Judging Freedom - Aaron Maté : Desperation and Escalation in Ukraine.

Episode Date: May 23, 2024

Aaron Maté : Desperation and Escalation in Ukraine.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, May 22nd, 2024. Aaron Mate joins us now. Aaron, thanks very much for your time. You have a fascinating piece out this week on Ukraine, the thesis of which, and I think the title of which is Desperation Leads to Escalation. I'm going to ask you a three-part question to give you a chance to jump all over this. How desperate is Ukraine? What is the state of its government? What is the state of its military as we speak? The state of its government is that Zelensky's term has expired, but yet he's still in power, acting as the president with no prospects for an election anytime soon. The state of its military is that they're overstretched. They don't have the manpower as has been easily and widely anticipated for a very, very long time. And now they're suffering

losses. Russia has already gained more territory in its recent offensive in Kharkiv than Ukraine did throughout its months-long so-called counteroffensive last year, which took months of preparation, tens of billions of dollars in military equipment, extensive planning directly with the Pentagon. And already in just a few weeks, Russia has taken more territory than Ukraine did. So that's a good window into how things are going for Ukraine. And what is their response? It's just all they can do is plead for Ukraine intervention. Zelensky recently gave an interview to the New York Times where he basically called for, again,

for a no-fly zone by NATO, which is not going to happen because that means World War III. Ukraine wants U.S. permission to use U.S. weaponry and intelligence to strike targets inside of Russia. There's talk now of NATO sending military trainers into Ukraine to expedite the process

of training Ukrainian forces because right now they have to leave the country to beite the process of training Ukrainian forces, because right now they have to leave the country to be trained by U.S. forces and NATO forces. So under this proposal, NATO would come to Ukraine and train people directly on the ground there to make that process faster. So every step of the way, it's always let's turn to our proxy war sponsors for help and escalate this crisis. And that's what we've seen happen so far. There have been many times where the U.S. has ruled out a certain step only to crumble when the inevitable occurs, which is that Ukraine cannot handle the Russian onslaught.

We saw that with attack of missiles, with tanks that the U.S. previously wouldn't send. It happens every time. So now with Ukraine asking for U.S. assistance and increased U.S. weaponry to strike inside Russia, the way things have gone so far, there's every reason to expect that that permission will be granted. Have you detected from many of your sources and in all of your research even a hint of negotiation or compromise? No, that's there seems there's no there isn't even any any back channel through through switzerland or or the cutter or some out of the way uh foreign ministry

i mean in fairness if it were happening my sources aren't good enough to know about it so but so you never can rule anything out but there publicly, from what we can see, there's no hint at all of negotiations. That's official Ukrainian policy. They won't negotiate with Russia so long as Vladimir Putin is in power. That's a direct call for regime change, as Joe Biden called for very early in the war. Recall when he went on the European trip just about a month after Russia invaded, and he said that, for God's sake, this man cannot remain in power. That was an explicit call for regime that, for God's sake, this man cannot remain in power. That was an explicit call for regime change.

And that's pretty much been the policy since. For months, Blinken didn't even speak to his counterpart, Sergei Lavrov. The policy, according to the Washington Post at the time, was do not engage. It's just a farce, this idea that we can't even speak to the other nuclear power in the world as we're engaged in this catastrophic proxy war. There is some contact, I think, occasionally between military leaders just to ensure that there's not direct confrontation. But aside from that, no, no hints at all of diplomacy. Do Secretary Blinken and Foreign Minister Lavrov speak at all? They've interacted occasionally at international conferences,

but in terms of direct talks, no, there isn't. Blinken does everything he can to avoid doing his job, which is to be a diplomat. He's a warmonger. We see that on display now in Gaza as well. Very little interest, no interest in diplomacy, every interest in warmongering. Why do you think the leaders of NATO hate Russia? That's a great question. I mean, for some people in the Baltic states, that goes back to Soviet era grievances. But overall, when it comes to Washington, you know, the Cold War is now, you know, 30 years plus in the past, there is a carryover from that era where we're conditioned just to hate Russians and that hasn't gone away. Practically, I think the main problem is with

Putin is that he wasn't a obedient leader the way Yeltsin was. Yeltsin let U.S. officials and advisors destroy his economy, took it in the chin as the U.S. expanded NATO to Russia's borders, even though there were promises at the end of the Cold War not to do that. Yeltsin actually raised a little bit of a protest,

but not to the level that Putin has, where Putin has said that the era of U.S. hegemony is over. And because we're a hegemon, we can't stand anybody who rejects that. Now, Putin wanted to get along with the U.S. He wanted to even join NATO. But because he wanted to craft his own independent foreign policy, and he stood up to NATO expansion, there's just this resentment towards him. And he's curbed U.S. hegemony, not just in his own area, but also in the Middle East, where he got involved in Syria after the U.S. backed a sectarian-dominated insurgency there. And Russia came in and prevented groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda from taking over.

