Judging Freedom - Alastair Crooke: How the West Must Change

Episode Date: June 3, 2024

Alastair Crooke: How the West Must ChangeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Resolve to earn your degree in the new year in the Bay with WGU. WGU is an online accredited university that specializes in personalized learning. With courses available 24-7 and monthly start dates, you can earn your degree on your schedule. You may even be able to graduate sooner than you think by demonstrating mastery of the material you know. Make 2025 the year you focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu. Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Monday, June 3rd, 2024. Alistair Crook joins us now. Alistair, as you know, I thought I was going to be on my way to St. Petersburg.

It's 8 o'clock in the morning here in the U.S. My trip was canceled due to events in Russia that are not national or major diplomatic events, but events that involve this trip. So I'm happy that the cancellation occurred before I left, and I'm happier still that you and I are together this morning. Thank you for coming on with such short notice at the last minute like this. Diplomacy. You are a former diplomat. You're an expert in the field. You have written about it extensively,

including a very provocative piece over the weekend. Is diplomacy the art of deception? It's become that. I don't think it should be, and I don't think it was. Diplomacy was something that is not much practiced today. People often say, and sometimes say to me, oh, well, you know, what's your solution to something? And I suppose I'm not really a diplomat in that way because I think that there are times you cannot stand on the beach and you cannot command the tide to go out when you'd like

it. You seem to have to wait for the tide to change and then you can use those currents hopefully to move things. But basically diplomacy also depends on channels, having channels. I used to say to people, they come and say to me often, well, you know, we'd like to go and meet such and such a group or something like that in the Middle East. And I say, listen, you can't just come here and sort of say, you know, let's get to the bottom line. What's your position? What's our position? Let's do a deal and take the first

plane home. You have to spend a lot of time investing in your meeting, especially in the east, where it's different from the west and people think in a different way. So you can't just sort of get on a plane, go over and sort of think you're going to resolve everything in a day on the back of an envelope and hop off back to Washington or Brussels or wherever you come from. So this is a different sort of diplomacy. So I feel also that sometimes, you know, you have to have the ability to look at a conflict and realize, you know, there is no solution at the moment. Perhaps after there's been a trial of strength, people will be in a position,

will be able then to rethink their own position. And maybe then you'll be able to move slowly towards some form of political settlement. But today it's all become very much sort of downgraded and attenuated to sort of simply, you know, quick call solution. What's the solution to this problem? Well, sometimes there isn't a quick solution. Sometimes trying a quick solution makes things work worse. And that's what we're seeing both in Israel and what we're seeing in Russia too.

When Tony Blinken goes back and forth, I mean, does he realize, between Washington and the various places he goes to, does he realize the dangers of deception or actual lying? No, they think it's very clever. It's very clever. I mean the whole shift in Western way of doing business is to craft what they call a winning narrative. A narrative that suggests that the West is winning and that the other side, you know, which generally is evil and autocratic or a tyrant, the other side is simply, you know, has a clunky narrative and it is not capable of winning. So I think, you know, this idea of using winning narratives is really very dangerous in substitute for really trying to hear

and understand what is going on with the other people. Well, look, I mean, deception must be dangerous. I mean, if Joe Biden says that the Israelis crafted a proposal and in, he crafted it for political reasons. Who will believe anything that he says thereafter? Well, exactly, because, you know, I mean, trust is not really always something that you have in these negotiations. But what you must strive for is a sense of integrity that people believe that if you say something, you mean it and you believe it to be not wholly true, but at least not a lie. And this new form of diplomacy is about deceiving people, of trying to create a sort of narrative, trying to create something and pitting your narrative

against someone else's narrative. So if you do this and if you do this in Israel and pretend that, you know, that what you're announcing on national television has been approved by the cabinet and by the prime minister and government, when what you've probably done is picked up on an old proposal that was probably approved by a war cabinet, but maybe much against the will of the government as a whole, and then present that as if it's a new proposal and something that is significant and put pressure to take it up.

