Judging Freedom - AMB. Ian Proud: Trump and Ukraine.

Episode Date: January 9, 2025

AMB. Ian Proud: Trump and Ukraine.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

At Ritual, we know what goes into a magical holiday season. The potluck planning, the gift giving, the spreadsheets. This new year, take a moment for yourself with simple daily rituals that help you put your foundational health at the top of your to-do list. Ritual's Essential for Women 18 Plus Multivitamin is a clinically-backed multivitamin featuring nine high-quality key essential ingredients to help you fill key nutrient gaps in your diet. Or maybe you're stressing your daily protein intake, or you want to double down on support for your gut microbiome. From plant-based essential protein to three-in-one pre-, pro-, and postbiotic strains with Symbiotic Plus, Ritual helps you focus on supporting your body after a long season of juggling everybody else. And for a limited time,

do it with 30% off a three-month supply at ritual.com slash podcast. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, January 9th, 2025. Former British diplomat and now Judging Freedom regular Ian Proud joins us now. Ian, a pleasure, a belated happy new year to you and gratitude for your work with us in 2024. And I hope and trust it can continue into 2025. It's a pleasure to be able to pick your brain. Thank you. I want to spend some time with you on the British response or understanding of President-elect Trump and Ukraine. But before we do, some other issues that I need your thoughts on.

What is the British role, whether it's military or MI6, in the genocide in Gaza? Well, we've been supplying weapons and dual-use equipment to the Israeli regime for, frankly, as long as I can remember. The new Labour government made a slight amendment to its export licensing regulations. But nevertheless, we still have unchecked pretty much weapon supplies to Israel. So we're kind of complicit. but we're not really the main actors in that theater obviously the us has by far the most influence over israel which frankly has not much influence at all quite frankly in terms of constraining netanyahu's behavior so the uk is a bit part player however because we've continued to supply parts of weapons people see us complicit essentially

in that genocide particularly within you know uh protest groups in the uk that for understandable reasons support the palestinian cause does the uk have laws which it disobeys we all know governments break their own laws much as the the U.S. does, which prohibit the distribution, sale or permission for use of military equipment to regimes that practice apartheid or genocide. Yes, we do. We have actually quite strict export licensing regulations, but every single license request if you like goes through a minister a government minister has to approve a license and therefore you know bureaucrats look at it and actually they say well you know genocide hasn't been proven yet there's a case in the international criminal court so you know we can't use that as a justification not to supply this

uh you know these weapons so um you know until until there's actually a genocide proved at the moment, it seems to me that export license applications are still being signed. How much evidence do they need? The International Criminal Court, it's either 15 of 16 or 16 of 17 of the jurists there concluded there's probable cause to believe there's a genocide. The British Lancet has demonstrated more conclusively than any medical people of which I'm aware of the number of innocents that have been slaughtered. Haaretz, the Israeli daily, continues to recount the mosques and hospitals and schools and stores and shops and homes that are destroyed. Our colleague Max Blumenthal recounted that the head administrator of the last standing Gaza hospital is being tortured. Even as we speak, What more do they need? You could say the same thing to me, but the American government is obtuse when it comes to Israel. Is the British

government so monolithic that it will deny and defy? This is such a long question against all the rules. My apologies. Deny or defy reality? Well, I don't know the term toots as a good Englishman, but I associate myself with that term and apply it equally to the British government. I think we should be supplying no weapons to Israel because of the quite horrendous genocide that's going on that's

killed, you know, up to 50,000 innocent people, including children. But nevertheless, as an eminent judge and jurist yourself, you know, you'll understand the concept of sub judice. And I believe that's a sort of cloak under which, you know, British bureaucrats are going to be hiding. Right. The concept is that we are still deliberating. We haven't come out with a final decision yet. Therefore, the defendant is not yet guilty. Here's someone, you'll recognize his face in a moment, I don't even have to introduce him, who disagrees with you and me and just about everybody that watches this show on the issue of genocide.

Sonia, cut number six. Did Terry Blinken worry that perhaps you have been presiding over what the world will see as a genocide? No. It's not, first of all. Second, as to how the world sees it, I can't fully answer to that. But everyone has to look at the facts and draw their own conclusions from those facts. And my conclusions are clear. Did he give a realistic answer? Did he sound credible? Did he sound like he believed himself what he was saying? I don't want to cast

judgment on American political figures Go right ahead. He's a disgrace. This is the man who delayed decisions on cutting off weapons shipments to Israel until after the presidential election in the United

States, knowing full well as he did that the Democrats were likely to lose it. It was the ultimate in kicking the responsibility can down the road at that time. This man has no ethics and morals whatsoever. And quite frankly, he finds himself in good company with his British equivalents. I completely confess to that. But what a complete abrogation of responsibility and a complete tone-deaf denial of his complicity in a U.S. inaction. You know, in a saner time, maybe under the Trump administration, who knows, he could be prosecuted for war crimes.

I mean, he is largely, since the president is a bit out of it mentally, he is largely the person most responsible for this. Remember how he greeted Prime Minister Netanyahu on October 6th or 7th, or when it was after the 7th, so 8th or 9th, he didn't say, I come to you as the Secretary of State of the United States. He said, I come to you as a Jew. Our people refer to him, because he is a lawyer, our people refer to him as Netanyahu's lawyer. Is MI6 involved in any way in Israel and Gaza, either working with CIA or working with Mossad? Well, it's open source knowledge that the CIA, MI6, and Mossad have a very close working relationship,

and that's about as much as I'm prepared to say. But, yeah, of course they work very closely on it, a very close working relationship. And that's about as much as I'm prepared to say. But yeah, of course, they work very closely on it. Whether they're actually involved in the tactical nature of the horrendous things that the Israeli government is doing is frankly less clear. I would be very surprised if they were, frankly speaking. I don't think even British ministers would condone that. But they do have a very close and strong working relationship. Does the British Prime Minister have the level of control over MI6 that the American

President has over the CIA? Or is MI6 independent of the Prime Minister? Well, MI6 actually works for the Foreign Secretary, strictly speaking, the Blinken equivalent. And everything theoretically, at least that they do, has to be signed off by ministers, including legal justifications to assassinate people overseas. Even those sorts of decisions have to be signed off by British government ministers. So technically, you know, there is oversight. I don't know how much oversight Joe Biden would have had over the CIA. But on a day-to-day basis, as you can imagine, they're largely free to kind of do whatever they please. Who is the British foreign minister now that David Cameron has been ousted because of the change in the government?

Well, we've had this cast list of, frankly, dreadful characters. The latest one is called David Lammy, another David, number nine foreign secretary in the space of 10 years. He doesn't really seem to be any better. And of course, because they stay for such a short period of time, their ability to really understand what's going on in the swamp is limited because they're not really around long enough, you know, to really sort of get under the surface of all the murky stuff

that's happening, you know, behind the scenes. Makes you wonder if they will even take responsibility for what they're doing, if they even grasp the gravity of what they're doing. The case of Lincoln, whatever you think of him, he's been around the block, as we say in the U.S., many, many times. He knows exactly what he's doing. He knows exactly who our allies are.

He knows exactly what the law is, and he knows exactly what he can get away with. Well, he's in this club with Sullivan. I don't know, and I don't know anything about him. Yeah, he's in this club with Sullivan and Newland. It's kind of a terrible trio. Certainly when it comes to my favorite topic, Ukraine. He was there at TSA when Biden was vice president, Blinken,

and Newland and Sullivan were a terrible duo in state. So Newland is now a professor at Columbia University in New York City, as is Hillary Clinton, and the rumor is that Secretary Blinken is going there as well. This has caused Jeff Sachs to age about 20 years overnight. President Zelensky will be next. Oh, good God. He'll be teaching there soon. Zelensky right here in New York City. Ambassador, over the weekend, President Trump made a number of Trumpian comments,

one of which was if the Israeli hostages are not released by the time he's inaugurated, which is just two weeks now uh there will be hell to pay what could he possibly mean what could possibly be worse than what has already happened in Gaza well that's exactly what I was going to say judge you know what what could they possibly do having completely flattened Gaza, killed 50,000 innocent people,

still been unable to find the majority of the hostages. And God bless them, you know, everybody should want for these hostages to be released, you know, just through basic humanity, we should all want for that. But when they have tried to kind of find them, many of them have ended up dead and the majority still remain in captivity. So, you know, what Trump could possibly do, I mean, it doesn't really seem that he'd have the ability to kind of do any worse or any more, frankly, than what Israel is doing. Is the UK an ally of Israel in the legal sense? Is there a treaty of alliance between the two? Because, of course, as you know, there is none between the U.S. and Israel.

We have a complicated relationship with Israel dating back to 1948, as you'll kind of understand. But we also have very, very strong relations with the Gulf Arab States, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and so on. So we're not as deep into the Israel relationship, ironically, as the United States, which is going to massively committed to it. We are an ally with Israel, but also we have more enduring and, frankly, more important. Well, is it bilateral? What does the UK get in return?

Well, not a great deal frankly i mean the bilateral trade isn't isn't that great we get obviously intelligence and security kind of cooperation such that it is mossad is is a very effective operation as you know so you know but you know it is an important ally in the region we want it to kind of maintain its statehood against kind of regression over the past decades you know all, all the stuff that we know about. But I mean, it's not our most, frankly, important alliance in any way, if it can even be called an alliance. Moving on to the area of the world, which has become your expertise, are there UK troops on the ground in Ukraine or in Russia? Well, in Russia, no, because we no longer have a defence section in Moscow. There may be British mercenaries having operated in Kursk. One of them was captured a few months

ago, I believe. So mercenaries, yes. Actual troops declared no. Declared troops in Ukraine, probably yes, in a liaison sort of role, including at the British embassy in Kiev itself. So yes, but not in any numbers, even though, you know, TGK has been talking about, you know, possibly having bigger training teams permanently based, you know. Well, when the Ukrainians launch, forgive me, I think it's called the Storm Shadow, a British offensive missile that goes into Russia. Does that require the employment of British technicians because of secret national security secrets implicated in the use of it, much as when the Ukrainians want to use American attack, only American personnel can deploy them. Well, they all, frankly, rely on American intelligence and targeting data, you know,

satellite data. So, no, I mean, they will have been trained in how to use them outside of Ukraine because there's this massive military training operation in the UK that trains Ukrainians how to fly F-16s, how to drive tanks, how to fire missiles and shoot guns and everything else. So the actual training in how to do that kind of stuff wouldn't have needed to be done in Ukraine itself. But obviously liaison, military intelligence and other types of liaison will be happening, but not in a very practical nuts and bolts sense of the term. And obviously MI6 is present in Ukraine and in Russia, just as CIA is.

Well, I mean, everywhere. Yes. You know, a lot of our intelligence people, Ambassador, say that MI6 has the lead role over CIA and, of course, SBU, the Ukrainian intel, is totally subservient to MI6. Do you subscribe to that view? No. view uh no i mean any any country you go to i mean the u.s presence in ukraine the diplomatic presence therefore the intelligence presence you know will be much bigger than the uk presence so i mean it just in terms of of numbers of people you know on the us side they can deploy into the field you know will be far greater than the uk side i mean there's not even not even close frankly although understandably the uk plays a considerable role.

We're probably second in the pack behind the US, I'd say. Is the UK involvement in Ukraine motivated by some ideological view that Vladimir Putin is evil and the Russians are bad, or is it merely parroting what the U.S. wants? Please be candid. I mean, I'd say it's both, actually. I mean, we have a longer historical enmity with Russia than the United States of America.

You know, yours has only kind of really emerged since the end of the Second World War, the start of the Cold the cold war ours goes back to the 18th and 19th centuries you know in in central asia so it goes that deep uh but in terms of the things we do in terms of policy with russia you know very much the us has the upper hand in leading on that and because at the moment under biden at least it aligns with what we think, then it's easy for us to follow. The challenge for us will be when Trump decides to pivot, however he decides to pivot after he becomes president, and us being left in no man's land, flailing around with the Germans and the French coming on side with the Americans,

and us having to fall on behind, I think, is what's going to happen. Well, you've led right into my next question. What happens if Trump turns off the spigot of aid, just like that? What will the British do to Ukraine? What will the British do? Well, we cannot match, you know, the sheer sums of money that the United States of America has been pumping into Ukraine. We spoke about the kind of 20 billion just shuffled across the road to the World Bank a couple of times ago. You know, when we spoke, they've just sent across another kind of 8 billion,

another 500 million in the past. You know, our total spending, even in a big year, is only about 5 billion max, and that includes humanitarian aid and military aid. So, you know, we can't match, you know, the sums that the US.S. provide. And if U.S. policy changes, our policy will have to change

because we will never be able to give the Ukraine the same amount of support. And, you know, Ukraine's losses on the battlefield will accelerate. What will happen to NATO, Ambassador, if Donald Trump pulls the U.S. out? Well, I don't think he will quite frankly because you know nato is a massive gravy train for u.s defense contractors uh that you know get 57 of nato business in terms of arms sales so i don't think he is gonna put it out uh at all i don't see why i mean he's talking up you know um europe spending more on their collective defense therefore on us uh you know weapon systems five percent completely you know unrealistic partly that's allowing the us to focus more on the pacific threat

you know china and letting europe fend off russia by itself but that's not necessarily a bad thing is us going to leave nato i don't think so there's too much money in it fend off Russia by itself. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. Is the US going to leave NATO? I don't think so. There's too much money in it. What is your understanding of the current almost caricature, almost cartoonish dispute between Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and Elon Musk, the world's wealthiest man?

I mean, it's bizarre. I mean, firstly, Elon Musk is worth twice as much as the whole country of Ukraine, which in itself is... I thought you were going to say twice as much as the UK, but let's not do that. Go ahead. He may be soon. Yeah, who knows?

But at the moment, it's twice as much as ukraine it's bizarre it's all about uh when keir starmer was a former chief prosecutor prosecutor for the united kingdom called the director of public prosecutions you will have an attorney general it's kind of a bit like that sort of role you know in the us uh system and a period of time when grooming gangs in the north of England that were grooming young girls to have gang raped them basically you know wasn't addressed with sufficient vigor by the justice system essentially and there was an inquiry about this and you know Keir Starmer was this figure at the time lots of people don't think he did enough for some reason now ellen musk has decided to bring it up again i don't know why

he's he's chosen you know to do that now he just seems to have this general hatred of of starmer uh possibly because he's supporting this kind of nigerian fighters you know reform uh you know party but it's a as you say it it's cartoonish. What the hell? Elon Musk has British citizenship? Does Keir Starmer even care what Elon Musk says? Elon Musk is a citizen of the world. He seems to have citizenship

everywhere. I mean, maybe he'll be next. Who knows? But he's South African and American, I believe, are his two kind of key nationalities. I don't think he's South African and American, I believe, are his two kind of key nationalities. I don't think he's got British citizenship. Yeah, I don't know what, I mean, he's weighing in all sorts of Greenland debate.

You know, he's got his, he has so much power, this kind of, this autistic man, brilliantly gifted, literally from a Marvel movie kind of super villain type character. You know, you can see him emerging that way. He's getting his own everywhere. It's actually quite scary, I think, for US democracy more than for UK democracy, I suspect. Is there any evidence to support the allegation

that Sir Keir was less than aggressive in prosecuting these thugs? I mean, there are thugs and there are thugs. There are thugs that you can prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and there are thugs that you don't have the evidence to prove it. Yeah, these are pedophiles and gang rapists, actually. But, no, I mean, there was a full inquiry which concluded that insufficient action at several tiers of the system, including the social services system and that sort of thing happened.

Keir Starmer was responsible for one bit of the system. I mean, I think it was the ineffective director of public prosecutions. Other people can judge. It's just a bizarre thing. More work needs to be done to clamp down on this sort of dreadful criminal behavior. Everybody must agree on that. Got it. Ambassador Ian Proud, a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you for joining us. I hope

you'll come back again next week. Thank you, Judge. Looking forward to it. Looking forward to seeing you again. Thank you. All the best. Coming up at two o'clock this afternoon, Professor John Mearsheimer. And at three o'clock, he's champing at the bit to come here because we haven't heard from him in a couple of weeks. Colonel Larry Wilkerson, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.