the world. But I really am optimistic because I'm seeing real changes and in order for these achievements really to be made, I think it's very important for governments in the world to take a responsible policy with respect to the Iranian regime, and that involves not appeasing the regime. You know, whilst verbal condemnation is absolutely welcome, this kind of finger wagging at the regime although it were, you know, an unruly toddler is absolutely not acceptable when we're dealing with a regime as vile, as despicable as this one, but also a regime that very much wants to see, as I said, the end of the liberties that we do enjoy in the West.
Dana Lewis :If you delivered that message to the European Union in your meetings, what when they asked you, okay, well, and I assume they did. What do you want to happen? What is the specifics of if it's not criticism and warning and finger wagging, what did you recommend to them?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights Lawyer:Well, certainly in this respect, I would say that the US is ahead. What we would like to see in Europe and in the United Kingdom is for the IRGC to be prescribed as a terrorist organization, and the reluctance of the EU and the UK government in doing so is really rather baffling to the Iranian people and also those of us in exile. There is this extraordinary situation that we have certainly in the UK, where we have the children of the terrorists, the Godfather of terrorism, prescribed as terrorist organizations, but not really the Godfather itself. It's long overdue for the IRGC to be recognized as a terrorist organization, but also there are other steps. I mean as an Iranian exile.
Dana Lewis :By the way, that's the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Corps, absolutely, and they are the muscle, the henchmen of the regime.
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights Lawyer:Absolutely.
Dana Lewis :And what does classifying them as a terrorist organization do exactly?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights Lawyer:Well, it stops the money train it really does. This is an organization that is responsible for internal repression, but, more importantly, it has its tentacles in Syria and in Yemen. It has its tentacles in Iraq and in Afghanistan, in Gaza and the West Bank and also, more importantly or more recently, should I say it's interference in the Ukraine. So, which leads me to the next point, what else would we like to see? I would like to see really a recognition of the right of the Iranian people to stand up to the tyranny and the oppression of the Iranian regime. I would like the West to recognize our people's right to really defend themselves against the IRGC, and it's really in tone, so it's, I guess it's the way that it's put across, the way that we have, very rightly, support for the Ukrainian people. I do truly believe that the Iranian people are deserving of support.
Dana Lewis :In terms of arms, or what do you suggest?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights Lawyer:No no, no but for me it's a recognition of the right to defend themselves and it's the way that it's portrayed, so that to me would give the very much a message to the Iranian people that they have the support of the West in principle, and also it would give a message a strong and robust and concrete message to the Iranian regime that really the West means business in terms of the fact that the rights of the Iranian people are being recognized and supported.
Dana Lewis :Last question to you and I know you're not a nuclear expert, you're a lawyer but do you believe that this regime, despite all the smoke and mirrors, is still pursuing a nuclear weapon? And in knowing everything that you know about them, what would the Mullahs, the Iranian regime, represent to the world if they had a nuclear weapon, if they're able to obtain one?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights Lawyer:In terms of, are they pursuing? I would say absolutely. I mean, there is no doubt in my mind that they are, and I say this because that would really be to them the trump card in terms of keeping the regime in place. It would be a very powerful really tool for them to have. I mean, to have the bomb really would, I guess, would then make it very, very difficult for the regime to be overthrown.
Dana Lewis :So they are absolutely pursuing it in terms of, and what would that regime look like with a nuclear weapon, in possession of a nuclear weapon?
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights Lawyer:Absolutely terrifying one. Really, the thought of the Iranian regime having a nuclear bomb is one that really should terrify all of us, given the fact that this is a regime that has very openly said that it wants to see the destruction of Israel as well as other states. So, as I said, a terrifying one, and one that we should be doing everything in our power to make sure that it's not an ambition that is realized.
Dana Lewis :As it is, Abeddi, it's great to talk to you. Thank you so much.
Azadeh Zabeti/Human Rights Lawyer:My pleasure. Thank you so much for having me Live.
Dana Lewis :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 advisor to America's CENTCOM Central Command and he was also the head of counterterrorism and UK operations in the Ministry of Defense.
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman:Welcome sir, Good afternoon Dana.
Dana Lewis :As we speak, president Zelensky is in the United States this week. He'll talk to the UN and then he'll also meet with President Biden. What do you think kind of unfettered that he will tell President Biden? What message do you think will be important, coming directly from President Zelensky to the White House?
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman:Well, the first thing is he, of course, needs unlimited and continuing support, so that's growth from an American perspective and the international community's perspective. And, of course, in terms of capabilities, they still need certain capabilities, including the long range a TACCANs, but it would be useful to have more tanks and more F-16s, and in a more timely fashion. So that's the first thing, and there are always these three variables about internal support, alliance support and perceptions of Russia, which Cloud has things done within the framework of World War End or not. The second thing, I think, is the United Nations General Assembly meetings are always important, and I recall that at the first year anniversary of the war, there was a vote which took place on a non-binding resolution, which was that Russia should end its violence and Russia should withdraw its troops. Now, only six countries voted against that, adding to Russia, of course. That was Belarus, syria, eritrea, north Korea, mali and Nicaragua. So he'll be trying to reinforce the morality and the ethics of the Ukrainian position in the United Nations General Assembly. I think that's a given, and I think there'll also be some background talk about Russia's position on the Security Council.
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman:Now, this is an interesting one because technically, there is a procedure called the credentials procedure which could lead to a vote at some time about Russia being voted off the United Nations Security Council. Now people might say, well, that's absolutely farcical. But of course when the UN Charter came about in 1945, it wasn't Russia that occupied the position in the Security Council, it was the United USSR. And with the breakup of the Soviet Union it was then just by default that Russia occupied that position. But it could have been Belarus, it could have been Ukraine and if you've broken the UN Charter you could make a good legal and moral case that that should pertain. It has happened once before with South Africa, I think in 1971. And the route you do the credentials procedure could mean that you couldn't be vetoed by a UN, a P5 member to do that. So I think those are the three strands which we'll see in Sylvesteren's visit this week.
Dana Lewis :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 we been paralyzed like this I mean unable to agree on anything between China and the United States, russia and he says, never before has the need been greater for the Security Council to be effective and to take action. Are you hearing that there's actually some traction in that discussion? I mean, is that something that people joke about over coffee, or do you think there's really traction in removing Russia from the Security Council?
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman:I think it should become a basis for talking about it.
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman:But of course, there are always these centrifugal and centripetal forces going both ways, and we saw this in a way with what came out of the G20 in the last couple of weeks, where I would say we got to the point of discursive diplomacy.
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman:And what I mean by discursive diplomacy really wasn't any substantive statement about the war in Ukraine and Russia's position within it, ie that they'd invaded, and I call it discursive diplomacy because, effectively, they were discussing everything else but that key point. So we've really gone from a position where, prior to the war, we had coercive diplomacy Russia trying to achieve its objectives by diplomacy given to our demands or else then to a position where we've invaded and it's still really within the war, had a position of giving to our demands, or else that is what's ours is ours and what's yours is negotiable, and now we've got to this position of discursive diplomacy so it could gain traction. It's still a fairly low percentage of that happening at the moment, but it's one of those scenarios that one could see for the future and, like all these things, there are no certainties. There were only scenarios in the future, both in diplomacy and on the battles here.
Dana Lewis :Right. Here's another scenario for you. What if you're right? President Zelensky no doubt will be in the White House saying more, give me more, give me more ammunition. Maybe give me attack arms, which I want to ask you about. Give me to Germany. They will ask for these other missiles, the Taurus missiles, I think. What if President Biden is just looking down the election road increasingly seeing the Republicans capitalize on the $70 billion that's the number now $70 billion that has gone to Ukraine, and she starts reading the room and just says I'm not going to give more because that's not going to help the Democrats win the presidential race? Is there another scenario where Ukraine can continue on with the support of others, without America's full support?
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman:Well, of course, in a way I sort of said that the three variables there are internal politics within our country, alliance politics and perceptions of Russia. So, in the internal politics, of course, we have a fairly fractured House of Representatives where we have, typically from the Republican side, the Freedom Caucus, which is trying to either make sure that either a supplemental in the spending in terms of Ukrainian support or some sort of other mechanism is tied into other spending cuts. That is essentially why we've got a bit of a hiatus at the moment and, of course, the end of the financial year in America is the end of September and so that's why we've got that discussion at the moment. Now, in terms of the Democratic Party, the support from the Democrats, from those who support the Democrats, is still a lot higher than those from the Republican Party who would give willing support to Ukraine. And, of course, the looms of specter, not of the end of September and shutting down the government that always happens on a yearly basis or doing what I was in America but of course the specter of the November 24 election. Now, of course, again, scenario terms, the war could be over by November 24. It could also be a long war. So in a long war scenario the longest I ever saw of when someone articulating a time frame I'm not sure on what basis she did.
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman:This was when Liz Truss before she became Prime Minister, was our foreign secretary in the UK at the time suggested that the war in Ukraine could last for 10 years. Now, again, there were no certainties. There were scenarios. The long war scenario is something that no one really had planned for and, of course, there was a theory certainly from Mark Milley, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the way number of myths that we needed to get rid of. One of those myths is, of course, 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 years onwards from that particular war, before we got to the Ukrainian or Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, you could argue that it did look like wars were short, and the Gornog Karabat war was 44 days upguard into the war and Israel had massed 10 days.
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman:But this isn't. This is a long war, and one of the things about wars which look to be becoming long is that the least likely time for a ceasefire in wars is generally around the two-year mark Now. The offensive from Ukraine hasn't petered out yet? I don't think it will, at least for the next month. And that's also an interesting one, and looking at the variables of what the Defense Intelligence Agency said recently, on the 8th of September, that they said that there was a realistic possibility of Ukraine breaking through both the second and third lines of defense, which would put them within fire control range of the M14. That's the key highway which links Malitopol to Marriottpol and therefore could sever the line of communications and put Crimea at risk, with the timeframe which Mark Milley articulated on the 10th of September, which was that there were only 30 or 40 to 45 days fighting time left this year, based on either the weather, reserves, lack of supplies and all those things.
Dana Lewis :So you've got a change of course and a lot of people would debate that timeframe. But okay, he said.
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman:Yeah, I don't think fighting stops because of that, and there are lots of examples in history which would tell you that, in climates which are far worse than podology, soil science, which is far worse than that in that part of the world, and that's not the appropriate marshes. Neither is it the Finnish front from 1940, when, of course, russia was very successful in a counterattack war which brought the winter war of 1939 to 1940 to a conclusion.
Dana Lewis :I was going to save this, but I mean, you've deeply waded into what's happening in Ukraine and in the war front, so let me just ask you about that. So I heard an interview that you did recently where you said and I'm saying this, not you, but you kind of, I think, evaporated this idea that it's frozen. You laid out some pretty critical, linear, step by step advances that Ukraine is taking and a lot of that centered on Crimea that they're just not hitting and running and we're having a headline one or two days later in a newspaper, but in fact they are chipping away critically 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 and why do you think they're being successful right now and in a very logical, linear way?
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman:Well, I think to understand that you need to understand the framework of the battlefield. So in terms of the framework of the battlefield, we talk about close operation, sort of fourth on fourth fighting which you're seeing particularly around the sort of back moot, south of back moot, north of back moot areas and in the Zaporizhia where the advances on the Goga teammate and that towards Zodogny. So that is the close battle. Now, really important thing here is the deep battle that beyond the close battle which sets the conditions for what you want to achieve at the operational level in the future. Now the operational level, we really talk about tactical battles, a sequence to achieve operational effect and the operational effects that they're going after at the moment to set that condition for either a reoccupation of the Kremlin or for a collapse of the Russian morale, the military morale, political morale, because one of the decisive battles might be in the Kremlin or in the elite. Defections is in what they've been doing in terms of what we call the A2AD battle, that's, anti-access area denial battle, and what they're very cleverly doing is having really a kind of attrition by over stretch. They're putting multiple dilemmas in the way of the Russians getting inside their sort of decision cycle about what they should do.