I think in these cases, what people are trying to do is just go for the quick solution, the immediate solution. Let's get a ceasefire, let's get hostages released. The rest of it can take care of itself in the longer term. In any case, the pillars and what the rest of the proposal rests are not really in place. And I think that's very clear. You know, it depends, first of all, in the Israeli terms,

on a hostage release, which Hamas has to agree to. Then it would lead to some form of cessation of hostilities. In Hamas's view, it has to be a complete cessation, not a ceasefire, and the complete removal of troops from Gaza, none of which were expressed, if you like, in this recent proposal that was launched on Friday night. None of those details are there.

It's, there's a sort of empty holes in it. And ultimately then then it is all dressed up in the idea that there's a possibility of having Saudi Arabia normalized with Israel and that will change the whole equation and then it will be possible to resolve Gaza. We can get rid of Hamas, the narrative is, and then when we've done that, some state will come in, some peacekeeping Arab state will come in and pacify the area.

But this is wishful thinking more than real diplomacy. Real diplomacy means you have to try and address actually the underlying problems. You have to face them, look them in the eye, and understand what they mean, and to try and get to a sort of element where both sides accept that the other side has a position, and that it's an authentic one. And is it possible to find a form of commonality or not? And if it's not, then you don't want to make policies that are just going to make things worse. That's not really what you should be doing. But to make a statement to the

public, almost in the form of an address to the United States, I realize he wasn't in the Oval Office, but it did have the trappings of a very serious announcement from the President of the United States coming on the heels of the conviction in the New York State Court of his predecessor and likely opponent in the November election. To make an announcement like that, claiming it came from the Israeli side, and then to provoke both tepid acceptance and harsh denunciations, I'm not sure where that gets, A, the peace process, B, the hostages, both sides, the Palestinian hostages in Israel and the Israeli hostages in Gaza, or C, even advance the president's re-election campaign. I'm just not sure where this gets him. I mean, Smucic and

Ben-Gavir have already said if Bibi goes along with this, they'll leave the government and he won't have a majority. And in the midst of all this, they're going to have to have uh another uh election so and maybe this is the understatement of the of the day does biden know what he's doing no i don't think so because i think we're living you know that that all their sort of proposals of you know and how they're going to get there and a two-state solution, which, you know, clearly the government and the majority of Israelis say they're not ready for and not well to accept. Well, that undercuts the whole Saudi initiative, Saudi normalization. The Saudis have made it very clear. Yes, they'll take, you know, sort of whatever's going from the United States in terms of a defense agreement, but they're not going to go to normalization unless there is not only a clear but an irrevocable

path to Palestinian statehood. And as I've said, you know, we can talk about that, but it's not feasible unless people are really prepared to use force. Do they have the will, the political ability to use force? There are nearly 800,000 settlers on the land of Palestine, as defined by the United Nations Security Council, on the lines of 67, living in the West Bank. Who's going to remove them? I mean, we talk about it glibly, but we don't have the means and we don't have the will, I suspect, of doing anything about this. So all of this is show, really. And I think all of this is really pressure on Israel to try and get sort of some form of calm in the run-up to the

presidential elections in November. I mean with the US is starting this getting main part of the election process and I think it's all an aim to try and do that and say well you know hope that if the violence can be reduced in Gaza, then something might be achieved in Lebanon, and then something might happen, some Arab states might be willing to do more in Gaza. But all of this is, these are building on quicksand, because there's no sign that any of those pillars of this entire, if you like, this framework that starts with hostage release, starts with some form of end of conflict and goes through the process to the Saudis, then agreeing to a normalization. None of that is in place. And so it's not going to it's not going to benefit i and i think this was a

really not a good decision by the white house to push biden into doing this because ultimately it may we don't know what is going to happen in the region but at any time events may change it we may have another massacre another killing in Gaza, or it could be in the West Bank the next time. Lebanon is very, very hot at the moment in terms of the fighting and the exchange of fire. Anything can happen. And this could blow up right in the middle of the lead-up to November. So, you know, doing this sort of false attempt, a show attempt,

to try and get the level done, is this a narrative that will be, well, we've done everything, we put forward a proposal? Is this a narrative that will help in the election? I don't know, but I rather think that it can go very badly wrong precisely because it is built on quicksand. How strong is the American urge to normalize relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel? Israel, because my understanding, Alistair, and correct me please if you wish, is that the linchpin or the sine qua non of this normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia post-October 7th

is the two-state solution, and no Israeli government is going to accept that voluntarily. Yeah, and the degree to which Saudi is bound by that is not really appreciated because it was the former Saudi king who gathered together the Arab world and they agreed jointly on this peace plan of 2002. And that has one basic theme, normalization only following the Palestinian, the establishment of the Palestinian state

on the lands of 67 with Jerusalem as its capital. It is clear as it can be. And as I've mentioned before, there is a sort of convention in Saudi Arabia where it's more the convention, but, which means that the king is absolute monarch. And when the king has laid down a policy, everyone must buy it.