And therefore, that breeds resentment inside Washington, where we feel as if we own the world and anybody who stands in the way has to be taken out. Do you expect, now I'm drilling into your article, that there will be some sort of escalation, notwithstanding the paucity of troops that Ukraine has? I guess it's about to receive some significant tranche of American ammunition and weaponry. Well, the record so far, I think pretty convincingly establishes that every time the U.S. rules out a step that it deems as too escalatory, it ultimately changes its mind. So again, early on in the war, Jake Sullivan was saying that we're not going to send these long-range attack thems these long-range attack missiles to Ukraine because that would put us on the road to World War III. That's what Jake Sullivan said well fast forward to now and we're sending those attack thems we sent them quietly

earlier this year these long-range attack thems and you can look at many other weapon systems and say the same thing so given that record so far and given the just overriding commitment to waging this proxy war so long as U.S. neocons can tell themselves that they're bleeding Russia, which is their goal. Then, yes, I think there's every expectation because there's been no political capital spent so far at all on diplomacy. There's been doubling down at every single turn. So based on that record alone, I do think we can expect more escalatory steps, especially as Ukraine loses forces, because that will make them even more desperate to turn to the advanced weapon systems that they're operating with U.S. assistance. Here's a very desperate person who believes we should be attacking Russian military bases inside Russia.

I'm not even going to tell you who she is. I know who it is. She's back at number five. They need to be able to stop these Russian attacks that are coming from bases inside Russia. So I think there's also a question of whether we, the United States and our allies, ought to give them more help in hitting Russian bases, which heretofore we've not been willing to do. I think if the attacks are coming directly from over the line in Russia, that those bases ought to be fair game, whether they are where missiles are being launched from or where they

are where troops are being supplied from. I think it's time for that because Russia has obviously escalated this war, including, as you said at the beginning, attacking Russia's second city, Kharkiv, which is not on the front lines and trying to decimate it without ever having to put a boot on the ground. So I think it is time to give the Ukrainians more help hitting these bases inside Russia. When I said she's back to Colonel McGregory said, who is it? I love Lucy. We know who it is. Victoria Nuland, she obviously misspoke when she said Russia's second city, Kharkiv, she meant to say Ukraine. But is there a reason why she's now, other than her own ego i mean is the is the um state department establishment bringing about bringing the old war horse back resolve to earn your degree in the new year in

the bay with wgu wgu is an online accredited university that specializes in personalized learning with courses available 24 7 and monthly start dates you can earn your degree on your schedule you may even be able to graduate sooner than you think by demonstrating mastery of the material you know. Make 2025 the year you focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu. I think she's out of office, but certainly her line of thinking is very influential inside the State Department. I don't think there's any difference between her and Tony Blinken and pretty much everybody else inside the Biden administration. She wants to escalate this war because she doesn't know any other way of thinking.

She's escalated to the U.S.-backed coup. When Obama agreed to let Germany and France broker the Minsk Two Accords, which was the peace accord that was supposed to end this whole thing, bring peace to Ukraine, stop the civil war between the U.S.-backed coup government and Russian-backed Eastern Ukrainian rebels, Victoria Nuland at every turn mobilized behind the scenes to undermine the Minsk Accords and to keep sending weapons because she's just driven by this hegemonic imperative where other countries are to be used for our own goals, including in this case, bleeding Russia and hopefully trying to using that to overthrow Vladimir Putin, which is her ultimate goal. And so I do think she's influential and I will not be surprised that the State Department and Joe Biden take her advice and permit Ukraine to start launching strikes inside of Russia. Now, I should say, does Ukraine, in my opinion, have the right to strike inside of Russia? You know, legally, I think they do. They're at war with Russia. So fair enough.

