Judging Freedom - AMB. Chas Freeman: US Arms to Ukraine Halted!

Episode Date: March 4, 2025

AMB. Chas Freeman: US Arms to Ukraine Halted!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This new year, why not let Audible expand your life by listening? Audible CA contains over 890,000 total titles within its current library, including audiobooks, podcasts, and exclusive Audible Originals that'll inspire and motivate you. Tap into your well-being with advice and insight from leading professionals and experts on better health, relationships, career, finance, investing, and more. Maybe you want to kick a bad habit or start a good one. If you're looking to encourage positive change in your life one day and challenge at a time, look no further than Tabitha Brown's I Did a New Thing, 30 Days to Living Free. In the audiobook, Tab shares her own stories and those of others alongside

gentle guidance and encouragement to create these incredible changes for yourself and see what good can come from them. Trust me, listening on Audible can help you reach the goals you set for yourself. Start listening today when you sign up for a free 30-day trial at audible.com slash wonderyca. That's audible.com slash wonderyca. That's audible.com slash wonderyca. Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, March 4th, 2025. Ambassador Charles Freeman is here with us on has the government really stopped sending military supplies to Ukraine? But first this. Markets are at an all-time high. Euphoria has set in. The economy seems unstoppable. But the last administration has buried us so deep in debt and deficits,

it's going to take a lot of digging to get us out of this hole. Are you prepared? Lear Capital specializes in helping people like me and you grow and protect our wealth with gold. Did you know that during Trump's last presidency, gold rose 54% to a record high? If that happens again, that puts gold at $4,200 an ounce in his next term. Don't wait. Do what I did. Call Lear at 800-511-4620 or go to learjudgenap.com for your free gold ownership kit and special report, $4,200 gold ahead.

When you call, ask how you can also get up to $15,000 in bonus gold with a qualifying purchase. Call 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620 or go to learjudgenap.com and tell them the judge sent you. Ambassador Freeman, welcome here, my dear friend, and good day to you. Before we get to the issue at hand, which is the announcement last evening that the United States would halt sending military supplies to Ukraine, the cause of that and the geopolitical result of it. I did want to ask you a few questions about Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be using food, medicine, and water,

the denial of food, medicine, and water as an instrument with which to wreck, sabotage the ceasefire, an instrument of war, a war crime, continuing as genocide, claiming without evidence that the food, medicine, and water that is getting through to the Gazans is being stolen by bandits, and so therefore it's better to starve everybody than enrich the bandits. Your comments on this? Well, clearly this is a war crime, no question about that. It also is part of a long-standing pattern of Israeli reneging on agreements. In this case, there was an agreement on a ceasefire. Phase two was to have begun. Israel refused to negotiate that. Mr. Witkoff, the envoy of President Trump,

then apparently made a proposal which would extend phase one to the benefit of Israel. Hamas rejected that out of hand. Israel then pulled the plug on the humanitarian supplies for Gaza. So this is a war crime with no justification other than deceit. And it should be roundly condemned by everybody. You would think, you would hope, you would expect that Whitcoff, President through Whitcoff, would say, forget it, BB. We don't want any more killing. But I don't know. Haaretz reported that that happened, but I haven't seen that report anywhere else. Do we know if Netanyahu has backed down or if they're still denying food, water and medicine entry into Gaza? Well, there's no evidence that he was backed down. We have an odd contradiction

here where President Trump has just put on 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico and 10% more on China. Basically intended, I think, to show his base that he's a tough guy, but he's not tough on Israel. On Israel, he's basically a wimp. He's extending the policy of Joe Biden. He is morally liable for genocide, is he not? Yes, but in many ways he's even less restrained than Joe Biden was. Biden had to respond to mass protests within his own party. The Republican party is apparently largely at ease with violations of the laws of war, genocide and other actions by Israel.