There can be no discussion, no further changes. And Mohammed bin Salman is the crown prince, but he is not wali. He is not the monarch. Yet he may become that or he may not become that. So it's very difficult for Saudi to move away from a very categorical injunction that has been made by the monarch that is not for questioning in order to satisfy Western demands that he normalised with Israel.

And this is why I think at the moment, you know, what bin Salman is doing is he wants to, he needs American support should the king die. As you know, he's in intensive care in hospital at the moment. And if he should die, then there will be a family council. And even if America can't nominate who will be the next king, they probably are not able to do that, but they could certainly disrupt something. And that's what he does not want, if you like, that the United States will act against him when the family council comes to consider the succession to the king, whenever that is. Here's the king's foreign minister just 10 days ago saying Israel does not get to make

all of these decisions on its own unilaterally. Israel doesn't get to decide whether or not the Palestinians have a right to self-determination. This is something that is enshrined in the United Nations Charter. It is something that is enshrined into international law. It is also a founding principle of the United Nations decision to found Israel. So, you know, it is absolutely necessary that Israel accepts that it cannot exist without the existence of a Palestinian state, that its security is served by building a Palestinian state. So we hope sincerely that the leaders in Israel will realize that it is in their interest to work with the international community,

not just to strengthen the Palestinian Authority, but to finally establish a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, as everybody understands is the right thing to do. I can't imagine the Netanyahu or the Gantz, whoever it might be, government going along with a two-state solution along the 1967 borders. Can you? No. You know, I think the opportunity for that was lost long ago.

I mean, the whole of that process was, if you like, the Oslo process, was actually just put in push, the prospect of having a two-state solution, further and further away. It was left always ultimately to Israel to make the final decision on this. And so all that's happened is it was constructed in such a way actually to struck the coming of a two-state solution. And the settlements and the settlers are adding to that and have made it virtually impossible to have a two-state solution. So, I mean, what the foreign minister was just saying was outlining exactly what I said was the Saudi monarch's

position. I mean, we're talking about Abdullah, not the president-king, but Abdullah in 2002 gathered together the Arab world and they signed this declaration, the Arab initiative, which laid down exactly what he was saying. But that was 2002. And since then, everything has been done in order to obstruct that coming into being. Everything has been done to obstruct that from that point on. And so Israel believes that it has put a stop to a Palestinian state and effectively it has so what do we do I mean this is the question instead of going on just

calling for a two-state solution you have to try and look at the the the reality of this and then finally to see where this is going and ultimately the only way out of this and then finally to see where this is going and ultimately the only way out of this well there are only two ways out of this really one is by escalation which is the way that many in israel are thinking that this is going to go to if you like to a big apocalyptic war that will restore deterrence of Israel, which they fail, they've lost, in other words, get the region to fear them again. Or else that eventually, if this doesn't work, Israelis may come to the conclusion that the principle in Zionism, which is very similar to that that existed in South Africa, of special rights for one population group over others, special rights over other population groups

that share the same territory with you, will have to go and that they will have to look at a new way of configuring how to live in this region without special rights, special political rights, special legal administrative and security rights over the other populations that live in this territory. So those are really the only two alternatives that I see that's possible. Now I know, you know, this is when people say to me, but what's your solution now? Well, sometimes, as I say, I'm not a diplomat. And I say to people, I'm sorry, you can't the region in order to re-establish it. And if that fails, then there will be the possibility of having some sort of political solution or some sort of discussion. But, you know, you can't sit there on the beach and just command the tide to recede because you want it to go out. So I think that's, you know, you've got to look at reality

in a hard-headed way and consider your possibilities on that basis and not just on wishful thinking or on show or on narratives. And everything now is, you know, narratives. We want, you know, a winning narrative. Look, Israel, it's in your best interest. It's only reasonable. You must agree to a two-state solution, even though we know you will never implement it.