Right. Practically, practically, what is the result of this? Well, nobody said this better than Tony Blinken. And I know that Ray McGovern has discussed this on your show before, too. Tony Blinken, when he was working for Barack Obama, who was hesitant about this proxy war that he began by backing a coup. Tony Blinken said that if you're trying to escalate with Russia, then you're playing to Russia's strength. Because whatever Ukraine does, Russia can match it many times over. And that's exactly what Victoria Nuland

is calling for here. Yes, even if Ukraine can use U.S. weapons to strike deeper inside Russia, Russia can do far more damage to Ukraine. And we've seen so many examples of that at every turn. Ukraine recently hit Belgorod. Well, Russia's come back with much more devastating strikes, hitting Ukraine's grid, power centers. Every time this has happened in this war so far since Russia invaded, where Ukraine strikes Crimea or inside Russia, Russia comes back and makes life much more worse for Ukraine. That's just the reflection of Russia's military dominance and being right on Ukraine's border and Ukraine being used for a proxy war by states that are not there. So just logistically, Russia always has the advantage.

And Victoria Nuland's policy is to push Ukraine deeper down the path of nationalist suicide. I don't know what Lloyd Austin's personal policy is, but here he is. He obviously has a great deal of influence. He's still Secretary of Defense, speaking at the Pentagon prior to a closed-door meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group. That's Ukrainian generals and American generals. The Ukrainian generals either are on by internet or they're physically there. I don't know which, but here he is yesterday, cut number 11. Some 50 countries of conscience from around the world are standing up for Ukraine again today. And we're going to continue to get Ukraine the support that it needs.

The United States remains determined to do our part. We are again delivering urgently needed assistance to Ukraine, and the security assistance that we are now rushing to Ukraine will make a difference in this fight. And that includes 155 millimeter artillery rounds and ammunition for HIMARS. It includes air defense capabilities and anti-armor systems, which come from a billion dollar drawdown from our stocks after President Biden signed the National Security Supplement supplemental last month. Listen, it sounds as though they read your article and it sounds as though they really want to escalate. And it almost sounds as though when you listen to the type of thing he ticked off,

all this stuff can reach into Russia. What would you expect Russia to do when it knows that it's American equipment, American ammunition, and maybe even American technicians that are aiming it and pulling the trigger? And that stuff's landing, I say pulling the trigger, it's a control board these days, and that stuff is landing inside Russia. Well, this is the whole point. All these steps increase the risk of direct confrontation. This is the insane game that this administration is playing beyond using Ukraine in a way that completely sacrifices itself and its people's long-term future, playing with the risk of what Joe Biden called Armageddon. Recall that Joe Biden at a private fundraiser at one of the Murdoch sons' house in the Upper East Side of Manhattan

said that this is the closest we've been to Armageddon since the Cuban Missile Crisis. He said this over a year ago. And the Biden administration policy has been rather to mitigate the risk of Armageddon to continue to fuel it. And this is another example of that. Recall also that Lloyd Austin is the same guy who just over a year ago went before Congress, where he's supposed to be under oath and telling the truth, and. intelligence officials had assessed that Ukraine had at best a modest chance of success because they recognized the obvious. And it goes back to what we were talking about before. Ukraine doesn't have air power, unlike Russia. So therefore, Ukraine's at a huge military disadvantage. So Pentagon planners know that whatever they do, Russia will have military advantage.

But because the overriding policy is not to defend Ukraine, but just to bleed Russia, it's full steam ahead with the same dangerous escalatory policies. Does the West understand Putin's mentality? Do they understand that he doesn't bluff? That's a great question. That is a wonderful. I don't know the answer to that. You'd think professionals would understand by now that Putin has not bluffed and that Putin has backed up his red lines with force.

The fact that he invaded Ukraine was the clearest sign that he was not going to let Ukraine be used as a U.S. proxy. He was not going to let Ukraine be used as a place where they build up CIA bases and train forces and side with ultra-nationalists. But if you look at the policy so far coming out of Washington, it's not clear that they know that. So it's a great question. I'd love to know the answer from them directly. Is hatred of Putin or fear of Russia or a wish to divide Russia a precondition for joining NATO? I certainly think it's a huge driving factor. I mean, NATO is supposed to be a military alliance, a defensive military alliance. But yet, when Russia tried to join, both Yeltsin and Putin raised the issue. They were told very quickly,

