Judging Freedom - How Bad is US intel on Ukraine Intel Round Table wLarry Johnson & Ray McGovern

Episode Date: October 6, 2023

How Bad is US Intel on Ukraine - The Intel Round Table w/Larry Johnson & Ray McGovernSee 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 Friday, October 6, 2023. We have our Intelligence Community Roundtable with our regular guests and dear friends and colleagues, Ray McGovern and Larry Johnson. By the way, just as we came on air, we broke to 206,000 subscribers. My deepest gratitude to all of you who have done so. And for those of you who continue to promote the show, who help us spread the news of liberty and peace and honesty in government. Big task. Our goal, of course, is 250,000 by Christmastime. Larry and Ray, welcome here. Ray, I want to start with you because you emailed me this morning and told me you read the Russian version or listened to the Russian version of a long speech that President Putin recently gave.

And Larry, of course, wants to comment on it as well. The speech, of course, is known for a phrase in there, which we will run for you in a few minutes, in which he basically says, stop threatening us because we have more weapons than you do. And we will demolish anybody that sends weapons our way. What provoked this? And in a nutshell, Professor McGovern, what did the president of Russia say? Well, he said that the notion that the West, the United States, should consider itself exceptional is exceptionally arrogant. He said that about five times in seven different ways. And this is consistent with what he's been saying since, well, since the high point of U.S.-Russia

relations after Putin bailed Obama out by persuading Syria to destroy its chemical weapons. So we're going back to now September 2013. Now, you do the math. What is that, 10 years now? Now things have reached really a physical part. And what Putin is saying, look, not only do we have the high cards here, but we're going to abrogate our ratification of the test ban treaty, because you all in the West, you, the United States, never ratified that, so why should we ratify it? We're unratifying it. Otherwise, what Putin said about Russia's nuclear posture

was pretty much the same as the doctrine that they've expoused for years now. No change there. Larry, here's what President Putin said in the op-ed to which Ray refers, very famous op-ed at the time that the New York Times ran. This is the concluding line. Forgive my eyes looking down. I want to read it precisely. President Putin, quote, it is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ too. We are different, but when we ask the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal. The president of Russia. Where does this American exceptionalism, we are better than they,

we are greater than they, we can tell them how to live. Where the hell does this come from? Somebody needs to send Vladimir Putin a memo and remind him that he's a godless communist. I mean, how dare he talk about God in this kind of way? You know, look, what he's saying is that when you start from the presumption that you're exceptional, that's really the foundation of a narcissistic personality. And whether we're talking about a narcissistic personality disorder in a person or in a nation, the effects are the same. And it means that you can do whatever you want without regard to the outcome or consequence, and others have to submit themselves to your will. You know, what was fascinating about watching Putin's, it wasn't just the speech. I mean, he gave a speech at the outset. I think it went about 30, 40 minutes, but then he

sat down on stage and took questions. So this was not like a Biden press conference where he's already been identified which ones to call on, and they've already been prepped about which questions to ask. It was a free-ranging discussion, and people really went over a variety of issues. And he held forth. He wasn't sitting there having to look at note cards. He wasn't having to go over talking points to say, what am I supposed to say on this? He was speaking extemporaneously, and it was impressive. And you know…

Peter Robinson Gary, let's run one of those clips, the one with the so-called threat in it, the one we've called Putin Threatens. And I want to assure everybody that... ударе в воздухе появляется такое количество, столько сотен наших ракет, что шансов на выживание ни у одного противника не останется, причем сразу на нескольких направлениях. my translation or my reading of the, not a translator like Ray, I missed the reading of the very beginning. And I want to assure everyone that today we answer is absolutely unacceptable for the aggressor, because from the moment the launch of missiles is detected. What is he saying, Ray McGovern?

He's saying, I'm not bluffing, okay? The bottom line here is that for the first time ever, Russia and Soviet Union has strategic advantage of the United States. The United States is spending all their money on F-35s. They can't really fly real well in the rain. And the USSR and later Russia spending its money on these hypersonic missiles that cannot be shot down and that assume all kinds of trajectories. One goes around the South Pole, for God's sake. When Putin couldn't persuade the US to deal on these things, 2013, 14, 15, he said, all right, all right, you can build your own ABMs if you like,

but I'm going to do my own thing. And in the State of the Nation address on the 1st of March, 2018, he did a kind of a show and tell. He did videos of these new weaponry, some of them just in development, some of them now completed. And I have to say that I don't know if the Pentagon realizes this, but the advantage that we used to have strategically has been worn away. That's not to say that the Russians have a first strike capability, but they have the ability to do things that they never would have dreamed of before, and there is no defense against it. Is this anything different than you would expect from the president of Russia, whose eastern, excuse me, western border is surrounded by nato with weapons aimed at the capital of