And if you do that, then we can have a little bit of quiet and we can get on with our elections and the life in the West will go back to normal. Well, you know, if you want to imagine that for a while, you're free to do so, but it's not going to work. On that tantalizing note, we will take a break for a commercial announcement. When we come back, we will be discussing the dangers of diplomacy, which lies to and deceives Vladimir Putin. 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. If you have $100 in the bank, it still shows $100, but $100 in the bank is now worth 24% less. Inflation has reduced all of your savings, all of your buying power, and mine, by 24%. 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. Does President Putin believe that Western diplomats have deceived him by their talk about peace, but their

internal and outwardly manifested urge for war? Indeed. He said so in a press conference in Uzbekistan. He said they deceived us. They led us by their nose. He's talking about that period after Maidan, when the Minsk agreements were being discussed and had seemingly achieved some degree of acceptance and agreement. And he said, you know, they deceived us to think that they were trying to resolve this issue by peaceful means, when in reality what they were doing was all along planning to do it by armed force, the force of weapons and the force of arms. And the consequence of that was that, I mean, he was very explicit that we, you know, we've stopped trusting the West anymore. We just don't trust them.

We don't listen. We don't trust what they say. We don't believe what they say. And that's not a very good starting point for negotiations, particularly when the issues have now become so crucial, so sensitive, so dangerously close and edging towards wider war that we don't have that ability to speak and have some degree of understandings and mutual understandings between ourselves and Russia. All we do is denigrate Russia, all we do is demonize Putin and you and it's not the basis by which you can act if you wish

to avoid escalation. Otherwise, escalation becomes almost inevitable. Putin has also said that he believes that the European leaders believe that they're at war with Russia. Does he believe the United States is at war with Russia? He says, yes. He didn't actually say just the, he did, as you rightly said, he did pick particularly on the Europeans who he says seem to you know be hungry for war. He says you know we can't understand it because it's not in a European interest for this but he singles out Britain and France, the leaders of those countries as literally sort of hungering after some wider conflict and pushing strongly for a wider conflict.

But he talks about it as NATO as a whole, so it does include the United States, and that he believes that the United States is involved. And he sees this process that is going on now, the suggestion, the demand that Europe and NATO use missiles that it has given to the Ukrainians to attack across the border into Russian territory, as a sign that the West and NATO has made the decision. And he says this very clearly, and Lavrov says it, the decision has been made. Clearly, the West has opted to escalate and have a hotter war in Ukraine. This is just the first stage.

But what after that? Okay, the first stage is that there's going to be rockets, artillery, and shorter-range missiles fired across the border where they say our military bases are. And in fact, that very night, there was an attack on Belgorod, just over a city in Russia proper. I think it was 10 or high miles were fired at it, and they were all done by the Russian air defences.

But Bolgorod is not a military city. It's not the sort of hub of the military. It's just a civilian city in Russia. Now, for the moment, just to be clear, what the Russian position is, they've said, okay, we are engaged in a conflict just over the border with Kharkov, the big city, which was originally a Russian city, and there will be a cross-border fire. In fact, I mean, this has been going on. Again, this is another piece of show, this great statement from NATO and from the President of the United States. We're going to allow non-long-range missiles to be used by the Ukrainians to defend themselves against

attacks that are coming from just over the Russian border. They've been doing this for a year. I mean, they've been using, you know, storm shadows and all of those missiles and HIMARS and firing them into Russia on the border area. Now, I think what was so important that Putin has said, which must be understood, is he said, okay, we can probably assimilate that, you can live with that.

But if you use long range missiles, cruise missiles, to attack deep inside Russia, and against strategic targets of ours, then there will be a strong response against it. And that response will not be confined to Ukraine, but can take place in any other part of the world from which we determine that that attack originated, i.e. the missile attack.