So Mr. Trump doesn't face the domestic pressure on this that Mr. Biden did. And Mr. Biden's response was pathetic in its limitations. Mr. Trump isn't doing anything at all to carry forward the American traditionentatious of which is Mrs. Adelson. Well, we don't know the details of the transaction with Mrs. Adelson, but it appears that in return for her donation of $100-plus million to the Trump campaign, she

got assurances that he would support the final ethnic cleansing and annexation of the West Bank. And there presumably were assurances also on Gaza. In any event, it doesn't appear that Mr. Trump has any independence from that school of thought. As we speak, the Arab League is meeting. Is this an effective resistance to Israel, or is it tepid, lukewarm, and gutless? Well, the Arab League itself has been remarkably feckless over the decades.

It very seldom does anything significant. Very often it's used by Arab rulers to engage in performative diplomacy with no teeth to it. I think that, however, may be changing. You know, the Israeli atrocities in Gaza, in the West Bank, the invasion of Lebanon, the seizure of Syrian territory for Israel, the attacks on Yemen, the attack on Iran, have done the impossible. They have united Shia and Sunni, and they have united the Arabs in concern about Israel. And so we see the Arabs unanimous in their condemnation of the Trump plan for Gaza, which is basically, as someone said, a repetition of his father's practices in New York real estate, that is, call the cops, expel the tenants, tear the building down and replace it. That is what he seems to be thinking about for Gaza. It has provoked the Arab League and the Arabs generally

to step forward with their own plan for Gaza, which would involve using Palestinians to rebuild Gaza. But against this is the experience that we've seen over decades now, that whatever gets built in Gaza by whomever, whether it's the West or the Arabs, Israel then proceeds to destroy. So there's been an endless cycle of building and destruction, building to try to make life decent for people in Gaza, destruction to make life so difficult that Israel hopes they will flee or they'll simply die in place, as many have. Is the Trump-Gaza-Riviera plan so universally mocked now dead, or do you think that this is still

brewing somewhere? Our friend and colleague Scott Ritter views it as a slap in the face to Netanyahu. You can't deal with Gaza, I will. Our friend Colonel McGregor, views it as something extremely outrageous. The American military just would refuse to oust Gazans from their homeland, and there's no practical way this could happen. Well, it's a fantasy, and it's alive and well, apparently. In Mr. Trump's head, it has been universally condemned. I think Scott Ritter has a point in terms of Israeli domestic politics, it cuts both ways. You have the religious Zionist extremists like Smotrich dancing with joy at the prospect of the eradication of the Palestinian presence in Gaza

and the settlement of Gaza by Israelis. That's one reaction. And then I think you have, indeed, as Scott suggests, another reaction, which is this symbolizes the utter failure of Netanyahu's professed policy of getting rid of Hamas and, by implication, annihilating the Palestinians in Gaza. He can't do it. The United States must do this for him. And it is therefore a bit of a humiliation. Mr. Netanyahu, however, has a very, very thick skin. He seems to be willing to accept all kinds of rebuffs and just charge on with his program, which is the same as the Zionist program has been for a hundred years, and that is dep are ready, willing, able, and prepared to expel

the Israelis from the Philadelphia corridor, and that if this happens, it'll be the moral equivalent of the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand was to the trigger of World War I. Dr. Greger is right about the consequences of warfare over the Philadelphia Corridor. They are exactly as he says, and they would trigger a region-wide assault on Israel, very likely bringing in Turkey as well as the other Arabs. Nobody really wants this. Everybody wants Israel to behave reasonably. But there is a serious danger that this could happen.

I don't think the Egyptians want this. And therefore, I think it would be a last resort on their part. Before we segue over to Ukraine, I'm not a movie buff and I never really heard of this documentary, but a documentary was awarded the best documentary of the year and it was made by two young directors one Israeli and one Palestinian Their comments at the Academy Awards were deeply deeply moving. We've edited it down So it's about 30 seconds each and I'd like to play it and I'd like your thoughts on it Chris

No your thoughts on it. Chris? The Oscar goes to No Other Land. Thank you to the Academy for the award. It's such a big honor for the four of us and everybody who supported us for this documentary. About two months ago, I became a father and my hope to my daughter that she will not have to live the same life I'm

living now, always fearing always always fearing settlers' violence, home demolitions and forest-built displacements that my community, Masaf Riata, is living and facing every day under the Israeli occupation. No other land reflects the harsh reality that we have been enduring for decades and still resist as we call on the world to take serious actions to stop the injustice and to stop the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people.

