Judging Freedom - Alastair Crooke: Does the West Believe it is Morally Superior?

Episode Date: January 8, 2024

Is Western hegemony on the decline? Join our candid discussion with Alistair Crook on how global narratives are shifting and what this means for future power structures. #WesternSupremacy #InternationalRelationsSee 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, January 8th, 2024. Alistair Crook joins us now. Alistair, always a pleasure, my dear friend. Welcome back to the show. You have a very interesting piece. It's either out now or it's about to come out, arguing about the attitude that the West has towards the rest of the world and how that attitude will largely be its undoing. Does the West, by and large, believe that it is exceptional? Does the West think it is morally superior long-running one of sort of our superiority, our inherent superiority, as I put it, from Plato to NATO, is no longer believed by the rest of the world. They no longer believe that we have some special qualities, that our culture is unique and suitable for everyone. And this is why I think we're sort of desperate

because, of course, our hegemony has been built on this myth. Our hegemony, and I'm afraid to say also our colonial world, was based on the idea that somehow the West had an innate superiority about how to do things, about technology and about its culture. And that has come to an end or is fading. And we can feel it. We're past that. It's going.

I mean, this is what the multipolar world is all about and why people say, you know, we don't want to, you know, we just don't want to necessarily do things the way the West does. So that's gone. Yes, it's gone. You're getting a lot of kudos from the people watching us now who write in their thoughts. From Plato to NATO, that's genius. So it's a very catchy line. And of course, it's more than just a line that rhymes.

It encapsulates the view that you're trying to articulate. I mean, for years, the United States had this motto of manifest destiny. And we bought land from the French and we seized it from the Spaniards and we seized it from the Native Americans because we were white, we were Western, we were Christian, we had the right to dominate. Do the elites, I guess they do, Alistair, do the elites still believe that? No. And consequently, this is the cause of their fear.

They're very frightened because the whole of the structure of the rules-based order is based on basically Western philosophy, Western ideology, Western financial systems, and Western idea of democracy. And so it's all been based on that. And this is why I think there's been such fear about what was happening in Russia and what has been happening in Ukraine, the sense that everything could come down, that the whole structure, the whole, if you like, the whole paradigm could start to fragment and break up, and we'd no longer be able to maintain our sort of privileged position in the world, as Putin calls it, our exorbitant privilege any longer, once the world stops believing that somehow the Western way

is the only way. The End of Time, Fukuyama's book about how everything was going to converge on Western liberalism. Well, no one believes that now. It's gone, and people are very narrow narrow are very frightened by that and this is why they come up with these narratives to try and keep that sort of hegemony aloft to keep it going somehow in the future and so they want to produce these narratives about how the West is always winning, that the West has the winning narrative, that it has the one that everyone wants.

But of course, sometimes facts like in Ukraine, like what's happening in Israel, actually just overthrow completely that narrative. They're just unsustainable because after a time, facts on the ground, facts on the battlefield, facts from videos and from alternative media show that this is totally wrong. But we've been stuck with the idea of having one narrative, a winning narrative, and everyone else having a clunky narrative and not such a good narrative.

And that's what we hope will sort of substitute for this fading of Western culture, fading of the Western idea, fading of the Western vision. So is the neocon disaster in Ukraine one last gasp to extend Western ideology and bloody the Russian nose? There was very much about it. I mean, you remember people were saying at the outset of the war, you know, if Russia wins this war, the West is finished. We're over. It's done with.

So, yes, it was thought to be an easy win, that particularly the financial sanctions, the sanctions on Russia. You remember the French finance minister was crowing at the time that this would collapse Russia within weeks or days, he said, and that the ruble would be, this was Biden's word, would be rubble, and that it would collapse and that then it would be easy for Ukraine to have a victory. And that then the Western narrative would be sustained, reinforced. The Western narrative of being a winner would be reinforced and improved.

