Judging Freedom - Aaron Maté: Who Sabotaged the Istanbul Deal?

Episode Date: June 26, 2024

Aaron Maté: Who Sabotaged the Istanbul Deal?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, June 26, 2024. Aaron Maté joins us now. Aaron, a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you for joining us. A lot to talk about, including some breaking news from the Pentagon, which we'll wait on for just a minute because I've been dying to ask you this. Is the United States at war with Russia in light of what happened on the beach in Sevastopol on Sunday? Well, certainly what happened on Sunday is one more step up the escalation ladder. According to Russia, that strike by Ukraine, which killed civilians at a beach, was waged with U.S. assistance with not just U.S. advisors that help carry out the attacks, but also with a U.S. drone. That's the Russian allegation. I can't confirm that. But overall, I mean, this is the inevitable result of a decision

in Washington to use Ukraine to bleed Russia. That's the sole goal. That's the explicit goal of the Biden administration. Lloyd Austin made it plain when he said our goal is to weaken Russia. Jake Sullivan doubled down on that when he said a few months later, this is back in 2022, that our goal is to hand Russia a strategic defeat. So not to defend Ukraine, not to bring this war to an end, but to use Ukraine to inflict pain on Russia. So inevitably, events like this are the result because Ukraine is running out of options.

It's desperate. So now it's going after Crimea because it has U.S. supplied weaponry to do so. And whatever the extent of U.S. assistance was in this attack, the question to ask ourselves, is this what we want to be doing? Do we want to be rolling the dice with nuclear Armageddon just so that we can take the side of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists in Ukraine who couldn't accept the Minsk Accords, who couldn't accept recognizing the rights of Russian-speaking people inside Ukraine, who couldn't accept the idea of Ukraine being permanently neutral, even though that was the goal enshrined in Ukraine's Declaration of State Sovereignty back in 1990. What Russia is asking for there is not some radical Russian

proposal. That was actually a Ukrainian principle when Ukraine was founded at the end of the Cold War. And Yanukovych, the leader who was ousted in the U.S.-backed coup, he also moved to change the Constitution to enshrine neutrality. So these are not radical demands, but because Washington's goals align with Ukrainian ultranationalists, we are risking Armageddon every single time. And there's no sign in Washington that they're rolling this back. Jake Sullivan initially said that we're only going to give Ukraine permission to use U.S. weapons to strike across the border from Kharkiv. Now they said, actually, you know what, they can strike across the border wherever there's a threat. So what's next on the

escalation ladder? It's playing with the unthinkable. Isn't Ukraine neutrality, wasn't Ukraine neutrality enshrined in the one and a half inch thick agreement negotiated in Istanbul, pooh-poohed by the West, recognized and initialed by Vladimir Zelensky's own negotiators, recognized and initialed by President Putin's negotiators, wasn't neutrality contemplated as recently as March of 2020 until the U.S. and the U.K. told Zelensky to forget about it. That's exactly right. In March and April 2022, you had these high-level talks in Istanbul. They made significant progress. Vladimir Putin said that they were very close to an agreement. And as you mentioned, those provisions were initialed by the Ukrainian side. And then the deal was sabotaged.

And it's been sort of a mystery as to why. Well, Ukrainian sources said it's because Boris Johnson came and told Ukraine, we're not going to back you up if you make a deal with Russia. We're not going to offer you the security guarantees that you would need to reach such a deal. You should keep fighting. But in the West, there was basically a vow of silence. The Biden administration said nothing about it. And US media followed. Finally, more than two years later, the New York Times recently broke their vow of silence, published in a really helpful act of journalism, the copies of the full draft treaties that we actually had never seen before. Putin had waved up a copy in June of 2022 in a meeting with African leaders and said that this was how thick this agreement was,

we made so much progress. And then voices in the West said, well, okay, if Putin really has such a document, why doesn't he release it? Well, the document just got released. And to answer that question, the reason why Putin didn't release it is because Putin was still holding out hope that Ukraine would come to its senses and agree to its own agreement, which the West told it not to accept. But obviously that hasn't happened. So now we're finally seeing it from the New York Times. And the Times filled in a lot of details, including more confirmation that U.S. officials oppose this deal. The Times wording is that U.S. officials were alarmed at the deal's terms, and they warned Ukraine against accepting it. One American official said that Ukraine was told that this agreement with Russia would amount to unilateral disarmament. That's what the U.S. told Ukraine, unilateral disarmament.

