Judging Freedom - Alastair Crook : 28-Point Plan Is Bait and Switch.

Episode Date: November 24, 2025

Alastair Crook : 28-Point Plan Is Bait and Switch.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 Monday, November 24th, 2025. Alster Crook will be with us in just a moment on why this 28-point-so-called peace plan is a bait and switch. But first this. History tells us every market eventually falls. Currencies collapse. And look at where we are now, $38 trillion in national debt.

Stocks at record highs defying gravity. So what happens next? Groceries, gas, housing, everything's going up. And this dollar, it buys less every day. When the system breaks, your stocks won't save you and your dollars won't either. But one thing will, gold. I've set it on my show for years. gold survives collapse central bankers know this and billionaires know it that's why they're buying more

is it too late to buy or is it just the right time call my friends at lear capital to find out ask questions get the free information there's no pressure and that's why i buy my gold and silver from lear and right now you can get up to twenty thousand dollars in bonus medals with a qualified purchase Call 800, 511, 4620 or go to Learjudgeonap.com. How's their crook? Welcome here, my dear friend. As always, it's a pleasant and pleasure to be able to chat with you. Do we know the origins of this rather amateurishly presented 28-point plan?

Do we know who wrote it? No. Still, after all this time, we're not quite sure. People are asking who wrote it. And many people say it was jointly written by Whitkoff and Kirill Dimitriov. We don't really know who is the author of it at all. And as you say, it's a strange document because it's very, it's very loose. It's not really legal at all.

It talks about having discussions. And it is expected that NATO will not expand. I mean, that's not really quite the sort of guarantee that I think Russia would be looking for. So in many respects, it's a very, very loose, loosely framed. It's not a legal document as such. And so we have to look back, you know, what is it about? And I think there are things that are very telling. I mean, I think if you recall, was it in September?

late September, President Trump, in a true social message, said he now understands what's happening in Ukraine, that Ukraine is winning and that Russia is losing, is not gaining any territory, it is stuck there, and what is more is, Russia has made a bad mistake in not accepting our earlier ceasefire proposal. He wrote that in September, and he'd just been briefed by General Kellogg and I think it was Walson Rubio. And obviously, they'd taken, you know, at face value, the Ukrainian line on you, that, you know, that Ukraine was still capable of rolling back the Russian forces in that area around Pockresk and beyond Pokrosk. and beyond you could they could do that and would do that and and russia just wasn't taking territory and then uh later i think we see what what's happened now um major cities the major defensive line of ukraine is falling one by one pockrovsky is effectively fallen kupyansk Seversk, all of these key states and beyond them is just open farmland, right up to the Yipa River. And a little while ago in October, Putin announced that there were several thousand

Ukrainian troops who were trapped in a cauldron, the Russian term for an encirclement, an encirclement, and they couldn't escape. They would either have to surrender or they would be finished off. And suddenly, I think, Trump was frightened. I think he got quite scared by this and started to think, oh my God, I don't want another Kabul, you know, the withdrawal, the chaotic withdrawal from Kabul, because it also comes at a time when many of Kiev luminaries are fleeing the country, taking their ill-gotten gains with them and depositing it in Europe.

I mean, there are billions that have gone missing or been. removed from funding, from Europe, from America to Kiev, and we started to see many of them leaving, many of them going to Israel, because if you're Jewish, you can't be extradited from Israel. So there was a political collapse, and what we saw also was that Zelensky's own party, servant of the people, were splitting, and some of them were going with the opposition and demanding a unity government, a change. I think Trump was worried, you know, he could have a collapse on his hand, political and military and also a corruption scandal altogether. And he didn't want, you know, it to be like Vietnam with sort of Zelensky fleeing on the last, you know, plane out.

And the whole thing becoming a mess, both militarily and politically. So he said, I've got to stop this. We've got to stop this from going to full completion, in other words, a complete Russian victory. Do you agree with the dilemma articulated by President Zelensky himself, that he is now faced with the Hobson's choice of losing the country's dignity, probably his tenure in office and maybe his life, on one hand, or losing the country's principal backer, the United States, on the other hand, if he accepts or rejects this so-called peace plan as it is written? Clearly, yes. He's in a vice, and that's what they intended to put him into a vice, so that he would have no choice but to agree with it, or else, you know, I mean, it's by no accident that these allegations of corruptions have come up. They've been done deliberately, and they circle Zelensky. He's encircled by people who have been charged with corruption or allegations of corruption.

made against them, but not Zelensky. Message is clear. You know, either you do what you've told now, or you may find you're next on the list for corruption, and you'll have to get on the plane to Israel. And so I think he is in a huge dilemma, and his party is slipping away from him, and his control of parliament is slipping away from him.

