Judging Freedom - Alastair Crooke: Are US and Russia Eyeball To Eyeball?

Episode Date: May 28, 2024

Alastair Crooke: Are US and Russia Eyeball To Eyeball?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 Tuesday, May 28. Seems like a Monday here in the U.S. with our long three-day holiday weekend. Tuesday, May 28, 2024. Alistair Crook will be with us in just a moment on are the U.S. and Russia eyeball to eyeball? And if so, which of them will first blink? But first this. You all know that I am a paid spokesperson for Lear Capital, but I'm also a customer, a very satisfied customer.

About a year ago, I bought gold and it's now increased in value 23%. So $100 invested in gold a year ago is now worth $123. You have $100 in the bank. It still shows $100, but $100 in the bank is now worth 24 percent less inflation has reduced all of your savings all of your buying power and mine by 24 percent and gold is largely immune from that if you want to learn how gold will soon hit $3,200 an ounce, call Lear Capital. 800-511-4620 or go to learjudgenap.com. Get your free gold report. Same experts who predicted the 23% rise that I've enjoyed have predicted this $3,200 an ounce gold.

Learn about how to transfer this to an IRA. Protect your savings. 800-511-4620, learjudgenap.com. Tell them the judge sent you. Alistair, good day to you, my friend, and thanks very much for joining us. Thank you again for accommodating our holiday schedule here in the U.S. You have two very interesting pieces out about the relationship between the United States and Russia and who's telling the truth and who's not. I'd like to ask some questions about those. Does NATO believe it has little choice but to escalate the Ukraine war with Russia? I mean, stated differently, does desperation lead to escalation?

On the face of it, it seems that this is the case. But we do have a conundrum to resolve. Because the question is, everyone is talking now. Everyone is talking about war with Russia. A former MP, a British MP, has said we're already at war with Russia. Indeed, the head of NATO, Stoltenberg, has been saying that we've got to allow the Ukrainians to attack Russian ammunition and other military sites inside Russia, mother Russia, not the new Russia. And so they've been saying this,

it's all over the place. Everyone is saying war withussia is coming um and indeed the the head of the british military even in january said we have to prepare for war with russia um and then conscription was announced and the eu is talking about conscription again now the question really comes down to and this is one that's very hard to resolve now Now, is this a big deception or are we really going to go, as you put it, eyeball to eyeball with Russia, full out? Is this going to be really a prelude to a much wider war, even if it's not a nuclear war? Is NATO going to push? Now, the other alternative, and as I say, it's difficult to be sure. Let me just say that some time ago, Jake Sullivan wrote in the New York Times, sort of saying, well, you know, deception. And the problem with that was not that it was deceptive or it was a deception on the public. It might have been because it was done for the wrong reasoning.

So are we seeing a deception being played to start a war or to stop a war is really the question I was asking in this. Because you can say that walking the edge of the precipice with war could be seen because we've had also another narrative which is coming up a narrative which is saying um oh you know Putin is saying that he's ready to negotiate he's ready to accept the present lines of the contact line the present lines in the ukraine and he's terrified because he doesn't want to do another um conscription um in in russia because that would be unpopular and could unseat him all of this is nonsense of course from top to bottom that's all fabrication but the question is do these two things come together are we going to see europe and america walking the edge of the precipice

to say at the end of the day well you see it worked now we have r Russia ready to sit down and to negotiate on our terms, on American terms, Western terms, i.e. freeze the conflict on the present lines of conflict, freeze it there, and that's fine, and we've won. Is it just the phase of projecting a new narrative? Well, it's not clear. It's very difficult to say for sure which it is. But there is a lot of preparation and there's some very worrying signs. And I just want to draw your attention to them because they do perhaps change the context is over the last few days, Ukraine has attacked two radar sites just over the border in Russia. Now, these are not radar for Ukraine. These are the strategic over-the-horizon radar that Russia has to defend itself against an ICBM attack from the United States these are long-range radars they can't even see close to because they're not geared for that

there's a long-range radar to protect Russia against a surprise attack from the United States. This is a very dangerous stage for the Ukraine to do this. If this is partly a bluff, partly an attempt, a deception to try and, if you like, force Russia into accepting to talk on, if you like, US terms. It's something that I think is impossible to achieve. I don't think there's any chance of Russia talking on those terms. More likely, it could take us actually into war, very easily take us into war. Let me run a clip of President Putin just the other day. Tell me if you think this is realistic. Not sure if that's you or me, but whatever it is, it's gone.