No, it would have meant that Ukraine would have reverted to its declaration of state sovereignty, declared neutrality, which makes sense. That's what everyone knows is a solution in Ukraine. When you have a divided country, it's insanity to pull it into one military bloc, whether it's Russian or U.S.-led. Just keep it neutral, as so many Ukrainians have wanted for a long time. But because the U.S. could not accept a neutral Ukraine, could not accept the prospect of peace in Ukraine, and therefore a failed opportunity to weaken Russia, more than two years later, we still have this awful war.

Let's go back to Sevastopol. Here's the Russian ambassador to the United Nations condemning what happened on June 24th, so two days ago. Cut number 10, Chris. Kiev regime supported by the USA carried out a heinous attack against civilians in the Russian city of Sevastopol in Crimea. Ukraine launched five U.S.-supplied attack MS missiles armed with cluster munitions. An American Global Hawk UAV was patrolling the airspace over the Crimean Peninsula. There will be measures in response. The Russian Federation will continue to protect its people and its national security

until no threat is posed by the neo-Nazi regime in Kyiv that was breeded, raised, and financed by the West. The neo-Nazi regime in Kyiv that was breeded, raised, and financed by the West. Sounds like this finally got to them. Babies, children were killed by cluster bombs of all things. Yeah. And what did Zelensky's office do? They celebrated this and declared basically that there are no innocents in Crimea. The words of the advisor to Zelensky, Podolyak, that's his last name. He says, there are not and cannot be any beaches, tourist zones, and other fictitious signs of peaceful life in Crimea. Crimea is definitely a foreign territory occupied by Russia.

So that's from the top of the Ukrainian leadership, the guy supported by the U.S. He's declaring that in all of Crimea, there are no innocents. So everybody is fair game. And ironically, Zelensky's government is the one that says that Crimea is Ukrainian and belongs to us and the people there want to be a part of Ukraine. Well, how do you reconcile saying that there are no innocents there with saying that the people there want to be a part of Ukraine? In reality, if you believe U.S. government funded polls, forget what Russia says. The vast majority of Crimeans want to be a part of Russia. They welcome the annexation that happened in 2014, an annexation that only happened because the U.S. helped overthrow a government that was trying to declare neutrality. And Russia faced the prospect of a hostile coup government taking control of its most important naval base in Sevastopol. So how does Zelensky's office react

now by declaring that we can hit there wherever we want with U.S. weapons and there are no innocents there. So if they die, tough luck. It's a reprehensible argument that he makes. Here's a full screen. I will read it from Foreign Minister Lavrov, who's a lot angrier than the Russian ambassador to the U.N. The U.S. is responsible for this massacre, and they will get an answer. All flight missions for American ATAKOM's missiles are programmed by American specialists based on their own U.S. satellite intelligence data. Therefore, the responsibility for the deliberate missile strike against the civilian population of Sevastopol lies primarily with Washington, which supplied this weapon to Ukraine, as well as with the Kiev regime from whose territory

this strike was launched. Such actions will not go unanswered. Colonel McGregor reports, now I haven't seen anything to corroborate this, but he believes it's so, that when the U.S. ambassador was called in by Lavrov, the U.S. ambassador to Russia, Foreign Minister Lavrov said to him, we are no longer at peace with the United States. Back to the question I asked you when we started, is the U.S. crazy? Are they trying to go? Are they trying to U.S.? I mean, the Biden administration trying to goad Russia into a bigger, wider war? I wish I could answer that question. The problem with these people is their policies are so reckless and so dangerous. You do have to question their grip on reality. Why? Why are they playing

