Judging Freedom - COL. Lawrence Wilkerson: Trump and the War in Ukraine.

Episode Date: January 30, 2025

COL. Lawrence Wilkerson: Trump and the War in Ukraine.See 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. With courses available online 24-7 and monthly start dates, WGU offers maximum flexibility so you can focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu. Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, January 30th, 2025. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson joins us now. Colonel Wilkerson, always a pleasure. Thank you for sharing this time with you. I do want to talk to you at some length about President Trump and the Kremlin and the war in Ukraine. But before we get there, first to Israel, do you think that Donald Trump has the same contempt for the personal freedom of the

Palestinian people that Joe Biden has manifested? I don't attribute that to Trump. I don't think he thinks about things in those dimensions. So I think that's hard to say about him, but I wouldn't attribute that to him. I do think that he's got a grand scheme going here. I think I'm beginning to detect some of the signs of it. And the scheme includes working with MBS for his long-term 25-year, 30-year plan, fully funded, that includes rehabilitation of Lebanon and a stretch of economic power all the way up through the Levant, and a deal with Iran on its nuclear program, which will be sort of a codicil to that big deal, and somehow to shut down this fracas, genocide, whatever we want to call it. Genocide is probably better, in Gaza. And I think that latter is going to be extremely difficult because I think he's going to have to get rid of Netanyahu in order to do that part of the point. I was going to go there. I mean,

his suggestion that a million and a half human beings should be forcibly removed from their homeland and sent to Egypt and Jordan, and Egypt and Jordan will reject this out of hand. These people would die. They would starve in the Sinai desert. Of course, they'd be rejecting the billions of dollars we're sending them to. Look at what he's just done, apparently, 30,000 people to Guantanamo. Well, at one time, we did have a capability there on a temporary basis, looking at the Mariel Boatlift in 1980, I think it was, looking at the Haitian exodus and such. We contemplated using Guantanamo several times, so we built it out with about 30,000 spaces. But those are old, and I suspect rat infested.

We got 8,500 of our own people on Guantanamo. So this is a preposterous suggestion, and he's probably going to put, and I hope Hegseth stands up to him on this, he's going to put the onus on the 8,500 U.S. who are there to take these people and deal with them and forget about it in terms of cost and rehabilitation. I don't want to get too far afield, but knowing Pete, he's not the type to stand up to Donald Trump. He's the type to say, when do you want it done, sir? Well, he did do something with the Tuskegee Airmen. I hope that's because he didn't have to do much convincing, but taking the Tuskegee Airmen out of their very featured spot in DOD's history was telling all blacks to get out of the military and don't

come in. Well, that would be preposterous. It would be unconstitutional and it would be racist. It would, but they were going to do it. Wow. All right, back to Israel. Will Trump allow Netanyahu and the donor class which elected him to bully or control Trump? I think that's hard to do. That's my own intuition anyway, that he's going to be hard to bully. Now, the money does mean something. And I think he really looks at this transactionally. That is to say, he wants the Palestinians gone.

And he's trying to figure out some way to get them gone, whether it's shipping them to Indonesia or to Jordan or to Egypt or maybe flooding Syria with them, whatever. He'll take any solution. And I think he's that sort of person, but I think the reality of it is going to hit him sooner or later, I hope sooner. Well, that's why I asked you about whether he has contempt for their personal freedom. I mean, he must, unless he doesn't think about the natural and probable consequences of his words, if he's talking about forcibly removing a million and a half people from their homeland, which the United States paid Israel to destroy. Yeah.

Bingo, America. Bingo, I think you just said it. He doesn't think about these sorts of things. Now, when someone compels him or cajoles him into thinking about them, he can show some pity, some compassion, some empathy, but I don't think he thinks about them at all. He's like a guy who sends infantrymen from the poorest districts in America to go die in its wars, you know, but he doesn't think about the implications of it in an empathetic way. You get him to do that, I think you can influence him a bit. Is the Biden pipeline to Ukraine still flowing, Colonel Wilkerson? It must be because I'm hearing that no oligarchs

of consequence have shown any trepidation yet. That is to say, their cars might be turned towards the other direction and they're ready to dee-dee-mow, as we used to say in Vietnam, but they aren't doing that. They're still hanging around, going to the bars, doing the things that they have been doing. And so that would indicate to me that the money is still coming in because that's the money they're living off of. You're talking about the Ukrainian oligarchs, the people stealing cash from us and stealing cash from their own government. I suspect Zelensky should be included in that group too. And one would think if that pipeline, if that spigot, to continue this analogy, had been turned off,

Zelensky would be howling like there's no tomorrow and he hasn't been doing so. I think so. And I think the other oligarchs would probably be looking for a replacement. So of what value was Trump's promise to end the war in 24 hours? If the Newsweek piece is accurate, and I suspect it was leaked by someone on Trump's team, and he says he's going to have an agreement by Easter, then he's serious. But I've got to see the results.

I've got to see something happening before all. The agreement would have to provide that the Russians will retain jurisdiction over the areas that they have conquered. And that's not going to be there. NATO will not be there. That's got not be there. That's got to be there. The things that Newsweek revealed are the essentials that will get Putin to actually talk realistically. And Putin has said, I'll let you hear his own voice. Bear with me just a minute.

