Judging Freedom - AMB. Chas Freeman : Why Moscow Has Little Reason to Negotiate

Episode Date: January 27, 2026

AMB. Chas Freeman : Why Moscow Has Little Reason to NegotiateSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Undeclared wars are commonplace. Pragically, our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression with no complaints from the American people. Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government. To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected. What if sometimes to love your country you had to alter or abolish the government? Jefferson was right? What if that government is best which governs least? What if it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong? What if it is better to perish fighting for

freedom than to live as a slave? What if freedom's greatest hour of danger is now? What if freedom's greatest hour of danger is now? Hello, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for judging freedom. Today is Tuesday, January 27th, Ambassador Chas Freeman will be with us in a moment. What are they talking about in Abu Dhabi? And why are they killing people in Minneapolis? But first this. History tells us every market eventually falls.

Currencies collapse. And look at where we are now. 38 trillion in national debt. Stocks at record highs defying gravity. So what happens next? Groceries, gas, housing, Everything's going up, and this dollar, it buys less every day. When the system breaks, your stocks won't save you and your dollars won't either.

But one thing will, gold. I've set it on my show for years. Gold survives collapse. Central bankers know this and billionaires know it. That's why they're buying more. Is it too late to buy or is it just the right time? Call my friends at Lear Capital to find out. Ask questions. Get the free information. There's no pressure. And that's why I buy my gold and silver from Lear.

And right now, you can get up to $20,000 in bonus medals with a qualified purchase. Call 800, 511, 4620, or go to Learjudgeonap.com today. Ambassador Freeman, welcome here, my friend. No matter what we talk about, it's a pleasure to have the benefit of your analysis. Before we get to Abu Dhabi and the so-called negotiations going on there, what is your take on this latest ice killing in Minneapolis, the one where they shot this nurse nine times in the back? Well, I think there are a number of things that have happened as a result of that. The shameless lying by the administration, which completely contradicts what we can all see. on the videos of that murder, it has basically delegitimized the government to an alarming degree,

such that the president is having to retract some of what has been going on, not apparently on the ground, on humanitarian grounds, or because he empathizes with the victims of the ICE oppression in Minneapolis, but because it's politically damaging to him, he can see his popularity going down. There are moves to impeach the Secretary of Homeland Security, Christenom. And so the backlash is growing, and it has to be addressed. I think the appearance that we present to the world is also damaging. We are, in many ways, losing our global centrality.

We enjoyed that because people thought we aspired to a higher standard. We don't anymore. People thought we were respectful of the human rights that were first defined in the European Enlightenment, and we're not. And of course, the dollar was the universal currency. Now we see everyone scurrying away from the dollar, which is falling in value. We see the Europeans doing a major trade deal with India in order to get away from us. We once had the world's largest open consumer market. We've closed that down.

And so we see others continuing. with globalization as we retreat from it. This is not a good situation at all. Can you draw a mental line from the murders of people in boats in the Caribbean and the ice killings on the streets of Minneapolis? Yes, what they have in common is complete lawlessness, complete disregard for due process for the concept of procedural justice. justice, that is that the legitimacy of an outcome is determined by whether the process is faithfully followed.

We now have no respect for the constitutional Fourth Amendment, which against unreasonable assertion Caesar. We've all seen videos of ICE breaking down doors with no warrants to go in and often apparently on false, on the basis of false intelligence, to nab people who are completely innocent, who've seen people dragged out of their bedrooms naked onto the ice-cold streets of Minneapolis. And, yeah, the two have in common complete disregard for constitutional authority for the Bill of Rights, for procedural justice, the rule of law. And the same mentality as behind both. It's one of nihilism.

It doesn't have values. It doesn't feel restrained by the Constitution. It doesn't respect common decency. It doesn't respect the good. It doesn't respect right from wrong. And it's unleashed these guys, these poorly trained ICE agents, and telling them, don't worry, you can't be prosecuted. Okay.

Ask Lon Horiucci. Do you remember him? the FBI sharpshooter at Ruby Ridge. The FBI was trying to arrest a guy, Mr. Horiucci, shot his wife in the back and was prosecuted by the state of Idaho for murder. So this is a terrible state of affairs. The government lies even to its own employees

to get them to feel they are above the law and can do what they want. this is this poor guy being shot in the back. Now he's not on all fours. He's on a leg and an arm and a foot. He's blind at that point because they sprayed him in his face with pepper spray. Why did they spray him with pepper spray? Look at his right hand.

That's his iPhone. It's not his gun. His gun has already been removed from him. He was photographing them and that's why they temporarily blinded him. The last thing he saw before he gave up the ghost was pepper spray coming at his face. Well, let's also note that the reason he was shot is that he carried a gun. Well, he was a licensed gun carrier under the Second Amendment, as we now interpret it. He had every right to do that.