no, that's not going to happen. And the reason is very clear why, because NATO is a tool of US hegemony. And hegemony always needs an enemy. And Russia plays that role very, very well. There's just no way they're going to let Russia be integrated into a inclusive European security order. And so, yes, I do think being willing to play along with that is a condition for membership and being willing to accordingly hand over parts of your economy to the military industrial complex is another condition. That's why the U.S. is so big on everyone spending at least 2% of their GDP, so much of which goes to U.S. arms merchants to purchase their weapons of war. Is there, going back to where we started about the instability of the government, have your sources revealed, I'm going to guess nowhere you would have have told us but you tell us what you can uh any indications that a regime change might happen in ukraine since there was no election and he can't extend his own term legally and under the law his term ended uh two days ago

if i'm making a prediction i don't think z Zelensky will be overthrown from within, even though there's a lot of bitterness towards him, a lot of resentment. There's obviously huge corruption. There's people who don't like how authoritarian he's become. I mean, recall, he shut down political opposition and opposition media, not just after Russia's invasion, but even one year before, which I think was a major factor in Russia ultimately deciding to invade when Zelensky went after allies of Russia, or at least people who were sympathetic to Russia and wanted to reach a peace deal with Russia rather than have the war in the Donbass. But the reason why I think Zelensky will stick around is as long as the U.S. deems him to be useful, I think that's all he needs to stay around. And clearly they've put a lot of capital in him and he has done U.S. deems him to be useful, I think that's all he needs to stay around. And clearly, they've put a lot of capital in him, and he has done U.S. bidding so far.

Occasionally, he annoys the Biden administration when he gets out of line. So, for example, at the NATO summit last year when he complained that Ukraine was given an empty promise about joining NATO, he was upset about that. But he was told to shut his mouth, and he did. And he ended up thanking his U.S. patrons for all their generous support. So as long as he has the support of Washington, I think I think we'll see Zelensky around, because the irony of Ukraine is that for all this talk about wanting to be an independent country, have democracy, stand up to Russian influence is they'd be completely subsumed by U.S. influence. And I've spoken to a former Ukrainian official about this, Andrei Telechenko, who would tell me he was working inside the Ukrainian government after the coup. And he would talk about how Ukrainian officials would get

U.S. counterparts to sign off on hiring decisions on who to hire, who to fire. And of course, the most famous example of this is Joe Biden saying, you have to fire that prosecutor or we're not giving you this loan. And of course, the most famous example of this is Joe Biden saying, you have to fire that prosecutor or we're not giving you this loan. And of course, they replied. And they complied. I'm going to guess that Mrs. Newland enjoyed making those decisions. Getting back to your article with the tantalizing title about desperation leads to escalation. What kind of escalation do you think they're going to try?

How deep into Russia are they going to go? I mean, do we even know if they caused the slaughter at the Crocus concert hall? Is it asymmetrical warfare or is it reaching into Russia with American weaponry to attack Russian military bases, which would be a legal target for them. Well, they've already been hitting Belgorod and they've hit civilian sites there, not military sites. They've killed civilians there. I expect more of that. I expect more

attacks on Crimea. Let me just stop you. This is Belgorod. This is tape from Patrick Lancaster, the American freelance journalist who's there, who'll be on with us at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning. this is tape from Patrick Lancaster, the American freelance journalist who's there who will be on with us at nine o'clock tomorrow morning,

Eastern time. But in anticipation of that, he sent this to us. Yeah. So there we go. Those are the kind of targets that Ukraine has been hitting. So I would expect more of that.

I'd expect more attacks on Crimea, which certainly Ukraine can reach now with these attackams. I believe the range of these long-range attackams is 400 miles, so Ukraine will certainly be going after Crimea even more, I think, with these weapons. I assume, in light of that clip we saw from Secretary Austin and to whom he was speaking, that American military officials either approve or are consulted

before these projectiles reach into Russia. The Washington Post had a report over a year ago saying that basically before any strike by Ukraine with U.S. weapons, the U.S. is involved. So basically the U.S. is helping with targeting and approving all these strikes. So absolutely. And people like Victoria Nuland have made very clear that Crimea is fair game. Crimea was a part of Ukraine, but of course, before it was part of Ukraine, it was a part of the Russian political sphere before it was transferred under the Soviet Union in the 1950s. And of course, according to U.S.-backed polls, the vast majority of Crimeans want to be a part