And the parliament is very, very angry with his head of cabinet, his main operator, Yermak, they dislike him very much. Andrei Yermak, they hate him. He's a head of his, he's quite a brutal political figure, and he's not liked, and they want him sacked. And Zelensky is refusing, and Parliament is very angry about that. The Rada is very angry. Here's a rather forlorn President Zelensky over the weekend. Chris, cut number three. This is one of the most difficult moments in our history.

The pressure on Ukraine is now at its most intense. Ukraine may now face a very difficult choice, either the loss of dignity or the risk of losing a key partner, or 28 difficult points, or an extremely hard. The most difficult and further risk are life without freedom, without dignity, without justice, and believing someone who has already attacked us twice. Sounds as though, and who knows, politicians don't always speak truthfully, but it sounds as though he's leaning towards rejecting this and fighting to the bitter end and losing on the battlefield rather than losing by consent. we don't know for sure, but it looks that way. And, you know, it's also Washington that is in a dilemma because if they can't get a settlement of some sort that they can claim is a victory of some sort or another,

that, you know, this is another war that Trump has managed the eighth war, that he stopped by ceasefire. Unless they can do that, I mean, they could be facing a very damaging, implosion, you know, along the lines of what happened with Kabul. We all remember the scenes from this. And Trump was there at the time he was superintendering. I mean, it was bequeathed to him.

Of course, it wasn't his plan, the withdrawal from Kabul. But he experienced the blowback from it. He doesn't want another Kabul. He doesn't want another Vietnam. And he, I think finally, having been completely misinformed in September, being told, oh no it's all right it's not as bad as you think the russians are weak you know their economy is weakening they're not getting any land and then suddenly finds that most of the ukrainian forces are are encircled and about to be either killed or taken captive and so you know what are you

going to do as the political structures in kiev are also crumbling and the corruption is getting charges and allegations are growing and growing, and he can smell, you know, a really dangerous situation for him. So he's pushing to get it, and he comes up with this proposal, which is rather vague. It's got things in it that Russia won't like and won't accept, and it's got things that, as you've seen, the Europeans are in an outrage and a fury, because, of course, you know, way it's drafted pretty well excludes them they they're frightened to say they don't agree with the plan because they're frightened of trump the europeans are and so they are sort of tabling their list of 24 objections to this and you know the i mean the slightly ironic thing about it is they

feel that this gives huge benefits to russia and what do they mention is the sort of great concessions it would be so pleasing to Russia. The first one would be that there would be elections in Ukraine. Well, you know, I mean, Russia has, you know, actually has always found Samansky is something of an asset because of his, you know, he's his rather bizarre way of running a country. He's not even legal. The other thing is that they say, oh, gosh, you know, this is a huge concession by Russian to say that the army should be capped at 60. No, we want 800,000 men. I mean, this is 16 times what Ukraine accepted in those spring 22 talks in Istanbul.

They accepted something much. I mean, 800,000 is not a tiny force. It is a big army. And they wanted lots of ourselves. But the great one was that it said, oh, look, you know, what we can on stomach is Trump said, well, maybe Russia can join the G8. I can assure you, Russia, Putin has no desire to join the G8. He's doing much better with Bricks. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

Europe, but you're completely wrong on that issue. So, I mean, they are trying to stick their ore in, trying to make themselves important in this process. But it's damaging. It could be very damaging to Trump, because as I say, the thing on the battlefield is moving so quickly, the corruption thing is moving very quickly. He hasn't got much time. Why is it that you have, or what is the basis for your conclusion in Kual and

this 28-point plan, a bait and switch. What's the bait and what's the switch? Okay, the bait is saying to Russia, you know, we can give you some things. You know, we'll do it. But really, it is a testing out. And, you know, this is something that Rubio has been saying all the time. You know, even though he's heard it time and time again from Whitcroft,

What are Putin's red lines? He thinks there are not other red lines, that these aren't the real red lines, that he has to test further to make sure that there are some, where are Putin's weaknesses? Where can we push a knife in and extract some advantage? And so this has been crafted partly to put Russia to test. Okay, where are your true red lines? We're putting this proposal.

goes aloud and we'll see if you will go for it because your economy is weak, as Rubio suggests, which it isn't, but that's his reading, misreading of the situation. Let's try and test it out. But of course, when Europe makes this agreement impossible and when Zelensky says no, then of course what will happen will be, and it's already started, calls for further pressure on Russia. Now we must really put the pressure on. And that's already started, as you probably saw, just on the same data this was published in Axis, that there were four long-range attack camps far deep into Russia, into Verosne, well behind 2014, Russia, well into it. It is also the base, where they're over-the-horizon radars for their strategic defense,

intercontinental defense against the United States' base. And, of course, those were facilitated by U.S. intelligence and technical help. And so they immediately, none of them reached the target, and Russia immediately fired Exander missiles to destroy both of the launchers and kill the 10 crew that were there firing them. And then at the same time, we see Bessent keeps coming back and saying, well, we're going to really hurt Russia. We can hurt Russia.