Number 30, Zelensky, Zelensky can't sign a peace agreement because he's not the lawful head of the state. Number 13, Sonia. But if Zelensky says that he can be a negotiator, do you think that you can negotiate with him? You can negotiate with anyone, but he is illegitimate, so he cannot sign anything. If he wants to take part in the talks, he can designate and appoint people for holding these talks. It is a matter of signing these documents and their final versions versions so as to guarantee security for both Ukraine and Russia in the long run. So everything must be perfect in this regard. Constitution, the president of Ukraine, even during martial law, a president of Ukraine cannot renew his term or stay in power after his term runs out.

Only the national parliament can give the president this possibility. I don't think he's trying to avoid negotiating. I think he has such extraordinary antipathy for Zelensky that he's using this rather legalistic argument, which I understand is correct under Ukraine law, you're correct under Russia law, correct under international law as a basis for not wanting to deal with them, or as a basis to induce the U.S. to send Zelensky packing and appoint General Zelushny or somebody to take over? Now, I'd be doing the same thing were I Putin, and I would expect this from Putin. He does not want anyone involved with the culmination, if you will, certainly not the document that codifies the talks, to be illegitimate.

And to have anyone in the future be able to say that and resume the war, like maybe Washington. What do you think was the Kremlin's reaction to Trump's absurd statements that more than a million Russian troops have been killed and that Putin is destroying Russia? I think that's water off a duck's back to Putin and to the establishment in Moscow now, because they have grown to understand how duplicitous, how deceitful, how lying outright the empire is. And so they expect that. So it's not a real shock to them anymore. They're not going to deal with that, as we just indicated. They're going to have ironclad or as ironclad as they can get guarantees, but they understand

how duplicitous we are. Are the Ukrainians still firing American and British missiles into Russia? As far as I can tell, they are. And of course, they just let a drone go over amongst a horde of drones and apparently got close enough to Zaporizhia, the big nuclear reactor, that the Russians thought it was actually an attack on the reactor. So, Colonel, with respect to American foreign policy in Ukraine, what has changed since 12 noon of January 20th of this year? Dramatically, the rhetoric, but nothing on the ground that I can tell, except I think there is a moratorium out there on arms and money.

Whether it's being honored or adhered to or not, I can't say. Shouldn't we know if the United States government is continuing to fund the regime in Kyiv? I mean, to the Russians, correct me if I'm wrong, Colonel, the war is effectively over and they've won it. Yes. Yes. There are so many things right now, Judge, that I don't think Trump knows are happening, that are happening, that it's even worse than previous transitions, as far as I'm concerned. There are things going on right now, and minions whom Project 2025 apparently or some other guidance has put into place instantly with all manner of orders to do this and do that, which may or may not have come from Trump. And they're happening. And he's having to retract or bring back or his people are having to retract or bring back many of them because they engender court cases that are going to paralyze this administration

or they're illegal outright or he didn't want to do them. So this was supposed to be the most orderly start ever. Everything was in place. The problem is Donald Trump doesn't do details and he didn't do the details. I think you're 100% correct. You have a good handle on his personality and you know I've known him for 40 years. Although it doesn't take much to get a handle on his personality, because he's an open book when he shoots from the hip, as he does almost every time he's in front of a camera. How does the Kremlin view the continued presence of Ukrainian troops in Kursk? They're still there. I know. There are also a couple of other places I've heard,

and there are a couple of other places I've heard that are really strange. Like what, Colonel? Like in Syria and elsewhere, where we're using them to do things that we're using others to do that we won't do. And so we're hiring these mercenaries, as it were, to do these things for us. That's not good. And I'm also hearing that some of them might be in the Xinjiang province in China working with Uyghurs who have come out of the fray, so to speak, in the Levant, battle-hardened and trained, and are trying to incite some problems in Xinjiang and China,

which is not going to make China a happy camper at all. Nor is it going to make Putin a happy camper at all. How do you think this ends? What do you think happens next? I mean, the Kremlin honestly believes, according to Dimitri Symes, Sr., whom you know, and according to Gilbert Doctorow, that the war is effectively over and it's just a short matter of a short period of time. I think that's true. But whether or not it is, as it were, recognized on the other side, the other side being principally the EU, so to speak, for a long time if we wanted to, and Russia just sitting there twiddling its thumbs as to what to do. Do I just act as if there is nothing in front of me that's inimical to my interests and occupy these places and do what I want to and just let it go

and wait for something to come that will be really detrimental to my interests in the future? Or do I continue to seek some sign of agreement, though I might not trust it at all? I'll make sure it's as trustworthy as I can forge it and then deal with that because it's not over. I think in Moscow's eyes, as I've said, Putin originally thought, I believe, that Russia would have to fight NATO in the future, perhaps not in his lifetime. I think he now believes he's going to have to fight us in his lifetime.