So they stuck to this. The only problem is that trying to enforce those narratives, trying to keep to those narratives, means either you have to turn everyone else's into a sort of Manichaean, like Putin, you know, the figure of hate, the figure of Satan, whatever else, which has the disadvantage of two things. One, you never hear what they're saying. We don't listen anymore to anyone else because we're so intent in keeping our narratives at the forefront of everyone's thoughts that we don't listen to what Russia,

what China, what Iran is saying anymore. We have no empathy. We have no ability to understand what's going on or what they're thinking because we insist on our narrative and we exclude the narrative of anyone else. It's finished. No, that's all lies. Statistically, the Russian economy is in better shape now than before the sanctions were imposed, notwithstanding the enormous expense of the special military operation in Ukraine. Statistically, we all know that the Ukraine war is virtually over, even though the Congress of the United States is making noises now that if Joe Biden goes along with certain domestic issues

having to do with immigration and a wall to retard the flow of immigrants in the Southwest, that the Congress may come up with another $60 or $70 billion for Ukraine. Do the elites, do the neocons still see a glimmer of hope that they can pull this rabbit out of a hat, or do even they recognize that Ukraineraine is over that it was a disaster that the values behind it which you've just been uh critically uh describing uh no longer subsist and it's time to turn to focus their attention elsewhere uh yes they recognize i'm i'm certain of that now they recognize this war is over and what's more, they don't believe that it can be resumed. And all we're doing now and all we're seeing is ways of trying to create a narrative that the West has won.

Again, that the West has won because Putin has failed. He didn't take Kiev. He didn't capture the whole country. And they impute that as a fact that this is what Putin was seeking. Whereas we know very clearly and was later demonstrated that what he was doing when the troops went near Kiev was to try and sort of push people towards a negotiation. And then the negotiation happened, if you remember, in March of last year, the previous year. And, of course, Britain and America told Zelensky and Kiev, forget it, just keep the war going.

So they wanted, if you like, let down, find a narrative that says, we still won, but it's not going to work because Russia isn't going to play with that narrative. It's not going to negotiate the stalemate as they hope. Russia will negotiate, yes, but only one thing. They want capitulation. They expect capitulation and the removal of, if you like, the neo-Nazi elements from the regime. So it's not going to happen, but they're still scrabbling around. And it can't go on long because what they are resorting to now is simply firing long-range missiles into civil Russia,

into civilian cities of Russia. And, you know, there's no... I mean, this isn't a military operation any longer. This is terrorism. And even the United States is not going to be able to go on very long with just simply firing lots of rockets into Belohokrad in Russia and to killing lots of civilians going out doing their Christmas shopping. So I don't think it can last. How dangerous is it for world stability that the munitions being fired at Russian civilians

were manufactured in the United States? Well, probably the last ones were manufactured in the Czech Republic, but it's the same thing that we're seeing in gaza uh it makes one complicit and gaza is providing a shining a very clear light on the whole of the war on ukraine um the attacks now by ukraine are on civilians living in russia Russia inside 91 Russia I mean nothing to do with um the Ukraine um attacking civilians causing many deaths I mean is unacceptable it is a war crime and the states that are supplying the long-range missiles for that, therefore are complicit in a war crime against Russia. And Ukraine is making this point very clearly, and the recent ICW action about genocide also

underlines the point about criminal action against a collective population. At the risk of drawing you into domestic American politics, which I don't want to do, but I have to ask you this. What will the neocons and the Biden administration claim as their off-ramp? Will they say something like, oh, it's a stalemate. He didn't get Kiev. He didn't go as far west as he wanted. I mean, what can they say to make themselves save face?

That's all. I mean, the lines on the front are the Ukrainians gone into complete defensive posture. And Russia is attacking everywhere, strongly, accelerating fashion across all the lines. And it's also mounting a reaction to these attacks on its civilian population across Kiev and across Ukraine with masses of missiles and drones, but focused on military targets, on air defenses, on factories, not on civilian populations. Why do nation states talk past each other, or why do they not even talk to each other anymore? Why is it that Foreign Minister Lavrov and Secretary of State Blinken don't pick up the phone and speak with each other? Well, because of this insistence in the West in this period that we've got to have, we have the winning and we've got to find and we've got to stick with the winning narrative. And it's got to be from top to bottom of our society. And mass media is to enforce it and to denigrate anyone that tries to step out of whoever is involved with it, the interviewer,

has to insist on the Western narrative, which was that Russia invaded innocent Ukraine in an aggressive aggression without provocation and illegally. Now, that just robs everything of its context. It just sort of tries to isolate it and try and use it as a narrative. But when you do that, then you can't engage in a proper discussion with the other side. You can't listen because you're always having to put forward and insist that this is the narrative. This is the truth, the one truth that exists. Switching over to Israel and Gaza, is the United States preparing to become involved in a wider war? No. I i am should say that of course the united states is doing whatever it can to stop it becoming a wider war because the washington post tells us that that's what's