his country larry now putin's shown remarkable restraint throughout this entire uh conflict with the ukraine and the west there have been several direct provocations which i think if medvedev had been president as he once was of russia that russia would have responded militarily and we'd be looking at an escalation towards nuclear war the one thing some of the russian strategists look at is the fact that they've got they and they have in place bomb shelters that are stocked and supplied in a way that give the people a reasonable, not say an absolute, but a reasonable chance of survival in the event of a nuclear strike. Plus, Russia has missile defense systems capable of shooting down and destroying the U.S. nuclear missiles. So you could construct a scenario where Russia could say, you know, if it comes to this, we're going to get hurt, but we're going to still be standing, and we're not going to get knocked down. I'm just going to take a little aside for a minute

because of some fascinating comments from our writers. The first is, how do you pronounce Putin in Russian? Everybody assumes it's Putin, and that's why Ray McGovern says it that way. Is that correct, Ray? Well, it's the way I say Lenin or Stalin, Putin. And when I call him up, what I get on the other end of the phone is poutine here. The other question is, what is that over Larry's right shoulder? Well, without saying where Larry is, he's in a friend's home, and the friend attended the University of Notre Dame, coincidentally, as an undergraduate at the same time that I was in law school. And in that year, 1973, Notre Dame were the national college football champs. And the friend, Larry's friend, everybody watching, guess whose fault it is that we are against military and financial aid to Ukraine? Guess who she blames this on? I'll let you listen.

I think Putin is not only thrilled by the divide over whether we continue and at what levels to fund Ukraine, I think he is fomenting it as well. Putin and his team that does the kind of interventions, covert and overt, aiming to undermine democracy and to suborn political leaders is a big part of how he sees his role. So to her, you'll see another clip in which is a little bit more precise. We are pro-Putin, pro-Russian, pro-war. We're just against Ukraine. Is she incapable, Larry, of understanding that this is not our war? It does not affect the national security of the United States. And we have no business with human beings on the ground or spending a nickel there.

And that to take that view as a view of patriotism and following the Constitution, it is not a view that the Russians are right and should win the war. Right. Now, she's smart. I mean, she's not a dumb lady. I've met with her before. I briefed her. She's a very intelligent person. So she's not, this is deliberate stupidity on her part.

I think what's going on, Judge, she's just angry at Putin because he didn't kick in money to the Clinton Foundation, to the Clinton Global Initiative. Bill Clinton got a half million dollars from the mayor of Moscow. God bless you, Larry. And he hasn't kicked that back. Hey, you know, is she speaking from personal experience? Did they suborn Bill Clinton, give him the half million dollars for what? And her role in trying to, you know, steer the uranium business into a way that would benefit the Clinton Foundation? I mean, come on. You know, she needs to look in the mirror when they're talking about suborning other governments and pressuring other governments to do what and enter interventions. It wasn't Russia that intervened in Libya and ended up killing Muammar Gaddafi. It was Hillary. It wasn't Russia that intervened in Syria and helped

light off that civil war. It was Hillary. She's got blood on her hands. Ray, I'm going to run another clip and we'll unleash you on this one. This is where she says the Ukrainians are not corrupt. Putin is. When I see people parroting Russian talking points that first showed up on Russia today or first showed up in a speech from a Russian official, you know, that's a big point scored for Putin. When I see Americans in positions of responsibility talking about how, you know, we shouldn't support the people of Ukraine. You know, they're corrupt. And talk about corruption. You know, there is there is the master of corruption living in the Kremlin. Can you make out what she's even trying to say, Ray McGovern?

Well, all I can say is pretty much what Larry said. She's got this thing about Vladimir Putin. And, you know, it comes to the point where she blamed the January 6th demonstrations on Putin. She's talking with Nancy Pelosi on this talk show, and she's, you know, I'd love to be, I'd love to have a tap on the phone of what Vladimir Poutine was telling Trump to do there on January 6th, okay? Now, this latest is really disturbing, actually, because she's got the support of the New York Times. Here's two days ago, the New York Times, okay? In 2016, Russia hacked and leaked Democratic National Committee emails that hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign and pushed a divisive message on social media, a bald-faced lie.

The cyber firm that looked into that came up with the conclusion that there was zero, no technical evidence that anyone hacked those DNC emails that were so prejudicial to Hillary. No one hacked them. It was a leak. It was a thumb drive. It brought to Julian Assange. So now how can the New York Times say this? Because it's been two years, 24. It's been 41 months since that testimony by CrowdStrike was taken, was revealed to the media. And the New York Times just kept it suppressed. In other words, the New York Times lets everybody believe that the Russians hacked to help Hillary Clinton and brought us Donald Trump. A ball-faced lie proven by congressional testimony under oath. I'm getting buried by our commenters, some of whom are telling me they are throwing up just from hearing her voice. But I do appreciate the manner in which you decimated what you said.