In which he's talking about he is prepared to return to the agreement that was initialed in Turkey in 2022. Cut number 10, Chris. What we're seeing now is a resurgence talk of going back to negotiations. Let them come back, but not on the basis of what one side wants, but on the basis of the agreements of principle that were reached during the difficult negotiations in belarus and turkey is that realistic or is that just political consumption in russia uh no he's always said and i i think that is right, that he's always open to negotiations. But he does always add two things, two caveats to it. One, that it has to be done on the situation as it is on the ground today,

which is that of a Russian, if you like, coming victory in Ukraine and defeat of Ukraine. So he's saying that it really has to be done on that basis, that they have to accept Russia's terms for a solution. And so that is the first point, he's doing it. And he's saying he can't do it with Zelensky because Zelensky is no longer president of Ukraine because his term of office has run out so yes it is he is saying that but he's basically I mean what he means by that we couldn't take that as the starting point what happened at Istanbul could be a starting point for discussion, but it would be on the terms of the facts on the on what the Russian goals are, denazification,

demilitarization, and regime change. I think you probably agree with that, but we'll listen to Dr. Rowe now. Cut number six. Putin's objectives from the start of the war were not territorial gains for Russia, and that is still the case. So I think his assertion yesterday, this took place during a press conference at his meetings with Lukashenko in Minsk. He answered a question of the journalist in the way that you described, that he would accept Russia accepts a solution that falls short of retaking or taking the entire Donbass. However, territorial ambitions were never part of the Russian game plan. They had two objectives, and they are still underway, and that is denazification and demilitarization. To put it in other words, regime change in Ukraine. That remains the primary Russian objective.

Do you agree or disagree, Alistair? Disagree. I disagree because I did not hear one word about saying that negotiations on the present lines of conflict. He said that we could start at the point to be open to negotiations. We could go back to the Istanbul. But he's never said that, and I don't believe it's true because quite clearly the present lines are very close,

if you like, in some parts to the Russian border. And they've said very clearly we need a buffer zone. We need to push back to the extent that the West provides Ukraine with longer range missiles. So therefore, we have to be pushing further back in order to allow ourselves protection against those missiles inside Russia. And that's what he was saying. So I disagree with that. He's not suggesting that at all. And in fact, they're continuing with the, if you like, and he was saying, actually, it seems that the West has taken the decision to go all the way and that we can see Europe consolidating itself into a position, into a military alliance, and that will have some nuclear component. So when you look at

that, you see the fact that they have actually, that the Ukrainians are attacking the strategic over-the-horizon radar screens that NATO have been actually looking at, have been exercising a nuclear attack on Russia's borders, according to the head of the security service in Russia, preparing for that, that you see NATO will be sitting down with the Europeans today to talk about allowing the Ukrainians to use long-range missiles directly at Russia, inside Russia, deep inside Russia. And Lavrov was very clear in saying, you know, we will not accept that. It seems, he said, he seems to quote his words, it seems we are already at war with the West. We are already in a war with the West. So it's quite serious. The question is, does Washington really want to just walk the precipice or is it prepared to go over it and accept that this could lead to

a wider war against Russia? I don't believe you see some parts of it. I don't think Europe's in the slightest bit ready for war with Russia. It's divided. It's dysfunctional. It hasn't got the support of the people. No one is supporting conscription. It's divided. Italy is saying we don't agree with NATO's position. Germany is saying it doesn't agree with Stoltenberg's position that it's okay for Ukraine to attack Russia, targets inside Russia, deep inside Russia. And so I don't see that Europe is ready for this. So I do think possibly some of this is bluff, hoping to force Putin, making all these threats, talking about war, hoping to push Putin

into saying he will agree to some negotiated outcome on American terms, which would be the terms that you just heard from Doctorow, that it would be on the present, if you like, frozen lines, and that there would be a Ukrainian state which would eventually join Europe and join NATO. Russia will never do that because this is just like Maidan 2014 when the after the coup d'etat in Maidan then we had if you like NATO NATO

Natifying the whole of Ukraine In that point so I don't think this is I don't think this is, I don't think this is, I think it may be bluff, but it's a very, very dangerous bluff if it is a bluff. Have any Western nations authorized Ukraine to use their offensive weaponry to attack deep into Russia? I mean, theoretically, the U.S. has said no. You're telling me the Germans aren't happy about it, the head of NATO isn't happy about it. Whose weapons was used and who authorized it?