with these risks? Why are they willing to sacrifice so many young Ukrainians just for the goal of killing young Russians in this delusional belief that somehow Russia is going to break apart and Putin will be overthrown? Which, putting aside the insanity of the goal, practically, has it worked? Look at Russia's economy. It's doing pretty well. It hasn't broken. The sanctions have been a failure in terms of their goals. Militarily, Russia still controls one-fifth of Ukraine. It's taking more territory. Ukraine is desperate. They're selling off state assets. It's a nightmare. So I can't get inside their heads as to what could possibly compel them to keep going, except for this fanatical devotion to bleeding their adversary.

The U.S. is a hegemon. Russia is a deterrent to U.S. hegemony. It stood up to the U.S. around the world, in its own neighborhood especially, but also in Syria, where Russia prevented the takeover of Syria by U.S.-backed sectarian death squads. There's a lot of bitterness in Washington still about that. A lot of bitterness in Washington that Russia took Crimea, even though that could have been very predictable after the U.S. backed the coup there. But when you're driven by hegemony and fanaticism, you don't think rationally. And so I don't know what's in the minds of these people. And I shudder to think as to what could come next. I don't think Russia will target U.S. assets. So say, for example, in Syria, I just don't think they'll do that. I've seen nothing in their behavior that

would suggest they would escalate like that. Russia's always been in the business of trying to prevent escalation, I think, with the U.S., given the consequences Putin from the right, from retired military, from retired intelligence, semi-publicly whispered from current military, certainly from politicians, even from academics. to retaliate, these people hit children on a very religious Russian Orthodox holiday, Pentecost Sunday for the Russian Orthodox, a day that is a national holiday. Yes. And this pressure that Putin faces is something that Americans are not privy to because we're told that Putin is this dictator who controls everything, doesn't listen to anybody. He is ultra hawk. He's bent on recreating the Soviet Union, all these fictions that are created to justify warmongering against Russia. Have you been reading the letters of Lindsey Graham lately? I'm just busting your chops, but that's what they do believe. You're right. Go ahead, please.

And because no one cares about actually studying Russia, and there are very few scholars left willing to speak the truth about it, my late mentor, Stephen F. Cohen, would always point this out, that inside the Russian political spectrum, Putin is actually relatively moderate. He's been facing pressure for a long time to do something about Ukraine. There were factions in Russia that were very upset. He did not go all the way in 2014. And he agreed to example the Minsk Accords, which ended the war that broke out after the U.S.-backed coup. There are many voices in Russia who thought that was a capitulation, that that was weakness

and that basically Russia should have wiped out the Ukrainian army and stopped by force the attacks on the Donbass. Putin tried to give negotiations a chance and look where that got him. So he does face pressure from the more hawkish elements inside Russia. So far, I think he's held them at bay, but who knows with politics and the way things go? I mean, that's why it's so important. And I know many guests on your show make this point a lot. It's so important from our point of view, just to do everything we can to minimize the risk. But what's the Biden administration doing? It's maximizing them. Makes me wonder if Joe Biden somehow thinks it will enhance his reelection if he's a wartime president. If

four months from now, September or October, there are American troops there and he's rallying everybody around the flag. Boy, he should take a lesson from LBJ and what happened to him in 1968. All right. Well, Judge, let me say too, sorry, another lesson to draw is how escalation happens. Because right now there was a report on CNN this week saying that Biden is considering lifting restrictions on the deployment of U.S. military contractors. And just look at the recent history of Iraq and Afghanistan. When there's a lot of pressure at home to pull back troops from those countries, the Bush and Obama administrations authorized increased deployment of military contractors, which became sort of a parallel US army inside of these countries,