You say us. Us. Don't you mean NATO without us? I don't mean NATO without us. At least for the next four years. I really don't believe that. I think this is a masquerade to some extent. And I think one thing that the administration is convinced of, and perhaps even Donald Trump down in his bones too, is that there has to be something done with regard to the shift of power, massive shift of power towards China and away from the empire.

And eventually, the people around the Washington complex are going to get to him and convincing of that. I believe that the Biden administration has done a lot to infect the Trump administration with a lot of these issues. Here's President Putin stating that there would have been no war had Trump been in office the last four years. Sonia, cut number two. Russia has never refused to have contacts with the US administration. And it is not our fault that the previous administration refused these contacts. I have always had business-like, but at the same time pragmatic and trusting relations with the current president of the United States.

I cannot but agree with him that if he had been president, then perhaps there would not have been the crisis in Ukraine. Flattering? Or does he honestly believe that? I think he probably does,? I think he probably does. And I think he's got reason to believe that because I don't believe at that time, 2016, 2017, 2018, all the way through that first term, that Trump's term. I believe he's right about Trump. Trump did not want a war there and would have found a way. And the way was there. It was there almost immediately after the invasion started. He would have found a way, and the way was there. It was there almost immediately after the invasion started. He would have found a way to end it. What was gained by Tony Blinken never speaking

to Sergei Lavrov? A million casualties on both sides, not on, you know, Russia, Ukraine, but probably a million dead people all told, I would guess. That's all that we can say. Really a reprehensible stewardship of America's foreign policy. Lincoln and Sullivan will go down as the worst, and Biden too, as the worst national security decision-making team in the history of the post-World War II era. I mean, Professor Mearsheimer refers to Blinken as Netanyahu's lawyer. Even the New York Times refers to him as the Secretary of War.

Well, you know, we haven't had that title since 1947. Yep. Yeah. He is. Mearsheimeram John's characterization Is correct He was working for Israel Well

Who's working for Israel now Libby Netanyahu is coming to the White House Next week What is he going to do Try and talk Trump into attacking Iran I would love to be a fly on that wall Because Donald Trump is going to do? Try and talk Trump into attacking Iran? I would love to be a fly on that wall because Donald Trump is going to tell him to get out of his face. I have a deal working and the deal is going to be a big one. It's going to guarantee no nuclear weapon on the part of Iran.

And we're going to have this wonderful thing going on in the Levant that's going to make us all tons of money, tons of money. And Bibi, get out of my face. He's not going to accept that, nor will the donor class. No, especially Bibi. I just think his time is numbered. Not that anyone coming in his wake is going to be any better, but they'll be more amenable to Trump's wishes. They'll have to be.

Netanyahu's going to leave one hell of a legacy. Yeah. He seems to be unstable at home. He's back on trial for corruption. His health looks poor. The IDF is really in trouble, Judge. It is in trouble. It's not been in this kind of trouble since 1948. Did you ever come across an Israeli negotiator named Daniel Levy? He's got a brass accent. Okay, well, this is a fascinating clip. It's a long interview. Chris cut it down to just the core of it. Tell me what you think of Daniel Levy, who's been praised by Alistair Crook and Ambassador Charles Freeman, colleagues of yours and ours. Sonia, cut number one. One cannot underestimate the impact on the Israeli public psyche of the release, the initial three who were released.

And of course, everyone, everyone therefore saw those images they've been told al-qassam defeated they've been told the public has turned against them they've been told so many things and then they saw those images. An occupying army, armed and aided by the most powerful military in the world, the US. A nuclear armed state, Israel. In a struggle between that and a resistance movement, we saw a very powerful display and israeli saw that we're being told by israeli analysts talking heads political leaders and their backers in the west that the next phase has to be to to move forward we have to have the demilitarization of the reality is the most significant force in gaza by a long stretch is hamas al-qassam emerges from this with a very strong narrative israel's narrative doesn't look

so good at all agreed colonel i agree i've been following dan for a long time, and his views have been more or less corroborated over that time. And his views usually run contrary to the U.S. appraisal of the situation. I mean, for whom was he a negotiator? The Netanyahu government or the rare time in the past 15 years that Netanyahu was not prime minister. He was a negotiator for Barack, I believe, as I recall, and he was very good at it. And his suggestions were those that probably had the best opportunity for success, limited though it might have been, they would have been successful and they were discarded. They were accepted by the Arabs, and they were discarded basically by Israel and then by us. Just to put a bow on this package that we've been discussing, how I wish Donald Trump would listen to people like this. Well, these people are nuanced, and these people have empathy for other peoples, And that nuance and that empathy comes out. And the empire has no use for nuance and empathy anymore. Remember that 2000 national security strategy. If a mouse stirs at the bottom of our mountain, we will kill it. We will sanction it. We will bomb it. We will do both, we will kill it. No one must be allowed to in any way

challenge our hegemony. That doesn't allow for empathy. That doesn't allow for nuance. Colonel Wilkerson, thank you, my dear friend. Always a pleasure. And we'll look forward to seeing you next week. Take care. Of course. Coming up at three o'clock this afternoon, Professor John Mearsheimer and at four o'clock from midnight in Moscow, Pepe Escobar, judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.