of Russia. But all that gets ignored because there's so much bitterness against Russia for taking Crimea after the U.S.-backed coup. And so, therefore, after blockading Crimea for years, cutting off its water supply, now they'll be using even more U.S. weaponry to hit it. You know, Nuland and her buddies inside the State Department and out are really crazy. Under the laws of war, Putin could attack the United States knowing that American generals have orchestrated attacks on Russia using American military equipment, whether the button was pressed by a Polish official or a Ukrainian official or an American official. They know that the Americans have orchestrated attacks inside Russia. They can

attack. I don't want this to happen at all, but they can attack inside the United States. Putin's not stupid enough to do that. But the Americans and the Tory-Nuland mentality are crazy enough to bring that about. It's the dangerous game we're playing.

Early in Russia's invasion, U.S. officials and the New York Times took credit for attacks that were killing Russian generals. They were boasting about it. And yeah, I agree with you. I don't think Russia is going to attack the U.S. in response. But the question becomes, why are we even risking it? And what kind of risk does this create in other areas of direct conflict, say, I don't know, inside Ukraine or around bragging about facilitating attacks that were killing U.S. generals? It's a very dangerous game we're playing. Here's a ghost out of the past, the former director of the CIA, who is also a former secretary of defense, Robert Gates, warning how strong the Russians now are.

Cut number four, Chris. Putin has taken the last six months to a year to rearm, reequip, to recruit. I've read numbers that he's putting as many as 30,000 new troops a month into Ukraine. They have more troops in Ukraine now, the Russians do, than they did at the beginning of the war. So I think the real issue now is how fast can we get the equipment that the Ukrainians need into the field, into their hands, beginning with air defense, but also artillery and rocket and missiles.

And so I hope that there is a sense of huge urgency in the Pentagon and elsewhere about getting this equipment into the hands of the Ukrainians literally within the next few weeks. They have to be trained how to use it or they have to be American trainers on the ground. What country has troops on the ground in Ukraine? What western countries? Well, according to that leaked German audio of those German military leaders discussing how they could circumvent their

elected chancellor, Olaf Scholz, and send Taurus missiles to Ukraine, there were Americans and French troops and Brits there helping to operate these weapon systems. And that's another part of the dangerous game we're playing, having our forces there taking direct part in these attacks. And of course, the Germans said the Americans were dressed in civilian clothes, but I don't think that's fooling anybody.

I think Russia understands that they're there as well. But Gates's comments about how Russia has more forces now inside Ukraine than ever before, how it's rebuilt its military, compare his assessment to what we were hearing just a few months ago when the Biden administration was begging Congress for another $61 billion,

which they eventually got. Back then, anonymous US intelligence officials were telling Congress that Russia has lost 90% of its army in Ukraine, 90%. And the reason they were doing that now was very clear. It was clear at the time, but it's especially clear now. They were desperate to get this money from Congress. So they're trying to sell them on why this is a good investment. They were trying to lie and say, look, we've already killed so many Russians. We just need a little bit more money to kill the last 10%. But now all of a sudden we have to admit the truth that actually Russia is stronger militarily, militarily than ever before.

That is a great point, Aaron. And what these people told the Congress is called fraud. It's a crime, a material misrepresentation made in order to induce the other person to rely on it to their detriment. Oh, but when it's other people's money, when it's the taxpayer's money or money borrowed in their name or printed by the Federal Reserve, they don't care. Aaron, thank you very much for your great research and your great presentation on all of this, my dear friend. We have to get together in that hole in the wall on the Lower East Side again

if we can get Max and Anya to join us. But thanks very much, my friend. We'll look forward to seeing you next week. Thank you, Judge, likewise. Okay. We do have a full day, a very interesting day coming up for you tomorrow. And we are starting at nine o'clock in the morning,

as I mentioned a few minutes ago to Aaron, with Patrick Lancaster live from wherever he is in the combat area that Russia says is Russia and Ukraine says is Ukraine. At two in the afternoon, Professor Michael Rechtenwald, likely to be the Libertarian nominee for President of the United States. At three in the afternoon, Kyle Anzalone. At 4.15 in the afternoon, Matt Ho, who has just returned from all the hoopla in London over the British courts announcing that our friend who was incarcerated there, Julian Assange, is going to get another appeal. And at five o'clock, the inimitable Max Blumenthal. A full day for you tomorrow. Justin Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thanks for watching!