Here's another voice with which I don't think any of us is familiar. I don't know her name, but you'll see her in a minute. This is a member of the Ukrainian parliament acknowledging that the spring offensive has been a failure. The counteroffensive is going as planned. Is it going as planned? that the spring offensive has been a failure. Counteroffensive is going as planned. Is it going as planned? Well, as much as we can have it going as planned with the amount of weapons and the quality of the ammunition that we're getting,

the steadier the deliveries and the bigger the deliveries of the armaments for Ukraine, the faster the counteroffensive can go. The problem is you've regained less than 1% of the ground that you lost before the invasion? Unfortunately, that is the case. And you only have, like, another month to go before? Another month or so before the cold and the winter. Before we comment, Gary, run the next one. Another clip from the same interview, a and direct acknowledgement that russia is winning

the war russia is winning the battle of a protracted conflict today so they are in terms of protracted conflict strategies that they are trying to impose on ukraine and the world uh unfortunately we have to say that they are gaining the upper hand yet again. They have done this back in 2014. The lessons weren't learned. The aid was being delivered too slowly and at a non-stable rate. And this is the results that we are getting. The lessons weren't learned. The aid was delivered too slowly.

The quality of the ammunition is not what we need. Do you believe this, Larry, as the public statement of somebody from the government? Yeah. No, I think it's refreshing to see that she's at least got a grip on reality. Look, one of the things that we've seen over the last month, month and half, or two months, the Ukrainians shifted strategy. Before they used to be hauled to the front in armored vehicles, Bradleys, and it was one of the primary means of conveyance. Those were blown up. So they decided, oh, what we're going to come up with now is we're going to insert small groups of men on foot and have them walk to the

front lines. And I've asked people, I said, have you ever carried an ammo box with 7.62 by 51 ammunition which is what would normally be used in in the rifles uh the soviet made russian made uh check made rifles that are being used uh that weighs 40 pounds and if you're finally firing on full automatic you'll be through all that ammunition which is about 500 rounds in 15 minutes, 15, 20 minutes. So where do you get your next supply from? And oh, let's don't forget, if you're walking forward to the front line, you might want to drink water at some time. Well, carry a couple of gallons of water. You know how heavy that is? So what we're talking about is an impossible physical task that these men are being sent out just to be slaughtered.

There is no, they have no viable strategy for prevailing using this tactic. Last topic, gentlemen. Ray, you participated in the highest level briefings of members of the government when you were in the intelligence community do you think the intelligence community has finally come around to the truth the obvious realistic truth that ukraine cannot win this war and that they are finally telling that uh to their bosses in the west wing at langley and in the oval office well judge the analysts would have to be fools not to realize that. But, you know, until the administration is ready to fold them, you know, you have to know when to hold them and when to fold them.

It's really difficult for the top press in the CIA and elsewhere to tell, hey, Mr. President, this is a fool's errand. We got to make a deal. It's really hard. And I see, what's his name, Bill Burns and these other people are really just cogs in the wheel of this propaganda machine. And as long as Jacob Sullivan and Tony Blinken and what's-her-name Noland are running the show, intelligence analysts, because they've been ground down, will be reluctant to tell the truth. So somebody's got to tell Biden, look, now's the time to fold them. We'll work the best deal we can, but the Russians have the advantage conventionally. They also are threatening us now with a strategic situation that we're not used to,

that hasn't really existed forever before. Larry, same question. Do you think the intelligence community is still reconfirming the pre-existing prejudices of the White House and the West Wing, or do you think they're getting around to realism? Yeah, there's a split. There's a division. You're getting some of the same old, same old from the Defense Intelligence Agency. As Cy Hersh has reported, you're getting a completely different view out of the Central Intelligence Agency, and they're protesting or complaining that

they're being ignored so this one of the one of the symptoms or indicators you can look for is when you get an increasing number of leaks about what's going on in Ukraine about divisions differences and policy views that's a sign of the fracturing the unraveling of the policy. Because when there's concurrence on what's being done, you don't get the leaks. So these leaks are another indicator that sort of the avalanche has started. Ray. Here's something akin to a leak. David Ignatius, widely recognized as a spokesman.

Okay. Two weeks ago, he said Biden shouldn't run again. Whoa. Yesterday, he said, well, it's a hard choice about Ukraine. Let me just stop you for a second. This is a columnist for the Washington Post whom those inside the Beltway know mouths, writes, whatever the CIA wants. Go ahead, Ray. That's exactly right.

Yeah, he's like that PR person. Title, yesterday, a hard choice lies ahead in Ukraine. No more bragging about their winning, okay? But only the Ukrainians can make it. Pay off. Last sentence. As a superpower, the U.S. can try to steer this conflict toward a settlement that protects Ukraine. Well, they're going to try to steer Ukraine. And if Zelensky cutoff of supplies, there are no supplies to cut off, for God's sake. And the Europeans and U.S. has recognized the fact that they didn't expect the war with Russia.

And so they don't have the ammunition, if you can believe it. Raymond Gobern, Larry Johnson, thank you very much. Truly a great conversation. These just keep getting more informative and and candidly, from my perspective, more fulfilling, more enjoyable. Larry, tell your friend, go Irish. He'll know what that means. Gentlemen, have a great weekend. We'll see you next week. Before I sign off at the three o'clock Eastern today, Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, and at 3.30 Eastern today, ask me anything you want

about the subjects we've been discussing on air. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.