Iraq and Afghanistan. It looks like now Biden, if the CNN report is correct, is going in that direction. So that's another step up the escalation ladder. And they might convince themselves, okay, it's military contractors will limit their deployment. But that's the point with these moves. Every time you escalate one step up, you create the opportunity to advance to the next step. And military contractors being deployed does not have a very good history. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. All right. So military contractors are private individuals paid a lot of money by companies usually run by ex-military and ex-intelligence. The guys themselves are almost always ex-military or

ex-intelligence. Gee, how well did that work in Iraq, Joe? How well did it work in Afghanistan, Joe? I don't mean to demean the office by calling him Joe. I'm just so frustrated as you are with it, Aaron. Not too long ago, Joe Biden came out with an idea that he says was the Israeli proposal for a three-part ceasefire leading to a termination of the hostilities in Hamas. Admiral Kirby said in one famous clip that we ran over and over again, it was an Israeli proposal, it was an Israeli proposal, it was an Israeli proposal. Cy Hersh has demonstrated conclusively it was concocted in the West Wing, mainly in the Biden re-election campaign, but they wanted to sort of put pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu. Netanyahu rejected it because he would lose Smotrich and Ben-Gavir and the extremists in his government if he were to embrace it.

He has said many times he doesn't embrace it. Lo and behold, Yoav Galant, the Israeli defense minister, is it yesterday or today, Chris? Today, said in the Pentagon the following. I'm standing here in Washington as Israel's Minister of Defense to say the following. We stand firmly behind the President's deal, which Israel has accepted and now Hamas must accept. But let it be known ישראל קבלת ועכשיו חמאס צריך לקבל. אבל נכון שערון שלנו לא בקבל את אנשים גזע.

ערון שלנו לא בקבל את אנשים לבנון. ערון שלנו הוא עבור חמאס, עבור חיזבאללה ועבור עבוריהם, את המזרחים היראנים. against Hezbollah and their backers, the Iranian regime. And why did you slaughter 35,000 innocent civilians? It's probably more than that in Gaza. Okay, let me correct myself. That was yesterday, not today. Before you even respond, here is President Biden

announcing this so-called peace proposal. This is about three weeks ago. The first phase would last for six weeks. Here's what it would include. A full and complete ceasefire. A withdrawal of Israeli forces from all populated areas of Gaza. Release of a number of hostages, including women, the elderly, the wounded, in exchange for the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners. During the six weeks of phase one, Israel and

Hamas would negotiate the necessary arrangements to get to phase two. Then phase two would be in exchange for the release of all remaining living hostages, including male soldiers, Israeli forces will withdraw from Gaza. And as long as the mosque lives up to its commitments, a temporary ceasefire would become, in the words of the Israeli proposal, the cessation of hostilities permanently." End of quote. Finally, in phase three, a major reconstruction plan for Gaza would commence and any final remains of hostages who've been killed would be returned to their families. That's the offer that's now on the table. He clearly said it's an Israeli proposal. We're going to play Foreign Minister Galant one more time. You'll hear a different characterization of it with respect to its origins,

but he will claim contrary to Netanyahu that it's accepted. So, Chris, Foreign Minister Galant again. I'm standing here in Washington as Israel's Minister of Defense to say the following. We stand firmly behind the President's deal, which Israel has accepted and now Hamas must accept. But let it be known that our war is not with the people of Gaza. Our war is not with the people of Gaza Our war is not with the people of Lebanon Our war is against Hamas against Hezbollah and their backers the Iranian regime. I

Don't want to nitpick But it's very important is this an Israeli proposal as Biden and Kirby have claimed Or is this an American proposal, as Biden and Kirby have claimed? Or is this an American proposal, as Foreign Minister Gallant said? I'm asking you a lot because you know a lot. Does Prime Minister Netanyahu still have the power to say no? And how can the defense minister say yes? Ari? Well, yes, it's very confusing. What I think you have here is a tactical disagreement between Biden and Netanyahu over how to pretend to prolong the war. This is obviously a U.S. creation. The idea that Israel authored a proposal that its own prime