The head of NATO who said we should consider that. He hasn't said he is. And that drew the criticism from Italy and the Italian prime minister saying, you know, even calling for Stoltenberg to resign. But Britain has said that specifically and explicitly on the record. Cameron said, yes, that it is fine for, why not, why shouldn't Ukraine, this is self-defense for them to fire into Russia, right deep inside Russia and attack targets. And of course, these targets, many of them will not be military targets. These may well be civilian targets because, you know, this is not new. I mean, Ukraine has been firing into Russia for a year or more.

You've all heard, you've seen the pictures from Belograd of attacks on civilians in the city. I mean, people being hit. There are no military installations in Belograd. It's just a Russian city. And yet they have been firing relentlessly from there. And I don't think, I mean, you know, it's quite clear. Kirchhoff is a Russian city. Putin has made that absolutely clear.

There's no question. He's not going to take it by force in that way. But I think it's quite likely Russian troops will surround it on the rear and on the front, and then they might move down to the Dnieper River and leave, if you like, the Ukrainian forces marooned on the eastern side of the river, and ultimately, obviously, going to try and escape from an encirclement on the east side of the river. So I don't think there's any question that they finished their offensive. They haven't. It's going on. I don't know where it will finish. I don't know what he has in mind. But at the moment, Russia is preparing for, and Lavrov was very clear about this,

that the West has already made the decision. He said this. The West has made the decision to use long-range missiles to attack Russia. He said that. He said, and we will do everything to resist this. And he said, it's most unfortunate the acute stage of this conflict is coming before us. And he said we are already in war with them. How reckless was it for British Foreign Minister Lord Cameron to have said publicly it's okay for the Ukrainians to use British long-range missiles?

And how correct was the former British Member of Parliament, Andrew Bridgen, whom you quote in your pieces out over the weekend, that Britain is already at war with Russia? Well, it is at war and other states are. I mean, because quite clearly, you know, they are providing long-range missiles. They're providing the targeting. They're setting up these missiles. It's not, you know, that they haven't, that the Ukrainians just take them and then manage them.

It's not like that. The European forces, NATO actually help arrange the targeting, the sighting, the process. And of course, then NATO provides all the data and the targeting data from their AWACS, from their satellites, from their drones over Ukraine, NATO drones, through the NATO operations room, providing the exact coordinates into the missiles, the exact details of where Russian radar systems are, so that the missile can go around in a sort of slalom, swerving around Russian radars to attack the target. That's being at war with Russia. I mean, it may not be full war, but Britain is. He was correct when he said it. Britain is at war.

France is at war. It's putting trainers into Ukraine, not on the front lines. But back, they've just announced the general, Sierski has just signed off for French trainers, military trainers from the French forces to go to the training areas in Ukraine, inside Ukraine, to train Ukrainian pilots. So, I mean, we're tiptoeing, but the steps are getting quicker and quicker and quicker towards something much more serious that could easily... Where do we stop then? What happens? Because we don't have the ability to crush the Russian offensive in Ukraine.

Forget all that about frozen lines. We don't have the ability to stop it. They can fire missiles in at Moscow or at other parts of the system. But Russia's going to hit back. There's no doubt Russia's going to hit back. Then what? Then what? Then you hear those people talking in the States, some of the neocons.

I don't know how much influence they have, but they're saying we shouldn't be frightened of using the nuclear weapon. We shouldn't be frightened of using the nuclear weapon. We shouldn't be frightened of using a tactical weapon. And as I say, the Russian Security Service reports that actually NATO has been practicing, if you like, nuclear attacks on the borders of Russia. Now, so where is, and again I come back, this is the question that we, I mean all of us, including your colleagues on the show, need to address really. Are we seeing a sort of deception as we saw before the Iraq war? You know, weapons of mass destruction, we have to do something about it, we've got to do it.

Of course, there were none. And of course, the deception now is that these missiles, these storm shadows, these other American missiles are not going to change the war. It's a deception that, you know, we've got to do something to put pressure on Russia now, and we need these missiles to change the war. No, no, it's not going to change, if you like, the situation in Ukraine at all. But it might provoke Russia into a serious response, which will then demand that the West has to do something in response to that. I have a number of questions for you.