We made this film, Palestinians and Israelis, because together our voices are stronger. We see each other, the atrocious destruction of Gaza and its people, which must end. The Israeli hostages, brutally taken in the crime of October 7th, which must be freed. When I look at Basel, I see my brother, but we are unequal. We live in a regime where I am free under civilian law, and Basel is under military laws that destroy his life and he cannot control. There is a different path, a political solution, without ethnic supremacy, with national rights for both of our people.

And I have to say, as I am here, the foreign policy in this country is helping to block this path. Why? Can't you see that we are intertwined? That my people can be truly safe if Basel's people are truly free and safe? There is another way. It's not too late for life, for the living. There is no other way. Thank you. That is a very powerful statement. Indeed, eloquent and realistic at the same time. I think it's significant that it was permitted in Hollywood, which has been one of the places in our country which has been most hostile to any expression of concern for Palestinian lives or any effort to bring about a peaceful coexistence between Palestinians and Israelis. It takes an Israeli to come on the stage and say what most Americans seem to be fearful of saying. Very moving, very touching, very profound. My people can be safe when his people can be free. All right, transitioning to Ukraine. What is your view, Ambassador Freeman, of the fallout from the confrontation in the Oval Office on Friday afternoon between President Zelensky and President Trump? Well, there were basically two elements to

that. It was a confrontation of narratives, the official American narrative, which Mr. Zelensky has been the prime spokesman for over the last three years. This was an unprovoked Russian aggression. Russia can't be trusted. this is a military issue, not a political one, it requires a military response, versus Mr. Trump who's looking for peace in Ukraine and by extension in Europe, a political solution to the problems that caused this war. So first and foremost, it was a confrontation between two very different perspectives on what is happening. Second, however, it was also a personal and emotional confrontation. Mr. Trump has a habit of holding on to his grudgesges and he was impeached, not convicted, but impeached in his first term for his interactions with Mr. Zelensky

in an effort to persuade Mr. Zelensky to take down Joe Biden, his opponent. And I think he is emotionally still tormented by this. He wants vengeance. And what has happened since the confrontation is more of the same. That is, we see a battle in the narrative. It's expressed in Europe. Europeans are still talking basically about military solutions to Ukraine.

They have not yet come to agree with Mr. Trump that a political solution is required. We see Mr. Trump doubling down on the invective against Mr. Zelensky, accusing him of all sorts of misdeeds. And Zelensky, not apologetic, but attempting to leave an opening for reconciliation. I don't think that despite the efforts of Europeans like the British, Saker Starmer, to broker a reconciliation between Mr. Zelensky and Mr. Trump, that that is possible. I think we've seen a divorce. It's not a separation. I don't think this is going to get patched up. That has profound implications for Ukraine and for the Ukraine war. We hear calls now by many for Mr. Zelensky to step down.

Elections, Mr. Trump has said that he believes there should be elections. This echoes Vladimir Putin's repeated statements that Zelensky lacks constitutional legitimacy and he can't therefore make a deal and that there needs to be an election to restore legitimacy to the authorities in Kyiv. We're also hearing on the right in the United States from well-known figures in the mega movement demands for the United States

to withdraw from NATO, from the World Bank, and so forth and so on. A very isolationist tone. So far, Mr. Trump has not embraced those demands. But that event in the Oval Office was epic setting. It may result in the dissolution of NATO. It could result in a much more isolationist American policy generally. There are rumors in Europe this morning that President Trump will announce that he plans to withdraw from NATO tonight when he addresses the Congress. These are just rumors. I don't know the origin of them or whether there's any factual basis to them. But in your view, Ambassador, what would become of NATO if the United States withdrew? Well, it would be a vehicle for European defense system, certainly. I don't think

withdrawing from NATO is wise, although I've long favored the Europeanization of NATO. That is, the United States should move off the front line to the back, where the back up. And I say that because I think the history of the 20th century shows that North America and Europe are part of a single geopolitical zone, and that we need to be concerned about the direction of affairs in Europe. Several times in the 20th century, we were dragged into wars in Europe as the system there broke down. And we have provided an essential balancing role. Russia needs to provide a balancing role also.