Yes. It's a violation of the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the First Amendment, and a complete case of injustice. And it is so egregious that even the Republican Party, which has behaved like a Leninist establishment in support of the president, is beginning to flake away from him. Here is a montage on the... the Second Amendment.

It's a little disturbing, but this is the government's attitude. Chris, cut number eight. Who goes to a protest and brings a gun? I mean, was he not asking for some kind of trouble in that situation? But as Secretary Nome said, no one who wants to be peaceful shows up at a protest with a firearm that is loaded with two full magazines.

That is not a peaceful protest. And I don't know of any. peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign. I'm sorry that this gentleman is dead, but he did bring a nine millimeter semi-automatic weapon with two cartridges to what was supposed to be a peaceful protest. Peaceful protesters don't have nine millimeter weapons. He wasn't there to peacefully protest. He was there to perpetuate violence. I mean, as you know, he was an ICU nurse, worked for the Veterans Administration, and there's no

evidence that he brandished the gun whatsoever. The fact that it appears that he was disarmed before he brought a gun. I've been to a protest. Guess what? I didn't bring a gun. I brought a billboard. You cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It's that simple.

You don't have that right. You know what they're talking about. Minnesota law expressly permits carrying a firearm to a protest. You remember this kid, whom the conservative Republicans, lauded, Kyle, I forget his last name. He was acquitted of using that weapon to incite violence, but because he was one of theirs, they praised his carrying a weapon to a protest to the skies. Well, the absurdity of this is really brought home by the usual National Rifle Association

sponsored argument that you need to carry a gun to be safe. You need to be carrying a gun in order to avoid oppression by the government. You need to be carrying a gun in order to assure your rights are respected. Here,

we've just heard administration officials tear that argument to shreds. You have no right to carry a gun if your opinion differs from the official one. This is... All right, we'll we'll move on.

You're 100% correct on the second amendment. The young man with the rifle, now this is five or six years ago, is a grown adult by now, I would assume Kyle Rittenhouse, who could forget that case?

Last weekend, Vladimir Zelensky, I can't call him President Zelensky, even though a lot of people do. It was term expired, but he stayed there, and another issue for another time, said He'd never surrender any territory. Now, unless this is just PAP stated for political reasons back home,

why would the Russians bother negotiating with him? The idea of Ukrainian neutrality and Russian acquisition of what Russia says is Russia, is not negotiable. I think that's correct. So I assume you're, you're, conjecture that Vladimir Zelensky is playing to a home audience that hardline people from Western Ukraine who caused him to reverse his campaign pledges when he became president. And instead of seeking peace and compromise with Russia and Russian speakers to turn against Russia

in service of the United States in a regime change operation. I mean, there are great irony here is that the purpose of this war from our point of view, NATO point of view, has been to engineer regime change or to cause the Russian state to fail so that there is regime change. And what is produced is Ukraine as a failed state. Ukraine is in tatters. No heat. no electricity, huge population movements out of the country, and the prospect of a kind of

failed state with no certain borders looming in the future. So this is not serious. Now I think we don't know much about what's going on in Abu Dhabi. I assume these are proximity talks, meaning that the American envoys, Wittkov, Kushner, and so on, are shuttling between the two, the Russians and the Ukrainians. It is a positive thing that the Russians and Ukrainians are willing to meet even in that format, if that's what's happening. And apparently they've agreed to another meeting. So basically, they're setting up a forum, a procedure, which, when the time is ripe, could yield an end to the war. And that war will end

on the terms that the Russians dictate because they have the upper hand. And Ukraine is not strengthening its hand by continuing to fight, quite the contrary. If Russians and Ukrainians are in the same room, or at least in the same building or complex of buildings, is this a first?

Is this the first time that there's been any face-to-face or via Americans from one room to another? I don't know how they're seated. Communication between them. Is this a good thing or is it a facade? Well, it is a good thing, as I said, because it does establish a precedent for talk. There have been talks, of course, before, but mainly on technical issues like the exchange of missing in action. or prisoners of war.

Right, right. And there were those very successful until Joe Biden and Boris Johnson got involved negotiations in Istanbul four years ago. Exactly. Actually, Ukraine and Russia came to an accommodation, which would have prevented this war from doing all the horrible damage it has done to Ukraine and to a lesser extent to Russia. So, yes, there's their precedence.