And he made it clear that this is not just actually where someone pushed the button and set the missile off, but the whole panel of support for missile attacks into Russia, i.e. the engineers, the NATO technicians that set up the missile, the NATO infrastructure of satellites, of AWAC planes that provides the data and does the targeting and sends the coordinates, and that the whole process is done by NATO. And that he says, you can't say you're not party to this war i mean you are deeply

deeply involved with it and the warning is you do this and there may be a response so i mean let me translate this i mean he's saying we are prepared to risk uh if you like an article five if you like, an article five. If you do this, we might, for example, I'm not saying this is what he hasn't threatened us. I'm not saying it'll happen. But it's talked about, there's the big Western logistics base just over the border from Ukraine in Poland, huge logistics, that's where all the logistics and a lot of the training comes. Something, for example, something like that might be hit with conventional forces. And then he poses the question, so what then does the United States do? Does it escalate further? And what element? And that's where we get to the point where people start worrying about tactical nuclear weapons because then, you know, Russia or someone, certainly one Russian official who is not part

of the government but has a high standing has suggested that's the point then the West will be warned that if they want to take the next step up the ladder, then it will risk the use of tactical nuclear weapons against them. This is a very serious moment in our relationship with Russia. And people don't seem to notice it. Let me underscore how serious it is. We're going to play two clips for you.

First is Secretary Blinken saying that President Biden has authorized the Ukraine forces to use American missiles to attack inside Russia. And second is President Putin saying to NATO, be careful what you do because we'll respond swiftly and certainly. Over the past few weeks, Ukraine came to us and asked for the authorization to use weapons that we're providing to defend against this aggression, including against Russian forces that are massing on the Russian side of the border and then attacking into Ukraine. And that went right to the president.

And as you heard, he's approved the use of our weapons for that purpose. Going forward, we'll continue to do what we've been doing, which is, as necessary, adapt and adjust. Representatives of NATO countries, especially in Europe, especially in small countries, they should be aware of what they are playing with before talking about striking Russian territory. In general, this constant escalation can lead to serious consequences. There you have it. Does the former understand the latter? Does Secretary Blinken know that he and Joe and Biden are playing with fire? I don't think they see it in that way at all. I mean, I think, first of all, they probably

understand clearly that, you know, firing across the border into the near vicinity of the border, where Russian troops are assembled and where there are military posts, has been going on for a year without any effect. This agreement that has been announced with such fanfare will not change the outcome of the war one shot. Everyone knows that this is just show, again, another sort of narrative which is designed to show that, you know, Washington is facing down Putin and is tough, being tough in this crucial period up till November. It's not going to change it. But what Putin is really warning them about is as the situation continues to deteriorate in Ukraine, and it's deteriorating daily, don't then think of using longer- missiles cruise missiles and attacking substantive targets such as that over the horizon russian nuclear defensive radar shield which is all about intercontinental

missiles coming from from from the united states it's not about fighting the war in Ukraine. You start doing this with serious missiles, then we will definitely respond. And we will respond in a way not just to whether a missile was sort of packed up and sent from Romania or from Poland. We will look at the fact that the whole of this exercise, every missile that is being fired depends entirely on NATO facilitation. The target, the actual GPS and the directions to the missile come from these control rooms that are fed by satellites and planes manned entirely by NATO officials. And you are part of this and there will be a reaction. The question is,

what then does the United States do when we react back in, say, Poland or Romania or even the UK or France? I mean, not necessarily in France, but to French interests or French positions outside of Ukraine. What are you going to do then? That is the decision you have to think about. These are profound issues, Alistair. Thank you so much for your extended and almost, because we put this together, the last minute, almost last minute analysis. I know this is second nature to you, but when you got up this morning, you weren't expecting to be with us at this time of day. But thank you, my dear friend. See you again next week. Same day, same time. I just hope you get to St. Petersburg sometime in the near future. Thank you. Thank you. So I thought I would be on my way to St. Petersburg at this hour, but my trip was

canceled and I'm not sure what we're going to have the rest of the day for you. But of course, we will post it as soon as we have it. We hope to have Larry Johnson at his usual time, which is 11 o'clock in the morning Eastern time. And I'm sure we'll have a full week set up for you. And those schedules will be announced daily as they usually are, meaning by the end of the day today, you'll know what we're going to do tomorrow. Thank you for accommodating my schedule. Thank you for listening this morning, Judge Napolitano, this morning, U.S. time, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.