One is I'm mildly curious over something you wrote because one of the British people whose name you did not just use is the Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. Does he control his generals or do they control him? You know, this sort of policy, these policy decisions are not done by the prime minister, not by Mr. Sunak. I mean, he's just someone who's done it. The generals were fairly clear. I mean, they said, you know, the orders had come down. We're going to war with Russia. And this is why Sunak is, according to that former member of parliament, he's saying, you know, that's He's going to lose the election and probably take off for warmer climes somewhere else. So, no, they come from somewhere else.

They come from deep within the deep state. That's all I can say. And it may have wider ramifications. Is it being done because of also what's happening in the Middle East? Is this to, if you like, divert us to provide some sort of an elephant in the room so we don't ignore, so that we ignore what's happening in Rafah and what's happening in the West Bank and we ignore these things because our mind is now focused on missiles hitting into Russia? I don't know. I don't know the answer to that. But these are the questions that are being posed by the sudden cacophony of every way, whether it's Sikorsky of Poland,

whether it's Stoltenberg, whether it's Blinken, all Rwanda is saying, well, you know, we have to hit Russia in its homeland now. That's the only way. And what is this for? Is this a bluff or are they serious? Are they really wanting to go to, are they planning a real war against Russia? There are some signs that they could be, but I don't know. And if they do that, reckless, you said, reckless it is. That's for sure.

Won't Russia then be free under international law and just basic principles of equity to attack the NATO countries whose weaponry have attacked it. Yeah, they've said they would. They said they'll do exactly that. They've warned France and Britain. They warned Britain, particularly that they said, if you continue to do this, you can continue to sort of strike us as an act of war, then we are quite free to strike back at you wherever, including, it implied,

inside Britain itself. And that's why I think the head of the army in Britain in January said we need to prepare to go onto a war footing against Russia. That's what the head of the British army said in January of this year. We need to be on a war footing and we need Europe to be on a war footing again for all with Russia. Now, is it bluff or is he real? Why do you think this is heating up now? Is it the American, the coming American election and the perception here in the U.S. that President Biden will not get reelected? Or is it this desperation? I alluded to this earlier when I asked you, does desperation lead to escalation? Not my phrase.

It's a phrase from our colleague Aaron Mate. Or is it a perception that Ukraine is on its last leg and in order to save face, we have to get offensive? Well, this is a big question. You know, is it an attempt to sort of have a narrative in time for the American election? A narrative which says, you see, you know, we've managed to stare down putin we've managed to

face off the russians and you know now they'll put in any time now we'll sit down and negotiate on our terms and therefore ukraine will be saved and it's a huge victory for the united states or is it really coming out of a desperation because they feel that, you know, if they lose this with Russia after this recent, if you like, summit between President Xi and Putin, which produced a really even closer alliance, and because some of America is wanting to move towards a war with China, and they need to, if you like, settle with Russia first. We don't know exactly, but what the Russians are saying is, this has been decided. I mean, they're saying the same as that British general said, really, because Lavrov said, you know, the decision to attack us has already been made. very tough and forceful way or just enough to keep the narrative alive so that when the conventions

begin in america in the summer um the white house is able to say look you know our pressuring our attacks inside russia have now produced the effects and put Putin's ready to sit down and talk about a frozen conflict. We've won, really. That's what I think. Which is it? I can't tell you for sure. How much of a bond is there now between Russia and China, and are the elites in the West, particularly in the American State Department, naive enough to do that. And you just had to say to Russia, look, you know, China's not your friend. Really look at your border. It's 10 times bigger than you. You know that you're just going to become a little protégé of China.

You'll be a Chinese tool. And that's not good for you. And they thought this would be enough to break, if you like, Russia away from China. And in fact, it did the reverse because Putin saw this coming. And so they spent the rest of the year going to the next stage, which they announced a year ago, of no limits agreement between them. And then this time, it was full on. And Russia was, at that stage, the offensive was moving ahead in Ukraine before he went to China.

China said nothing about that. China understands the situation. America has put missiles into Poland, in Romania, which have a distance of nine or ten minutes to striking Moscow, as they are now, if the United States is able to put missiles into Ukraine, as Blinken threatened in January 21, said, listen, no, Biden, when he said no one don't intend to put missiles into Ukraine, that was not true. We are intending to put them into Ukraine. And the only thing we'll negotiate with you is how many. That's all, the numbers. That would make them within seven minutes of Moscow,

or if it was a hypersonic missile, which America doesn't have at the moment, two to three minutes. Too late to do anything. So what's going on here? I mean, we have to look very carefully. Why, you know, these missiles were put into place. No one knows whether they're nuclear tipped or whether they're conventional missiles because they're camouflaged so you can't tell which they are. Russia understands that, you know, Ukraine is an existential threat to Russia. Russians understand.