But, you know, we've gone through a long period. You mentioned Biden and Johnson. During the entire Biden administration, it was absolutely no diplomacy conducted with the Russians. I think there was one effort by the director of the CIA, Burns, to reach out to the Russia. The Secretary of State never did that, never went to Russia, never invited his counterpart to Washington,

and never conducted a serious discussion in a third country. So at least that's happening. And even if it's all for show, and just in the case of the Russians, showing that they are, as they've said from the beginning, they've always been willing to negotiate. Ukraine has been the holdout on that. And what you quoted Zelensky is saying,

it suggests that Ukraine is still not really interesting. interested in accommodating reality. I wonder, Scott Ritter has given this view that the reason for cutting off heat, electricity, and water is to drive people out of the cities before the cities are attacked so that there is a reduction in the loss of life. Well, he might be right about that. But whatever the purpose, this has become a war of attrition. And Russia is now after, I think really the evidence shows very carefully trying to minimize civilian casualties in Ukraine, has now adopted the standard that we adopted in World War II when we fire bombed Germany and Japan and basically to turn to a strategy of killing as many civilians as possible in order to.

achieve regime change and an end to the war. The Russians seem to me to be on that track now. I'd like to switch topics to another field of your expertise, which is China. What is happening between President Xi and China's senior military leadership and is whatever is happening a cause for concern in Washington? I think it should be cause for concern, in part, because we don't really understand what went into this decision. The Jong-yo-Shia, the senior figure in this purge, is 75 years old. You know, there are at least three reasons that you fire generals in when you're, when you're, when,

you purge people in the military. One is if you consider that they may be disloyal, and there are indications that Zhang had his own little faction, which Xi Jinping regarded as potentially threatening. Second reason is that you want to clear the decks, put more competent leadership in that will execute the plans that you have. There are some people in China saying that Zhang and Leo, the other purged figure were not effectively achieving the mandate that Xi Jinping had given them

to be ready to invade Taiwan in next year. And the training cycle and the preparations for that were not satisfactory from C's point of view. And he wanted to put in more aggressive people. And the third reason, of course, which probably is a factor in this, is corruption. And the main issue there, in my view, is the bribery of people like John by others in order to get promotions or be put into billets that they desire. Instead of meritocracy, you have corruption. none of these things

I mean it may be all three of these factors I think it ought to be a considerable concern and but I don't know that at this point we have a good beat on what the purpose was it could be an ominous signal to Taiwan right right so

president sees people have accused this senior general this would be like the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the United States of actually being bribed by the United States. It's almost inconceivable that somebody in that position would destroy his career, his life, his freedom, his legacy for cash.

I don't think it was that that was the bribery issue, actually. And I tend to look at that as very similar to the charges against General Millie by the Trump administration. They demoted him. They removed his security detail on the grounds that he had communicated with. with China without appropriate approval. He actually convinced the Chinese who believed that we were about to attack him that we were not, and that contact with the Chinese was enormously useful and he should be commended for it,

but instead he was punished. So I suspect that this is a political excuse. Basically, for whatever reason, Xi Jinping and company want to make Zhang and Liu appear to be despicable scoundrels with no credibility. That destroys their political faction support and power. It justifies their removal without getting into the details of an argument that may have occurred about preparations for doing Taiwan. And it also sends a signal to everyone that corruption really will not be tolerated even at the top.

Why is this a potential danger sign for Taiwan? Well, the Chinese, as our own military, increasingly say, have not been just engaging in shows of force against Taiwan for purposes of intimidation. They are rehearsing an invasion and a blockade. And with every exercise they conduct, they put in new capabilities. So this is a serious effort. What the end point of it is is not clear. I think the Chinese very much want to be able to intimidate Taiwan to the extent that they

can make it an offer it can't refuse without having to fight. As soon as I said, the best victories are those that are produced without fighting. But they're getting ready if they have to go to war to do that. And as they get ready, they notice that the United States is flailing around internationally, has a very uncertain set of policies, is no longer, you know, as I mentioned earlier, we're no longer at the center of everything. And when we do agreements with people, for example, South Korea, we reverse them at will. We've just put a 25% tariff on South Korea on the grounds that.

It hasn't come through with the $350 billion package of investment in the U.S. that we extorted from it. I never thought that was real in the beginning, and I guess my skepticism was justified. But the overall signal to the world, to India, for example, which just did this major trade deal with Europe, is nothing in the United States you says can be counted upon. And if you're Taiwanese, you're worried. Well, Ambassador Freeman, thank you very much. Thanks for letting me interrogate you

from Minneapolis to Abu Tabi to Taiwan. Very, very informative and helpful. And as always, thanks for accommodating my schedule, Ambassador. Stay warm. It might actually be colder where you are than where I am and a single digits here.

Look forward to seeing you next week. Okay. If I'm not frozen, I'll be there. All right. Thank you, Ambassador. And coming up at 10 o'clock, he's probably in some warm place. I'm not sure where he is.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs at 11. Aaron Mote at 2. Matt Ho at 3. Colonel Karen Koukowsky, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom.