Former Pentagon official: ‘It is much easier to deal with the Soviet Union than with ISIS’

Mr Maloof, the Syrian conflict is being actively discussed now. Initially, Russia and the USA agreed to make peace. And then US planes bombed Deir ez-Zor right after that. Red Cross humanitarian aid convoy was attacked a bit later. In your opinion, is it a sheer coincidence or are they any forces that don't want peace. Who are these forces?

I think the problem here is that the so-called 'moderate forces' don't want any kind of peace, any kind of success by the Assad government. The attack on the humanitarian aid could have come from ISIS [Editor's Note: organisation banned in Russia] because they did not want that aid to get on through. That aid package, those trucks were cleared by the United States, by the Syrian government, by Russia, by the UN. Then they have the thing attacked. It is very suspicious. Even the UN said they tracked the notion that it was an air strike. Actually, it was a ground attack.

We don't have all the evidence. But it is highly suspicious. It is very clear it came out of a time when it would not be in the interest of the terrorists for that aid to get into Aleppo because it only helps bolster the Syrian government. I think that from the policy and political viewpoint, both the United States and Russia want to cease fire. The problem for the USA is that it cannot control the so-called 'moderate forces' often linked up with ISIS and al-Nusra to conduct operations. The only thing you have going for is trying to get is a peace deal made. There are no other options available. And I think that's why it is gonna be important to continue the effort in Geneva to get a peace talk going.

The attack on the humanitarian aid could have come from ISIS because they did not want that aid to get on through. That aid package, those trucks were cleared by the United States, by the Syrian government, by Russia, by the UN. Then they have the thing attacked. Photo: nashaplaneta.su

In your opinion, what will happen in Syria next?

That's the big question right now. I think there is gonna continue to be an effort towards trying to re-establish the talks. But they have the opposition forces that don't want to talk. Their entire goal is not only to topple the Assad government but it is also to establish their own caliphate. Actually, they have talked about the establishing their own caliphate within Syria. So their goals are totally opposite. Yes, the US wants to battle ISIS, and they want to battle Assad. And the United States has no control over them even though arms and whatever you continue to float to them from the US. This is not a very good situation. I think as long as the US and Russia can continue to talk, that helps to look for some kind of solution. And as long as the Russians keep up their support of the Assad government, it is not gonna fall. The Russian government doesn't want Assad to fall. It really would not benefit. It would create a political and military vacuum. If he fell, it would allow ISIS to come back in force into Syria. There is a lot hanging on him. Yet there is no simple solution. All that you can do is continue trying to pursue an avenue of trying to get discussions going, at least, establishing the ceasefire towards the transitional government. The opposition doesn't want it, and they are gonna continue to resist it. They are absolutely guided by outside forces particularly from Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

NATO is sending additional squadrons to Baltic countries. Is the threat for NATO countries real?

I don't think so. I think a part of the problem is political. You support the Democrat Administration in the USA that want to create a new boogieman. And Russia is it. And you have a lot of people who are randoms and policy makers trying to re-establish themselves. And they have to create a bad guy. They can't seem to get their hands around dealing with the new threat of ISIS. Even though ISIS has metastasized into 28 countries. It is much easier to deal with one enemy, the Soviet Union, than it is to deal with an ideology of fighters that have metastasized into these 28 countries. The other thing is that a lot of these old-type neocons who are pushing this agenda have backings from the major defense industries. They are gonna want to increase the amount of money that can be spent on defense. But in order to justify that you have to have a bad guy. Russia seems to be the latest too bad guy on their radar. I don't happen to agree with that because I think there is a lot more than the US and Russia could be doing together. I think this is the thing we will promptly be talking about.

Hillary Clinton is another story. She has bad-mouthed Mr Putin. She has Michael Morell, the former CIA chief, who has openly called for the killing of Russian soldiers in Syria. She is also surrounded by advisers like Paul Wolfowitz, people who are pushing a stronger NATO and eastward expansion of NATO. All the bad it does – create more tension in the region. It can precipitate a major war between the two, of course. You also have the democrats talking about a fly-free zone over Syria. That only will bring the US into a direct conflict with Russia and Syria. The only thing that the democrats, particularly Hillary Clinton, understand is conflict. There is a lot more that can be done in concert with countries such as Russia and Iran in order to try to bring a little of stability to this world. And we need it.

