Judging Freedom - Alastair Crooke: The West Lusts for War.

Episode Date: November 18, 2024

Alastair Crooke: The West Lusts for War.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 18th, 2024. Alistair Crook will be here with us in just a moment on the West's lust for war. But first this. We're taught to work hard for 35 to 40 years. Save your money, then live off your savings. Unfortunately, there are too many threats undermining the value of our hard-earned dollars. The Fed's massive money printing machine is shrinking your dollar's value. Just the cost of groceries is absurd. Let me be brutally honest.

I think the dollar is on its way to being extinct. Not just here, but globally. The BRICS nations, led by Russia and China, threaten to remove the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Central banks have been shifting away from the dollar and into gold. And if we go to central bank digital currency, that will not only destroy the dollar, but we will lose our freedom. We will lose our privacy. They can track anything we do. You need to take care of yourself and your family. So here's what you need to do. Immerse yourself in knowledge and information. The writing is on the wall. Now is the time to consider shifting some of your dollars into gold and silver as your bedrock financial asset. Call my friends at Lear Capital, the leader in precious metals,

investing for over 27 years. They help me diversify into gold and silver. They can help you too. Call Lear today at 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620, or go to learjudgenap.com. Alistair Crook, welcome here, my dear friend. Thank you, as always, for your time and for your thoughts. Over the weekend from the rainforest in the Amazon area of Brazil, President Biden apparently decided to authorize the Ukrainian military to use American long-range missiles with about a 200-mile range to attack into Russia. This is, of course, a dramatic change something you said he would never do what's your take on this Alistair uh primarily it's a moral race it's a moral razor for Biden and the Democrats and it's a moral raiser supposedly for the Ukrainians. I remember back in Afghanistan

when the Mujahideen were losing the war in Afghanistan. That's why we introduced Stinger missiles. It wasn't so much that they were very effective, but they raised the morale of the Mujahideen at a difficult time. So I think it's partly a morale raiser, but it also reflects something much more uh important because i think behind this and behind the pressure to go on in ukraine is really also the fact that's often overlooked that um you know the third greatest gas reserves in Europe lie in the Donbass, in Donbass and in Kharkov.

And also then other reserves are offshore in Crimea. And a number of American companies had spent a lot of money putting in bids for these. Potentially, this could supply the gas, instead of Russian gas, for Europe. It was a geopolitical stroke, if you like. had firms such as Exxon, Halliburton, and Shell and others, all signing contracts before the war with Ukraine for its fracking gas in the Donbass and Kharkov, but offshore gas off Crimea. And then you've got the other great resource of Ukraine,

certainly sort of up to the Dnieper, which is land. Because this land, I mean, it's the breadbasket of Europe, and BlackRock own it. They literally have a mortgage on all that farmland. And, you know, we often talk, and I do, I'm guilty of it, of seeing sort of energy is the crucial flow. Where energy goes is the sort of geopolitical underpinning. But I think equally, you know, and we lose sight of the fact

that increasingly now it's food because we've sort of so much industrialized that we don't grow as much of our own food. So, I mean, the big producers of food are really important and that was one of the things that I think probably Biden was uh involved in in South America because South America is going to be a supplier of food um not to China just as they would hope that Ukraine would be supplying China with foodstuffs and Iran would be supplying China with oil and energy to, if you like, fuel the whole of that node of the BRICS. The future is really in that Central American, Central Asian corridor. That is where the growth is going to come. They are just on the brink of a huge growth, and they need fuel, and they need conduits, corridors, channels.

And Iran provides both of those, by the way, and is crucial. That's why both Russia and China are investing in Iran's energy. Russia doesn't need it. China takes 95% of Iran's energy. But the whole of this development, what used to be called the Belt and Road through Central Asia, I mean, look at Siberia. It's humming with economic activity. I don't mean just mining and, if you like, oil. It is the most vibrant economy in the world at the moment. They need fuel for that, and they need food for the people. And so Iran is crucial to this as well as China. I'd like to get back to the natural and probable consequences of President Biden's decision. I mean, President Putin has made it very clear that if American weaponry or Western weaponry, weaponry from the EU, NATO and the US is fired at him, he understands that that would implicate

the use of American intel and probably American contractors, and therefore America would be fair game for retaliating. Is this not extremely risky on the part of Joe Biden, whether he wants to deliver a disaster into the lap of his successor, or whether he wants to boost the part of Joe Biden, whether he wants to deliver a disaster into the lap of his successor or whether he wants to boost the morale of the Ukrainians, isn't this a dangerous risk that he's taking by allowing the Ukrainians to use these long-range weapons? I think primarily also, and I think Donald Trump Jr. has tweeted to this effect that his view of it is that it's designed precisely to trap his father as he comes in. Instead of being able to do a deal, he's going to have a much more complex situation to deal with. And he adds, and of course, there are the trillions of dollars at stake for people like BlackRock, Chevron and others.