We need more pressure. He needs to be pressurized into a ceasefire. So this is the bait. The bait is, well, you can have some agreement. Let's see really where your red lines are. and when it becomes even less tolerable to Russia than this, then we'll pull the rug out and you will be under pressure of further sanctions and further. The only thing is it's too late.

It's too late for those tactics because, as Putin said, look, we're not really interested that much. He said this very clearly. And he said, look, we're happy to talk. You know, there are some things in this, we can have a dialogue about some of the aspects of this proposal, however vague and ill-drafted it, badly drafted it is. We could talk about this, but make no mistakes. If Zelensky says no, if the Europeans rejected, just as happened after Anchorage when Zelensky and the Europeans mounted a huge front against it, if that happens, we'll just finish the job on the battlefield. We're about there anyway, and we're quite happy to do it that way, rather than to do it through a diplomatic process. So we're not under any pressure.

I mean, what this says to us is Russia has the leverage now, not Mr. Trump, and the Europeans have no leverage and are just trying to protest and put their objections in the paper. because it's actually, if you read the 28 points, this, I mean, doesn't involve Europe at all. I mean, all of the security are mediated by the United States. Trump is going to sit on the committee that judges the performance of it. It's almost as if he's not in NATO that he's going to sort of sit above NATO and decide, you know, what are the security arrangements for the future? I mean, again, said in very vague terms, I mean, you know, it was sort of blah, blah, blah, I mean, we'll sort out together NATO and Russia under U.S. mediation will sort out, you know, the security needs for the future.

It can look at all of these issues, economics, finance, da-di-da. So, I mean, and then also, I mean, infuriating. the Europeans. He says, well, I'm going to take 100 billion of those frozen assets, and I'm going to use them to invest in Ukraine and take 10% of the profits. Are the Europeans still, while all this is going on, are the Europeans still plotting to steal those Russian state assets deposited in European banks outside of Belgium, since Belgium won't allow it? They'd love to because they're desperate. They haven't got anything else.

No, quite clearly. The only alternative is for the individual member states of Europe to come up with the funds and they can't do it and won't do it because they're under pressure. They, you know, the economic conditions of Europe are dire. And, you know, if they do that, it'll be at the expense of some social programs, I mean, needed programs, medical programs, health services, education. pull that away from education and we'll send it to Ukraine and only one third of only two thirds of it will get anywhere near the battlefront because one third will be immediately stolen

and sent off to banks in America or in Europe it's not a very it's not a good look for Europe and also because we don't know I mean you know it's clear that some of this money through the laundromat the Ukraine laundromat goes back to Washington and no doubt quite a lot of it goes back to Brussels, one way or another. So they're frightened, and that's why they insisted in the revision that there will be complete amnesty for Ukraine. Not just the first draft talked about there will be prosecutions for, there will be an audit of American funds used in Ukraine,

all gone. And now it says it will be a complete amnesty for any Ukrainian involved in the war. You can steal billions. You can steal billions from the American taxpayer, but if you couch it in a peace plan, you're a Scot three. Who is the de facto American Secretary of State? Is it Marco Rubio? Is it Steve Whitkoffers at the President's son-in-law? Jared Kushner. Well, there isn't one. I mean, it's basically sort of Trump relies his secretary of state is his instinct. You know, he talks to himself about whether, you know, this goes or whether this is going

to work. I mean, occasionally he listens. Look, we saw that. In September, he listened to General Kellogg, and he gets one sort of information, and now he sees that that was all wrong, and Kellogg has been pushed out, and General a new, well, not a general, new army secretary, Driscoll has been appointed and has been in Kiev. So, you know, there isn't such a thing as a real secretary of state

or secretary of war or whatever it's called. No, it's not. It's a sort of a bit of him, a bit of a that, a bit of someone else, and then all sort of rarefied through Trump's own intuitive feeling. And that's how it comes out. Here is Marco Rubio looking without dignity and rather disheveled. I don't mean his physical appearance.

I mean his ability to answer questions from reporters. Seems more like a shouting match and then alley, but you can judge it as cut number five. Well, obviously, the Russians get a vote here, right? So, I mean, look, we began from. the early stage of this process, with our understanding of the Russian position, as have been communicated to us in numerous ways. At the State Department, we received numerous written, non-papers and things of this nature, also verbally things they've discussed over time and so forth.