happening and it's telling us very clearly that b has instructed his people to act to stop the war spreading, particularly to Lebanon. However, it's quite clear that this is a story that has been leaked and been leaked and put on the front page of The Washington Post. And so one has to be skeptical and ask why. Because what we see is that the provocations continue, both from Israel, but also from America. It was only a few days ago that the United States chose to assassinate the head of what they call a militia in Iraq, the head of the Ketai, the leader of it. But this militia, so-called, is actually an integral part

of the armed forces of Ukraine. It was an attack on the Ukrainian state. And, of course, Ukraine has now reacted. It's been firing a ballistic missile. You're saying Ukraine. Do you mean Iran? No, sorry, not Ukraine. I mean Iraq, sorry. It is the militia of Iraq. Very sorry for that. Right. Supposedly, our ally, they have asked us to leave the country. We have at least three bases there, and now we're assassinating someone on their property, some alliance we have there. What are we doing?

I mean, I underlined that this man was part, is part, if you like, of the official armed forces of Iraq. It's not just some, you know, Iran-linked militia. So why did the United States feel the need to do this? I mean, because quite clearly, you know, what's happening in Iraq is a reflection of what's happening in Gaza. I mean, the problem, the illnesses in Gaza, I mean, the symptoms in Iraq, you're not going to, if you like, extinguish it by adding or heating up, if you like, the fever in Iraq

because of what's happening in Gaza. So why is the United States doing this in this case? And I think I regret to say that when I said at the beginning that I think the United States is trying to stop the war, I'm not sure they are. And I'm not sure that Biden wants it. States and no ability to, if you like, entertain the narrative of the other or to have any sympathy or empathy for Palestinians or Arabs as a whole. And he has been very clear. I mean, there's a long article detailing all about it, which you've probably read in Mother Jones, which explains his history in great detail. And I think what we're seeing is people trying to inoculate themselves. Everyone knows it's likely that the wider war is going to happen,

but no one wants to be responsible for having triggered it. Hezbollah doesn't want to. Iran doesn't want to. Iraq doesn't want to. Iran doesn't want to. Iraq doesn't want to. And I think also the White House does not want to be seen, if you like, if there is a war between Israel and Hezbollah. It does not want to be seen to giving that unconditional support as it did in Gaza. So it's inoculating itself by leaking these sort of stories, saying, oh, we're working so hard to stop it. But at the same time, I mean, even after this,

just on Thursday, we had Senator Lindsey Graham going and seeing Biden and the Biden family. What was his message? Was his message to pull back from it? Of course not. And did he check in with the White House before going and talk to Biden or someone in the White House before going? That's usually what happens in the United States, in my experience, that people, before they go on a sensitive visit like that, We'll check in with the White House or at least the State Department. But I don't think that. And so we have today, even today, the defense minister saying, you know, the hourglass is about to turn on them.

We've given them time. We've given Hezbollah time to come to a negotiated settlement. It's the hourglass is going to turn over. There's no more time left, and we're going to take military action. So I think whereas the official White House line is probably to say we're doing all we can to prevent this. I think that quietly, Joe Biden is going to do nothing that holds back Israel. If this is what Israel decides to do, because he knows there are difficulties, many things are going wrong. There's lots of controversy. There's quarreling within the cabinet. There's been the ICGA. There's been Hamas. I mean, they failed in Gaza completely.

They need a diversion. They need something. And the people really are looking, I mean, because there's a great trauma, I think, in Israel. We have to recognize that. People feel great trauma from their perspective. You know, Hamas exploded out of Gaza and started killing Israelis. And their answer to that is, well, we have to end this problem. We have to annihilate Gaza. And there is a sort of a need for some sort of catharsis of war to, if you like, to satisfy how people in Israel seem to be feeling at this moment. I mean, everyone has a sort of a great anger and passion about what has happened and doesn't see any prospect of having any relationship with Palestinians for the future. And so, you know, politicians in trouble, governments in trouble, often resort to a war to

try and sort of bring back national unity, to bring back some sort of pride in the state. And this is what Netanyahu is doing. Look, Netanyahu is not a perfect person by any means, but I mean, he's not unrepresentative of an ethos that is gripping Israel. A dangerous, worrying ethos that can lead to something very bad. Add to all of this the President's electoral, President Biden's electoral woes. Here's cut number one, Chris. Here's Secretary Blinken over the weekend warning that the Israel and Hamas war could metastasize. This is a conflict that could easily metastasize, causing even more insecurity and even more suffering. I will also raise the imperative of doing more to prevent