True. And the MIC, the military industrial complex. So I think, yes, it's intended as a sort of disruptive, another disruptive element against Trump. You know, seen from where I am, far from the United States, it seems to me that, you know, that the United States is entering into two distinct wars. One war, which is going to be ugly, is the war against what you call the swamp, the interagency, the deep state, whatever you want to call it. But that's going to be one war. And it's already pushing back, pushing back by disruptive notices,

suggestions that Trump has already been talking to Putin and he's about to give away Ukraine to Russia, etc., etc. So we've seen all this sort of disruption. That's one war. The second war is just as big in the United States, in my sort of rather distant view, which is to put an end to this endless government expenditure and government job creation and jobs that don't produce but are part of a great big apparatus of control and, if you like, the big technocracy, the big bureaucracy. And so both of those are crucial to him. I don't think, therefore, I mean, these are the ones, I mean, in some respects, it's revolution for the United States. He's planning a sort of economic revolution

and a structural revolution. And for that, he doesn't need wars in Ukraine. In fact, they're a distraction. They're going to be disruptive. They're going to be problematic. Same if you like in the Middle East. So I think that this is partly the, if you like, the blue establishment, the deep state pushing back. Presumably this came primarily from the intelligence services and the Pentagon probably was not in favor of this at all. In practical terms, I would just say they have been using ATAKAMs, thousands of them during this period, into Russia. They've been using long-distance drones into striking, as you've seen, Moscow at times. And they've used storm shadows and scalp missiles as well. I mean, there's been no evidence that actually

north korean troops are in kursk we don't know exactly what the limitations are so you're absolutely right in what you've said the actual practical change that this brings about the actual practical effect of this agreement i mean will be managed by Russia easily they've managed this before the the attack camps it is the principle the principle is that the US is authorizing attacks into pre-2014 Russia right and it is using NATO facilities, this intelligence surveillance reconnaissance of these overhead planes, stuff full of electronics, of all of the satellites, and all of these facilities, without which striking deeper into Russia is not possible. They can strike short term using drones for targeting. But deep strikes have to have the support of this decision is to frustrate Trump or to enhance the morale of the

doomed to lose Ukrainian troops. That is not a moral use of this equipment. Biden's handlers must know that Ukraine is on its last leg. The Wall Street Journal reports that they have $7 billion remaining in the congressional authorization. He plans to try and spend all of it in the next 60 days. To what moral end? I would argue there is no moral end in sight to the expenditure of that kind of cash and

the risk to American personnel in Ukraine and Europe and maybe even the American mainland is grave in light of some of the things that President Putin has said. You shoot at us and you are a nuclear power. We can

use any weapons we have to shoot back at you that's pretty much what he said alistair there's absolutely no moral basis to it there is no empathy for human life in that sort of decision it is completely cold calculating. Essentially, they admit now that Ukraine is just a proxy war, that the U.S. can engage in it. It's now in the mainstream. Engaged in this to weaken Russia. Primarily, it was to weaken Russia. And so what the US wants is a protectorate. But at the end of the day, it turns out NATO and the US cannot protect their protectorate. And they're going to give up on it, but not before keeping it going long enough to embarrass as Trump or to make it difficult for him. It's a pure, cynical form of immorality. There's nothing I can say except that it's probably, I mean, if it were in any other

context, we would consider this sort of a criminal sense of narcissism. Here's President Putin two months ago on September 12 warning about this very outcome. Cut number one, Chris. It is not about allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons or not. It is about making a decision about whether NATO countries are directly involved in the military conflict or not. If the decision is made, it will mean nothing less than the direct participation of NATO countries, the United States and European countries in the war in Ukraine. This is their direct participation,

and this, of course, significantly changes the very essence, the very nature of the conflict. This will mean that NATO countries, the United States, and European countries are fighting Russia. And if this is so, bearing in mind the change in the very essence of this conflict, we will make appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be created for us. This is so, bearing in mind the change in the very essence, essence of the conflict, because now the U.S. is fighting us directly. I'm paraphrasing. We will make appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be created for us. Don't Biden's handlers view this as a dangerous escalation

in light of what President Putin has warned about two months ago? I think it's entirely cynical. As I say, entirely cynical. It is, you know, one-upmanship on Trump. It is one-upmanship. The interests of the United States? No, not at all. Interests of BlackRock, of Chevron, wanting to keep the prospect open.