So it was, no matter what we came up with today, obviously we now have to take what we come up with if we can reach that agreement with the Ukrainian side to the Russian side. That's another part of this equation. They have to agree to this in order to this. in order to do what about what about new deadline will be new deadline or if the deadline is we want to get this done as soon as possible obviously you know we'd love it to be Thursday we'd love to be but ultimately the important point today is that we have made substantial progress we've really moved forward so I feel very optimistic that we're going to get there in a very reasonable period of time very soon you know whether it's Thursday whether it's Friday whether it's Wednesday whether it's Monday of the following week we want it to be soon because people are going to between today and the time we deal with us more people are going to to die. More destruction is going to happen. Our goal is to end this war as soon as possible. What is he talking about? With whom has he made real progress? He hasn't made real progress because the Europeans have just stuck their ore in as much as they

possibly can to shift it towards what they see to be the Ukrainian interest in this. But, I mean, the Europeans are not, they don't have, I mean, they're just infuriated from the fact that they just don't have any leverage. And they don't have, I mean, you hear them even saying, well, we've got the leverage of all those frozen funds. Come on, you know, they have what leverage? Do you think that, you know, Putin is going to suddenly say yes to everything so that he can get $100 billion back? I mean, you know, they've written that off long ago. They know they're not going to probably ever get that back. No, it's not that.

And I think, you know, what he means is he's trying to say that they're trying very, very hard. And Mr. Trump is listening to the Europeans. But, you know, he's in a dangerous position because the more the Europeans succeed in getting, you know, the sort of the poison pieces into his agreement, the less chance that Moscow will listen. And in which cases, Putin has made very clear, we will just simply go ahead with a military option, of which we're quite satisfied.

And that it is going very rapidly at the moment. Thank you. My house for leverage. Might there be another bait-in-switch here? Might the world's focus on this 28-point plan be a diversion of attention for the coming in the american invasion of venezuela oh absolutely absolutely and for what's happening in gaza and what's happening i mean you know the bombing of beirut is back happening again bombing of lebanon i mean you know it's it's at full tilt i mean

Even the UN have said that, you know, this is on the verge of breakdown in Gaza. As Israel continues to just suggest that, yes, the ceasefire is there, but we just, you know, have to defend ourselves by attacking the Palestinians regularly. You know, that's how it is. So yes, a big diversion from other issues. But it's needed and also from financial situation. It's needed a big diversion. The question is, I think that really,

the other bait and switch is maybe this isn't really, maybe Trump doesn't really believe, you know, that this can be resolved by negotiation. But what he wants is an exit line that sounds as if he's succeeded in some way with us. He wants a success. He doesn't like failures. So he wants some sort of success.

He's got to show and hope that he can persuade Mr. Putin to facilitate a sort of solution that has good sound to it. And at the same time, is an off-ramp for him out of the Ukraine quite far. I'm going to play a new piece that has just come to us from earlier today, Israel time. A statement from the IDF chief of staff. Chris? Oh, the answer is unequivocal. The IDF failed in its primary mission on October 7th to protect the citizens of the state of Israel.

This is a grave, resounding and systemic failure relating to decisions and conduct both before and during the event. The lessons of that day are many and significant, and they must serve as our compass for the future, toward which I intend to lead the army. Wow. So just you have to understand this is another bait and switch again. I'm so sorry to repeat it, but this is Netanyahu and his circle deciding they are going to conduct the investigation on what happened on the 7th of October and not allow a proper inquiry process to happen.

And so they are sacking middle-ranking military officers and blaming the military for what happened on the 7th of October. So that it is diverted from Netanyahu and the political echelon around Netanyahu, it is all going to be the blame of middle-ranking military officers and that they are going to be sacked or removed. And, of course, that military figure that you just saw, who is a messianic figure, known to be a hard right, was put in there precisely to do this job, so that the whole thing is being diverted into the sort of middle ranking military officers to leave Netanyahu above the fray and untouched politically by the consequences of 7th October. It's hard for me to believe the Israeli public will accept that. The name of this general is Ayal Zamir, Z-A-M-I-R. Yeah, he's a settler. He's a settler and a general, meaning he is stealing land in the West Bank for himself. Well, he, well, not personally, but he allows that to happen.

And the IDF just stand back when the settlers go in and they cut down olive trees, It's been a thousand olive trees cut down in this recent period. The army just stays back and doesn't intervene. Very rarely does it intervene. And if it intervenes, it's mostly to protect settlers. No, this is part of what we are seeing. It's a deliberate attempt to switch the blame to a scapegoat, which will be the middle-ranking military officials.

Alastair Crook, thank you very much. Thanks for the broad array of topics, as always. Safe travels this week. We'll look forward to seeing you next week. All the best, my friend. Thank you very much, Judge. Thank you. Of course.

Bye-bye. And coming up later today at 10 o'clock this morning, Ray McGovern, at 1130 this morning, Larry Johnson at 4 o'clock this afternoon, Professor Jeffrey Sachs. Justice Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.