Russians understand. What is going on with all the threats to Russia is not a game play, not when you have missiles so close to you that can carry a nuclear warhead in this way. This is a very serious threat that is being posed. And it's, as you rightly said, this is reckless in the extreme because this is getting very close to, you know, major war if it's mishandled, if it's played badly. And, you know, there are always unforeseen outcomes to war,

in my experience. Always, you know, it doesn't go as you predict them to go. Things turn up, changes happen. And then we've at the same time, as I said, you know, how's this going to affect the Middle East? What's this all about? Is it about the Middle East too? Is it about the fact of what's going on in Israel?

I believe it may well be. You mentioned this last Friday, if you recall. You read out an email that you had, which I've seen circulating on some of the channels, about an Israeli intelligence officer saying, well, we're going to war. And so Israel shouldn't hold back on some of the more radical moves it's making, because, you know, those radical moves ultimately will be judged by the context of a wider conflict that is clearly in the making. Is that right? Is it true? I mean, these are the big questions, and I don't have all the

answers to whether it's a bluff. I think partly it is a bluff because I just don't see Europe in any way ready for war. There's no popular support, and I don't really see Americans. Look, it's quite different to be a war president in the run-up to a presidential election if we're talking about Libya or Iraq. But challenging Russia on a nuclear issue, is that going to be a vote gainer in America? I mean, I'm not American, but certainly as a European, I would think this is not a vote catcher at all to be risking a nuclear confrontation with Russia. I think Americans would say, no, thank you very much, but I don't know. All right. One last question on the Israel front. What do you think will come of the events in Gaza yesterday where the Israelis claimed

they wanted to kill two Hamas leaders and they slaughtered 45 innocent civilians in a refugee camp? And Prime Minister Netanyahu, of course, says it was a tragic mistake. Was it a tragic mistake or are the IDF just trained to kill everybody? You know, I suspect those two Hamas members were just as we saw with the lavender process. You know, they've been studying or been given the WhatsApp links between people. You know, I have all sorts of people, I'm sure you do on your WhatsApp or others have it on their WhatsApp. They're not necessarily part of our, you know, circles or we're necessarily close to them. But I'm sure because Hamas, the main team,

is 70 meters down. They communicate by riding motorcycles up and down the tunnels. They don't use cell phones. But I mean, you know, maybe they found two people. I think the scenes from that were hideous. I don't know how much of it you've seen in the States, but even the bits we see in Europe, terrible.

Burning babies, headless children. I mean, awful, awful sights. I mean, not for the, you know, not before. Headless children, the IDF decapitated? No, they were just burnt off. They were just burnt. You just, there's a sort of, you know, burnt out corpse of small children and things like this being held up by the shoulders. And the headers come adrift. I mean, they, you know, because they were burnt alive. Most of those people were burnt alive in the scene.

I mean, if you're going to fire one-ton bombs or whatever it was, they say it was maybe 800 kilos. There's no difference. I mean, into a tented city. I mean, this is what's happening. You raise the important question, and I think this is really gets to the bottom of this. Was this, you know, a deliberate defiance of the, you know,

of the ICC, the ICJ of Western opinion, because Israel is going to move to a bigger conflict, a wider conflict. And in this context, what it's doing in Gaza might get forgotten in the wider mayhem gripping the world in other places. You know, this is a really key question to ask ourselves of what is going to be the future of Gaza in this context. Is it a deliberate act of defiance because they plan, if you like, the second Israeli war of independence, which is going to be apocalyptic

in some respects. And therefore, you know, what happens in Gaza today, yesterday didn't matter in the broader, in the meta history of things, as some may regard it. I don't know whether that was the case. But if so, we're in a very dangerous situation. The understatement of the era, we're in a very dangerous situation. We'll leave it at that. Alistair Crook, my dear friend, we have run the gamut on issues this morning. Thank you very much for your time and for your analysis. I hope we can see you again, as usual, early next week. Thank you very much. All the best.

All the best, my dear friend. Coming up later today, let me just make sure that I have the calendar proper. at 10 a.m. Eastern, Ray McGovern at 11 a.m. Eastern, Larry Johnson at 11.45 a.m. Eastern, Colonel Douglas McGregor at two o'clock in the afternoon, Eastern, Matt Ho. Justin Napolitano for Judging Freedom. We'll be right back.