Of those that signed the great reconstruction plans, who were expecting to make billions from the reconstruction of Ukraine when Russia was defeated. Of course, it's a big blow to them. And maybe they still hope for some change, something that will alter it. But of course it won't. I would say that I don't think Putin has other options. One of the things that is an option, of course, we've already seen, if you like, the scale of weapons that have been used in Yemen against naval forces. I mean, which have caused one of the Pentagon officials to say, I've never seen anything like it. I was amazed by what they have. How did they do it? Well, we know how they did it. And then the other thing is, of of course is that all of this is

facilitated by if you like the rq4 over piloted crude aircraft over the black sea sometimes in international waters sometimes less so and also the satellites. Now, at the moment, you know, Russia doesn't interfere with them. They doesn't block Starlink either. I mean, there are things that could be done. And as you saw over yesterday, over last night, there was a massive attack on the distribution of electricity not the generators but the distribution of electricity across all ukrainian cities um it's on the brink of going down so i mean you know there are other means than just if you like um moving to the nuclear frame that he can go, partly because he knows, anyway, he knows that, you know, the West hasn't got anything else. He's in the driving seat. He will determine the outcome of what happens in Ukraine. He knows that. He's winning. He's in the driving seat deliberate provocation by authorizing an attack into pre-2014 mother Russia deeply and using NATO facilities to make those attacks. Of course, he understands that's a change. But I don't think he's going to get panicked by it, and I don't think he's going

to. He's a very calm, careful person, and I think he will manage it quite well. As I say, it's not the first time we've had attack cams going into Russia before. Before we transition over to the latest in Israel, one last question on this. Do you think Russian troops or drones or equipment will be shooting at Americans, the Americans who are operating and maintaining and repairing all this equipment that's in Ukraine? Well, there's been a bit of that. You remember the French, a number of French troops were attacked and I think American troops were attacked, NATO troops really at the outset of this war, right at that sort of great military centre just over the border from Poland some time ago. I think, you know, probably that will be. They know where the centres are.

Supposedly, the NATO centre is at Chasafyar in the Donbass, where they have some bunker and the NATO troops are there. Yes, it's another option. But, you know, I think he has other ones that he can bring into play. And what we don't know is quite how much their calculation right across the red line, the contact line, and enormously. It looks as if there is a real acceleration taking place. And given what's happening in the U.S. and everywhere, the troops don't have the morale. They don't have the willingness to go on with this war.

Who wants to be the last to die in a pointless war? They don't have the willingness to go on with this war. Who wants to be the last to die in a pointless war? They don't. So many of them are giving up. Some of them are retreating. So there could be a collapse. We don't know. I mean, I'm sure Putin has a pretty good idea, and that is part of his calculus that he's looking at. Haaretz, the Israeli daily newspaper,

is saying that Prime Minister Netanyahu is so elated with President Trump's choices for his national security team. That's Mike Walsh, Congressman Walsh, to be the national Security Advisor. My former colleague at Fox News, Pete Hegseth, to be the Secretary of Defense. Senator Marco Rubio to be the Secretary of State. My other former colleague from Fox, Mike Huckabee, to be the U.S. ambassador to Israel, that it's almost a dream team. It's almost as if Netanyahu has chosen these people for Trump.

Well, you know, here again, I'm distant and you're much closer. But as I tried to indicate a little earlier, I think, you know, Trump's main focus, the most vital thing for him is to get the United States straight, to straighten its economy and to straighten out, if you like, and get rid of the swamp and clean the swamp. And so he paid a price. There was a price for that, and the price he chose to pay was to give the lobby whatever they wanted. They gave them the full whack, complete support for Israel, which makes it perhaps easier for him to get some of his nominations through, makes it easier for him to sort of move on the domestic front with less pushback,

because they have been given what they wanted. But in what you said just earlier about Netanyahu, that's quite true. But it's much more than that. I mean, the whole of Israel is a gog. I mean, they already assume, taking for granted completely, that annexation of the West Bank and Gaza is a done deal, that it's already been agreed. They've heard that from the US nomination for envoy, that it is on the table annexation palestinian state is finished off the table and there is huge enthusiasm i mean really a a a sort of a mass psychosis in israel uh wanting war with with iran going to wanting to finish off hezbollah finish finish off the resistance in Iraq, finish off all of this process at once. I mean, they are agog for this and they take it for granted. I mean, whether they're right or whether not, but they assume that Trump will do this and that Trump will be brought into a war with Iran because they're caught up in this sort of psychosis

of excitement and pleasure at what they see as a complete, you know, the dream team for annexation and for finishing the Palestinian project. Before we finish, Alastair, is Prime Minister Netanyahu in political and legal trouble of a gravity that it could threaten his premiership? Israeli intelligence caught a Netanyahu aide leaking top secret documents. A Jerusalem court has just confirmed the aide has been indicted. Bail has been denied.