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman:If you look at that in terms of what's been happening around Crimea in that part of the deep battle, there have been four things there which have really occurred in the last two to three weeks which have been really important. The first one was the significant hit on Cape Tarhakut around the end of August, which took out a number of electronic warfare systems, radars and an S-400 system, one of the long range over the horizon surface-to-air missile systems of the Russian. So that was the first enabler to make them get closer. The second one was the Boyko go-claps, that's, the gas and oil platforms. So, again, by eroding the electronic warfare in some of the sensors there, we're making the airspace management from a Ukraine perspective easier, and that means you can bring more assets to bear with a greater probability of success, because one of the things you look at is what we call NEA Unitions Effectiveness Assessment. The third thing, then, was that it enabled those two things was the really successful strike on the base at Sevastopol, with the submarine being destroyed along with the landing craft.
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman:Now, that landing craft is really important in terms of landing craft and the dry dock in terms of two things. Firstly, the loss of maintenance facilities for the Russians. Secondly, if the Ukrainians are able to sever the land bridge and at some time significantly destroy or call it the Kerch-er bridge, then the supply line that runs through to Ukraine effectively by land has gone and therefore you can only really supply it by car seat, and those landing craft have actually been utilized as supply ships as much as anything. So that is now two that have been destroyed effectively. So you're chipping away, and if you do that in the deep battle there comes a point when Putin really has as a choice it's guns or butter, because you can't do both with the logistic support to the population and the military in Crimea, and that's why the decisive battle might be in the Kremlin, because Crimea, from his perspective, is deemed to be kind of holy land. Now neither is, and they all fight for it, or it's not, and there's a significant consequence for Putin at home.
Dana Lewis :I mean there's a lot of analysis that say that the Ukrainians don't necessarily have to take Crimea, that just by cutting it off and making it untenable for Russian forces they can collapse the Russian army. I don't know, but they can certainly collapse that major launch pad which is being used to attack Ukraine.
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman:Well, I think that's true. I mean we always really talk about two parts to war, a physical part and a psychological part, and I think we're already seeing some of those psychological wrinkles which can be amplified. And then military theory terms. Here again we're really talking about class fits in Trinity, so war's really end. I mean fighting stops either because of decisive military victory the improbability of military victory or because the costs the military, economic, industrial, whatever are too great. Now in class fits, in terms that translates into the military no longer are able or willing to fight.
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman:And we saw that, for example, in 1917, when two and a half million people walked off the battlefield to the Russian army, which led to the tree of Brestletov. Or we can see it in the collapse of the political polity. That is why the decisive battle might be in the Kremlin. In terms of the psychological aspect of the Prismas Dilemma, one of the great psychological models Do you stay loyal or do you defect. That was the same sort of thing that we really saw around the pregishing.
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman:Or the third thing is that the government defects, and that is the defections, because the consequences for those the Stina, vicky, the man of force surrounding is too great In that situation, it is the security services who become important in the future in czar making. Now that doesn't mean, if Putin goes, that you're going to have a regime of sweetness and light in Russia. You might just have someone who's even worse than Putin, but that doesn't mean that you still don't have the same dilemmas about you know Triddy, for example. Either Putin or a successor mobilise the country either economically or in manpower terms to continue this war, and that's one of the key dilemmas he also faces at the moment.
Dana Lewis :What if Biden says yes to attack him? In layman terms, a lot of people don't even know what that is. It's the army tactical missile system. If Biden says yes to attack him, they get more range. What happens on the battlefield and can happen pretty quickly?
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman:Well, what it does is it pushes this A2AD bubble backwards, so the anti-axis area denial of the Russian is pushed further back, giving the Ukrainians greater access to using other systems to attack. So, for example, early in the war we heard a lot about TV2 by Raktor. Now that things are limited by ranging payload and all that sort of stuff, it brings other systems to bear and brings systems to bear which previously really had been either jammed by electronic warfare, being able to shot over the sky. So the extended range of ATACMs and of course, if the Germans do give tours, which you mentioned earlier on just pushes this ability of the Russians to control the airspace further back and that again means that the Ukrainians can prosecute a deep battle more effectively on high-value targets. They're not going after small things, it's high-value targets. That's why we see these S-400s being taken out. Electronic warfare systems, big logistic dumps, command and control moves, the things which really both the brains of an operation and the things which give you the real big enablers for the future.