Hillary Clinton is another story. She has bad-mouthed Mr Putin. She has Michael Morell, the former CIA chief, who has openly called for the killing of Russian soldiers in Syria. She is also surrounded by advisers like Paul Wolfowitz, people who are pushing a stronger NATO and eastward expansion of NATO. All the bad it does – create more tension in the region. Photo: miaminewtimes.com

Poland expressed an idea of creation of an anti-Russian alliance that consists of Eastern Europe countries. Is it a real thing? Who would be a part of it? Will it be a real power?

I just don't think that from the strategic point of view this is gonna be taken seriously. They already have NATO. So what more do they want? They are trying to create an artificial crisis on their borders. It is for self-preservation, you can tell.

Will it be a threat? The only threat is that if they continue and try to agitate and create conditions on which the other side then has to bring up forces to protect its supporters.

It is a simple geopolitical 101. It is a basic course of geopolitics. I think if these countries along the border, particularly with the Russian Federation, would just calm down, it is gonna lessen tensions considerably.

And I think Russia ought to be re-invited back to be a part of the whole NATO group, so that there can be a much closer coordination than there is right now. We had that before, by the way, before Ukraine incident.

As for the enlargement of NATO: who else will become a member of the alliance?

I don't see that happening right now. You have heard about Georgia, you have heard about Montenegro, Moldova. I don't really see that simply because it is gonna create too much tension. Europe knows they can just push Russia so far. But for what purpose? You have to ask the question 'Why does it need to be enlarged?' I don't know why they want to pursue this.

When will Ukraine and Georgia become a part of it?

No time soon.

Does the Russian Federation have a chance to make a part of NATO?

I don't know that Russia has asked for that. I think it will be an interesting question. They had representatives to NATO in Brussels in the past. It meant what we call 'transparency' and 'openness' to ensure that there is no excellence. And I think that's a good thing, a thing that needs to be continued. I think the nature of NATO, its mission has evolved into another direction. We have new threats. The NATO mission needs a re-exam. There is a question whether NATO is even necessary any longer. I think there is some self-examination of that by some of the NATO countries. Maybe we just need a European security force. And we don't need NATO, which brings in the USA. NATO seems to be going through an identity crisis at this point.

The NATO mission needs a re-exam. There is a question whether NATO is even necessary any longer. I think there is some self-examination of that by some of the NATO countries. Maybe we just need a European security force. And we don't need NATO. Photo: theins.ru

And for enlargement, I think before there is any talk about that, NATO needs to exam what its true role is, whether it is viable.

The terrorism can be a larger issue. And we can certainly use the help of both Russia and Iran in dealing with that threat that is just increasing exponentially.

Will the previous level of Russia-NATO dialogue be renewed?

I think so. That's what I've been suggesting that should be done. There needs to be a better dialogue between the two. And it would be nice of NATO that could initiate that invitation. But I think as long as you have the Ukraine situation, that's gonna continue to faster. In my opinion, Europe can get over because Europe and Russia relations have many more things going for than just one crisis such as Ukraine. They have trade issues, they do have security issues. But they also have energy issues. I think Russia needs Europe and Europe needs Russia. I think if they can minimize the differences between them, it will go well for everybody involved.

There has been hysteria in Sweden where it is said about a possible invasion of Russia or Russian threat. Who is promoting the concept of 'Russian threat'?

I don't know who is doing it. But it is just nonsense to suggest that Russia is gonna threatening those countries. You don't have a reason to. I think it is a self-promotion for some groups within the country. I just don't take it too seriously.

Is the USA ready to send in troops to Ukraine and Donbass?

No. The US sending troops? No. The US is not gonna send in troops. The American people frankly are sick and tired of regime change and wars for liberationists. The US has been fighting wars for 15 years that make people tired of it. I think the US will use it if there is a major direct threat. And the whole idea of regime change is gonna be re-examined. We have seen nothing but failure from Iraq, Syria, Libya. There are some advisers in Ukraine, I believe, that are training Ukrainian forces. But they are just trainers, they are not combat.