The biggest mistake that was made after World War I was the excommunication of the two great powers, Russia and Germany, from any role in the management of European affairs. That brought about World War II and arguably was the genesis of the Cold War as well. So change is required. I hope it doesn't involve U.S. withdrawal from NATO.

I hope it involves an adjustment in U.S. relations with NATO to reduce our exposure. Here's Prime Minister Stormer on Sunday. Now, after the conflagration in the Oval Office, President Zelensky flew to London, met with Prime Minister Stormer, met with King Charles. I don't know what came of the meeting with King Charles, but anyway, they met. Then on Sunday, European leaders, many of them flew to London. At the end of that meeting, Prime Minister Starmer said the following, Chris, cut number two. We will go further to develop a coalition of the willing to defend a deal in Ukraine and to guarantee the peace. a chyfeillgar o'r hyder i ddyfynnu cwrs yn Ucraine ac i gawrannu'r haes. Nid y bydd pob dyn yn teimlo'n gallu cyfrannu, ond nid yw hynny'n golygu ein bod yn seilio'n ôl.

Yn hytrach, bydd y rhai hyderus yn ymgymryd â rhaglen nawr, gyda phwysigrwydd wir. Mae'r DU yn barod i gefnogi hyn, gyda chyfnodion ar y grawn a phlain yn y gair, gyda'r eraill. The UK is prepared to back this, with boots on the ground and planes in the air, together with others. Europe must do the heavy listing. But to support peace in our continent, and to succeed, this effort must have strong US backing. We're working with the US on this point, after my meeting with President Trump last week. And let me be clear, we agree with the President on the urgent need for a durable peace. Now we need to deliver together. How realistic is this?

British boots on the ground and planes in the air. How long would they last there? Not very long. I mean, this is totally unrealistic. It represents the continued search for some sort of military solution, perpetuating the military confrontation, but reducing the level of violence, basically, peacekeeping forces in Ukraine from NATO. Well, the war began because Russia could not tolerate the prospect of NATO forces in Ukraine, and this is totally unacceptable to the Russians. It will simply perpetuate the fighting. We have a situation rather like that in Korea in 1950, 51, 52, in which the fighting continues as the negotiations develop. And I don't think any European, not just the British,

has any significant capability to confront the Russians on the ground in Ukraine. So in the end, there must be a settlement between Russians, Ukrainians, and Russians, Europeans, and Americans. And that has to be a political solution, not a military one. And here we have the odd result of these meetings in London that basically the Europeans who met there are working up a plan to present to President Trump, not to Vladimir Putin, not to Volodymyr Zelensky, but to Mr. Trump.

I don't know what prospect it has of being accepted by Mr. Trump, but I think he's quite realistic on this issue. He knows that Ukrainian neutrality is essential. Ukrainian neutrality cannot include NATO presences in Ukraine. I don't know whether he has studied the 1955 Austrian State Treaty, but that is the model for Ukraine. It created an independent, prosperous, democratic Austria with protections for the rights of its minorities. It's the Italians and the Tyrol, the Slovenes, the Hungarians and others who are in part of the Austrian fabric. So there are models to be

followed, but they do not include occupation of Ukraine by foreign forces or peacekeeping troops on its territory. If there are peacekeeping troops for a while to manage a transition, they're going to have to come from the global south, which has been neutral in this war. Some people have talked about China, India, and others. I think more realistically, given the charges against China, that it has taken sides, which I don't think is correct. Those charges are not correct. But still, we all have to deal with the vilification of each other in this war. And so if there are peacekeeping forces, they're going to have to come from places like Ghana and, I don't know, Uruguay and others who have played an important role in peacekeeping efforts elsewhere.

Ambassador Freeman, a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you so much for joining us. Look forward to seeing you again next week. Very good. Sure. Have a great day. Coming up, Professor Gilbert Doctorow, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Pepe Escobar, Professor Glenn Deason, Aaron Mate, and Professor John Mearsheimer. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.