Dana Lewis :Will you comment on North Korea? And we don't know what the deal was behind closed doors. But they have a lot more to offer than just millions of rounds of old artillery shells. I mean, they have some other weapons systems Presumably Putin is going to get access to that. Is it a big factor, do you think, when you kind of went through the shopping list of what is available from North Korea to Russia?
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman:It's not a done deal yet. I mean, of course, we know that the number of artillery systems in the North Korean inventory is suddenly large and that is why, for example, in the first three to four days of any war, should there be one in the Korean Peninsula across the 38th parallel, the left and right of arc in terms of casualties from a South Korean perspective is between 30,000 and 300,000. Now that variable is so great because 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 is really what ammunition and systems and at what age do they give them? Now, one of the big differences historically between NATO countries and Russia, which is so unique as it was, is the way that they manage stocks and stock inventory. So the NATO countries had far lower operational stocks, because the thing about munitions is that they degrade, so propellants degrade and rocket motors degrade.
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman:And that is one of the things. For example, why, in inventory terms, not looking at North Koreans but looking at the Americans and the ATACOMs some of the ATACOMs are 30 years old and therefore were taken out of the operational stocks of the Americans. But if they looked at them, which they are and then said this is still fit to go, or if we replace a rocket motor, then it could still be used. That's why you often see a mismatch between inventories when we look at this from a NATO perspective. So it really depends on what they give them. If they give them stuff which was manufactured last year I'm assuming that North Korean tolerances of manufacturing are pretty good that could be a worry. If they give them stuff which is 30, 40, 50 years old because the North Koreans have not fought anything significant encounter since 1953, it could actually be more dangerous to the Russians. So again, like all these things, there's a big variable about what, if anything, they give them and what quality that is.
Dana Lewis :Major General Chapman.
Dana Lewis :I have traveled Russia as a correspondent there and I can tell you I mean, the one thing that I can bring to the discussion is that when you take a look at some of the secret cities in the manufacturing base, whatever they're able to kickstart from Soviet times is incredible.
Dana Lewis :I mean, this is a country that can produce weapons, probably like no other maybe the United States can but there is a huge assembly line out there waiting and gaining steam. So your overall assessment of the war in Ukraine? I think sometimes the media is too positive, being the fall of a village and crediting Ukraine with a major advancement, and maybe it's not. Sometimes we're too negative because we have short attention spans and war takes a long time to play out in the battlefield. So when you get asked to shut up for a minute, the media people who don't always know enough about warfare, but talk about it all the time what is your feeling? What's your assessment in terms of where this is headed? And is there enough sand in the clock as it drips down for Ukraine to be able to get this done with Western support continuing?
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman:Well, a lot of media commentators and military commentators, including Mark Milley, from time to time have said that Russia has already lost tactically, operationally and strategically. Now, of course, I don't take that view because, again, it's really to do with the fact that there are so many multiple scenarios, there are so many variables, and you have to look at the time frames that Russia works in and really the fact that I always say that leaders may change. If you think you could go. Vital interests rarely change and we think we know that Russia has defined it with vital interests. We gained, lost territory in spheres of influence, but geography doesn't change.
(Ret) Maj Gen Chip Chapman:So, like all these things, you could either have a frozen piece and a land for peace, which would reward the aggressor, but that doesn't mean that ultimately, if you look in grand strategic terms and in terms of vital interests, that the thing would be over, because grand strategic, vital interests should be measured in tens of years, not in one year or three years or five years. So it is far too early to say that Russia has lost at any of those levels tactically, operationally or strategically. Of course, you could say at the moment that, tactically, russia, to my mind, is being out thought and out thought by the Ukrainians. But tactical success is not the building block necessarily of strategic warfare. So we will have to wait and see, as they always say.
Dana Lewis :Major General Chip Chapman. Sir, what a pleasure to talk to you. I really appreciate your time and it's an honor to get some of your thoughts. I really do appreciate your time, Thank you.
Dana Lewis :Thank you again, and that's our backstory this week. This is a new season, season six. We have 90,000 listens and tens of thousands more views of our interviews on YouTube. Thank you for your support. I'm Dana Lewis. Thanks for listening to Backstory and I'll talk to you again soon. Поти, music, music, music, music, music, music, music, music, music, music, music, music, music, music.