civilian casualties. Far too many Palestinians, innocent Palestinians, have already been killed. But I think it's also very, very important that to the extent operations continue, they be designed around protecting civilians and around getting humanitarian assistance to people who need it, not the other way around. Now here, number four, Chris. Here it's the Prime Minister Netanyahu thumbing his nose at that. We must not stop the war until we complete all its objectives. The elimination of Hamas, the return of all our hostages

and the promise that Gaza won't pose a threat to Israel anymore. I am saying this to our enemies and to our friends. This is our responsibility and this is the commitment of us all. Hasn't he failed to stop Hamas? Isn't that obvious? And hasn't he lost the PR war? Well, all of that but more because effectively um what Hezbollah has done in the north is to drive all the residents out

of the north it's created a no-go zone across the northern part of Israel and the residents have all had to fly and are accommodated in a hotel around the Dead Sea. And so that is a major problem, which is why the war with Lebanon is very possible, because he needs to push Hezbollah back so that those people can return to their homes. Otherwise, you have people who are who who've abandoned the area near Gaza and the people who are out of the no-go zone in the north, and the West Bank is on a knife edge. So all these things are coming together. It's a trauma for the government. And as I say, perhaps military action would provide a catharsis or is believed to provide a catharsis. It could also provide a disaster. But, you know, when you're in a heady mood and you're in an emotional state, it's often the sort of sense of

let us have action, let us move and do something that breaks, if you like, our situation and changes and inverts it. Do you think that there's a realistic probability that the war in Gaza will metastasize and will extend to a regional war, that Prime Minister Netanyahu will goad his adversaries into doing this so as to bring the United States physically present there in his and Israel's defense? Yes, I think that's precisely what is happening. As I say, you know, Gaza is far from finished and Israel has had to withdraw because it needs its troops up in the north facing Lebanon and because some of the reserves have been there for too long. So it's moving out. It doesn't mean it's finished.

They're going to continue bombing Gaza in the attempt to sort of make it again unlivable from the perspective of the cabinet ministers. But as I say, all of these things are going to lead to a few like measures, and all of these things are continuing, whether it's even if we're talking about Yemen, whether it's about the north or Iraq. Iraq, I was saying to you, in response to that assassination by the United States, not by Israel, has started firing ballistic missiles into the port at Haifa. And now it seems that Haifa is not going to be able to receive

vessels at that port. So the war is anyway widening. The question is, when does it move to a new phase? And we don't know when it moves to a new, wider phase, but it may well be. Who has the shortest attention span in this? And I would argue that Iran can last out, can wait, ignore the assassination of Moussaoui, a very senior Iranian official. Hezbollah has strategic patience. But the position in Israel is the government is in deep, deep trouble and needs a diversion, needs something that can provide some sort of catharsis to all the reversals that it's been experiencing in all of the areas surrounding it. Over the weekend, according to the Financial Times, there was a shouting match and screaming and yelling in the Israeli cabinet

over the wish for some cabinet members to have the IDF, the military, investigate the origins of October 7th. I mean, by the American system, it's inconceivable that the military would investigate the president. But apparently in Israel, there are forces in the military that want to investigate why some of them look the other way and whether Prime Minister Netanyahu was asleep at the switch. Do you have a take on this? Yes. I mean, this was really an attempted coup d'etat to remove the government. There are certain things that are completely impossible to do. And one of the things was that Netanyahu and the government have said,

we will discuss what went wrong after the war. To bring it up now was quite clearly targeted at Netanyahu. It was clearly an effort to try and bring the responsibility and put it on his shoulders even now during this time in order to force him to go. And similarly, there were other actions that were taken that have left not only just the insistence of that, but the insistence on the ICW being treated and dealt with, and others have made it very difficult. And quite clearly there is an attempt to remove the government. The only problem is that Israel is divided right down the middle on the question of politics and in terms of the party politics. But in terms of the party politics.

But in terms of the program of the government, it's moved solidly to the right, far to the right, and supports most of the propositions that the cabinet is making, the propositions by people like Ben-Gavir and Smotrich. So, yes, it was certainly an attempt to undermine and upset the government. Again, another reason why the government may believe that it needs as soon as possible the catharsis of a war with Hezbollah, even if it ends up by being a catastrophe. Alistair, always a pleasure.

My dear friend, thank you very much for your insight. Thank you so much, of course, for joining us. We'll see you again next week. My pleasure. Thank you. All the best. Thanks. Coming up, as usual, on Monday at 10 o'clock, Eastern Ray McGovern,

and at 11 o'clock, Eastern Larry Johnson, Justin Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Altyazı M.K.