Now, this is not just some secretary in his office. This is his principal spokesperson and someone in his inner circle. Add to that the Israeli courts have ordered Prime Minister Netanyahu to testify against himself in his own criminal case, which we all thought was an abeyance, but which apparently is back on track. Do these events mean anything? Yes. There's a huge accumulation.

The ones you've just listed, but they go beyond that. The Attorney General has instructed him that he should sack Ben-Gurion for illegal acts in connection with the police, which would bring down the government most likely he has been told by the attorney general that he has got no reason not to start the inquiry into what happened on the 7th of october a grain again a very dangerous prospect for netanyahu the there are running there is a basic tension between the fact that he wants to go further in Lebanon and in Gaza, and the troops are not happy with it, and the military are not happy,

and they are rebelling against it because the casualties are very, very heavy, particularly amongst reservists and also platoon commanders and others, high casualties. So he needs a way out. And this is why I think it's important what's happening, because the timeline is different. For Trump, it is 20th of January, 21st of January, the inauguration. But for Netanyahu, it is the first weeks of December when he will be called to his criminal trial. He needs something, distraction. He needs a war before that. And Iran is the obvious one. Even if Israel is not able to make a success of it. That's even more reason for thought that that will pull in that

great tale of Israel firsters in the United States into supporting Israel even more. But what I don't know, and what I think is the big unanswered question, which I wrote about this week, was the question is, does Trump know, does he understand how changed, how the innovations, military innovations in Iran have actually are game changers? I mean, it is a completely different game now with drones and missile warfare against the old classic aircraft's bombing warfare. And it's changed completely. And the new use of drones to overwhelm air defenses changes the whole pattern, the game. Now, you know, what I think they would like, I think many in that sort of what you call the interagency group need a war. They want an easy war to reestablish their strengths and their bona fides and America's

predominance militarily and politically in the world. And so Iran seems to them an easy war, and it's anything but. But does Trump know that? Has he had it really explained to him that actually it could not only change the whole of the Middle East, but it could disrupt his whole main projects, which are the projects in America, his economic project. It could change the whole economic paradigm very easily with a war on Iran and the consequences of it. It could change his whole position versus both the AIPAC and the interagency structures. So I don't know if this is really important. It's very important because I don't think there was a really fascinating

explanation given by the deputy, the head of military intelligence in Israel, who's just left his post. And he was saying, look, what happened on the 7th of October? I mean, we completely got it wrong because we absolutely operated under the conviction Israel is strong, Hamas is weak. They know that. So there's no rational way that they could attack us or would attack us because they know we are strong and we know they are weak. And this conviction, he said, held so firmly that even when they got information, intelligence coming in saying it wasn't like that, they dismissed it because they said, look, it's ridiculous. We know that Hamas is deterred and it can't happen. And he said to them, even after the 7th of October, some of his staff wouldn't give up that conviction that it was impossible for Hamas to come and strike, Impossible for the axis of resistance to weaken Iran. They just wouldn't accept it. He said at the end of it, he says it's a cultural thing. They can't cope with

it. We are strong and they're weak. Now isn't that just the danger in the United States in respect to Iran. Just the same, culturally, we are the United States, of course we can finish off Iran and destroy its nuclear program easily. And even when the evidence comes in that that isn't, that came in when the last Iranian strike on Israel that showed that wasn't the case. You know, just as General Rums said in that quote I just gave you, he said his people couldn't accept it. They wouldn't culturally, they couldn't accept that evidence. And even after the disaster on the 7th of October, he said that some of them still it upset toned completely all of their sort of

intelligence um um certainties upended it all they still could not accept um that this was the case and he says so changing the personality won't change it. You have to change the culture. And that's very difficult. And that's what I believe Trump is trying to do. And that's why he appointed someone like Tulsi Gabbard to change culture. But it's not easy, as this general pointed out. You know, they firmly stuck in a culture, we're strong, they're weak. So that's it.

Thank you for another brilliant and gifted analysis, Alistair. Very, very much appreciated. I love the way you tied in the hubris of the Israelis to the hubris of the Americans, both very obvious and both very dangerous. Thank you, my dear friend. We'll see you again next week. All the best. Thank you. My pleasure. Thank you, my dear friend. We'll see you again next week. All the best.

Thank you. My pleasure. Thank you. Of course. We have a fascinating day coming up. Of course, we just finished with Alistair. But at 9.30 this morning, Pepe Escobar. At 10 o'clock this morning, Ray McGovern.

At 11 o'clock this morning, Larry Johnson. At 4 this afternoon, Scott Ritter. And at seven tonight, I'm going to moderate a debate between our friend Max Blumenthal and a neocon. You don't want to miss that. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. I'm out.