minister has repeatedly rejected is a joke. And I think Gallant is taking the Biden side here, that basically their proposal says, or their version of the proposal, the Biden-Gallant version of the proposal says that we will have a cessation of hostilities. There will be a full release of hostages, but they added a clause in there about how basically if they determine that Hamas is not acting in good faith with its responsibilities, primarily in freeing the hostages, then they have the ability to resume. I think for Netanyahu, he doesn't even want to submit himself to those kinds of conditions. He just wants the unrestrained right to continue carrying out mass murder and destroying Gaza. He doesn't even want to show

the Israeli IDF and the Israeli government. the foreign minister says yes and the prime minister says no which is it well so Galant the defense minister he has some power but ultimately it's Netanyahu uh he's the person in charge here I think um he's the person who's you know Biden admitted is prolonging this war on purpose for his own political fortunes right um you know Galant I think if he was in charge then then they would accept the Biden version and there wouldn't be this issue. But Netanyahu keeps throwing them under the bus. He doesn't want to accept any constraints. That's why he also threw Biden under the bus when he complained about a pause in one shipment of US weapons to Israel. But what I think ultimately here is a

tactical difference because I don't think Biden and Gallant want a permanent end to the war. I think they're just, they differ over how to pretend to want that. Netanyahu doesn't want to pretend at all. He doesn't want to honor any sort of theoretical right to impose constraints on Israel's death machine. And Gallant and Biden are willing to pretend. And, you know, I mean, to that point, Gallant says our war is not with the people of Gaza. This is the same person who immediately after October 7th said that he's ordered a complete siege of Gaza. No electricity, no food, no fuel, no water. We're fighting human animals. That's that's Gallant. So when he says we're not fighting a war against the people of Gaza, when he's ordered a complete siege of them. He's ordered a fundamental war crime against them.

It's just a it's a farce. And that's why I don't take what he says about the ceasefire deal seriously. And that's why practically we're seeing warnings like this week that a half a million people in Gaza face starvation because of Yoav Galant's orders for a siege. Let me before we go prevail upon your knowledge of Israeli politics. Is Netanyahu continually in trouble with the public and with the legal system? Was there another allegation of corruption against him which could mature into a criminal prosecution once he leaves office? You know, Judge, I have to plead ignorance on that. I don't know, actually. I don't follow Netanyahu's corruption troubles as much as, say, Max Blumenthal

does. He would know the answer to that. I do know that he's faced, you know, he's got the problems with the judicial reform trying to basically weaken the Supreme Court. That was a subject of huge demonstrations before October 7th. And he's got, you know, a series of corruption allegations involving him and his wife. In terms of one other potential scandal, I'm sorry, I couldn't tell you. Yeah, no, I'll ask Max. It has to do with some procurement of submarines. And I'm not sure what the allegation is, but it's a relatively new allegation that came out within the past three or four days. Finally, just to give you something to chuckle about, we thought that Kirby was off the wall. Here's General Pat Ryder, the official spokesperson of the Pentagon. And this goes on for three or

four minutes. We'll only play about 45 seconds. Watch how he answers, quote unquote, legitimate bona fide press questions. Did the secretary receive any commitment or assurances from the Israeli defense minister to reduce civilian casualties? You know, I'm not going to be able to go into more details than what I provided in that readout there, Idris. But it's a priority for the Israelis as well? I'm not going to, again, characterize Minister Gallant's words. Can you tell me what was the impetus for Secretary Austin's call with the Russian defense minister?

Thanks, Lara. I'm not going to have anything to provide beyond what I read out at the top. Any other war between Hezbollah and Israel could easily become a regional war. Yeah, again, I'm not going to speak for Minister Glant. I wish Max were there because he would stand up and say, you know, what the hell are you here for

if you can't answer it? All right, I just wanted you to chuckle a little bit. You don't have to weigh in on all that stuff. Aaron, it's a pleasure to be with you, my dear friend. Your knowledge, as I've said before, and I'll say it again, is encyclopedic. Thank you very much for your time. We'll see you again next week. All the best. Much appreciated. Thank me, 5.30, 5.30 Eastern, Anya Parampil on all of these things we just spoke about with Aaron Maté. We'll see you shortly. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thanks for watching!