Judging Freedom - Ian Proud : When Will Europe Recognize Reality?

Episode Date: December 2, 2025

Ian Proud : When Will Europe Recognize Reality?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, December 2, 2025. Ian Proud will be here with us in just a moment. When are European leaders going to embrace reality over Ukraine? 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. Ian Proud welcome here, my dear friend. Thank you for accommodating my schedule today. It's a pleasure to have you back on the show. Before we get to the EU and whether its leadership is even remotely realistic in its attitude toward the special military operation in Ukraine, a few other questions, if you don't mind. Is there concern in London and other European capitals about the continuing slaughter in Lebanon? and Palestinian and Gaza by the IDF? There doesn't appear to be, it seems largely to have fallen off the radar, I'm afraid to say, despite the kind of widespread protests in the UK across the summertime,

which obviously the government tried to criminalize by cracking down on elderly people that were protesting against genocide in the streets. No, it's kind of dropped off the radar. people are focused on to use massive tax by about to face in the UK after this week's project. Were people actually prosecuted or have they been or are they being prosecuted in the UK for demonstrating against the Netanyahu government and its policies? Yeah, exactly. This is purely political speech, if ever there was any.

Yeah, I mean, Palestine action was. actually criminalized as an organization. So yes, anybody attending their protests were arrested and taken off to the beak, as we say it, in the UK. I don't think they faced massive charges, you know, per se. But, yeah, arrests and very minor, magisterial kind of prosecutions were made. Wow. Do the folks in the UK take seriously the prospect of Tony Blair as the Governor General of a new Gaza?

Do they take this seriously? I think most British people will be fairly horrified by that. He's a discredited figure since his support for George W. Bush and the invasion of Iraq in 2003. on the base of extremely kind of flimsy evidence about weapons and mass destruction and all that stuff that we know about very well. So, yeah, he's a hugely discredited figure, but he's just an international businessman, isn't he? He earns millions from this kind of organization that gives incredible advice. Who would want to take advice from Tony Blair is quite another matter.

I mean, I certainly wouldn't want to take advice from Tony Blair, but he's clearly kind of getting in the right ears, including in the Beltway in D.C. and managing to get heard by Trump. I mean, why on earth Trump would want to think about Blair, who's polar opposite to Trump in terms of his politics? Blair is obviously a left-wing, totally, I mean, center-left, but nevertheless, left-wing person, and Trump is the complete opposite. So why he wanted to choose Blair is anybody's guess?

It doesn't seem that there's going to be a phase two or a phase three in Gaza. It doesn't seem that the Netanyahu regime has even taken phase one seriously, because the slaughter continues in Gaza and up north in Lebanon. Yeah, I mean, Trump has got his kind of token victory, had that big signing ceremony in Egypt, you know, wasn't it? And so he's kind of, it's slightly feels that he's taking his foot off the gas and he's now focusing on forcing a deal in Ukraine,

which, you know, from my point of view, is obviously a good thing. But nevertheless, you know, Netanyahu is kind of creeping back to his tactics from, from before that peace till was agreed. Is the British government concerned with the American government killing boat people in the Caribbean, concerned either because there might be British involvement in providing intelligence

or there might be British victims if any of these people is a citizen or a member, I don't know if the word citizen or subject, is still used, but whatever the word is of the British Commonwealth. It gets remarkably little coverage here, believe it or not, Judge. I mean, it's quite shocking,

you know, really. Particularly when you see Pete Hex's recent sort of cartoon of some character Henderson, is it? Firing a bazooker at some Franklin. Franklin. That's it. This is a Canadian turtle.

It's a child's cartoon. the turtle is equipped with some sort of a military weapon and he's killing people on boats. And if you read carefully the language up top, Chris, if you could put it back up for a second, for your Christmas wish list, the self-professed Christian secretary of defense of calls himself, the Secretary of War, is actually suggesting somehow that children should wish this. I only saw that on social media, Judge. I mean, you never see that in the UK press.

For some reason, it seems to be off limits. I don't know whether on the back of the scandal with our former ambassador kind of losing his job because of association with Epstein, you know, the Americans have told us to shut up and stop talking about these things. But, yeah, it gets remarkably little coverage here compared to domestic issues. As I understand that MI6 has declined to assist CIA, or the defense intelligence agency or NSA, you know, we have 17 of them that we admit to having our intelligence agencies because, and this is reported in the financial times,

the Starmer government is of the view that these killings are war crimes and they don't want British intelligence agents implicated. The American government claims to have a legal opinion, which says they're not war crimes, neither government will reveal these opinions for public scrutiny. Well, they wouldn't because those opinions rely on information from the intelligence agencies, but what I can tell you is that actually whenever any of our intelligence agencies, MI6, GCHQ, want to get involved in this sort of, let's call it, kinetic operation, and they need to seek ministerial approval for that. they need to actually write to the ministers setting out the case for their involvement.

And I feel fairly sure that even this deeply unpopular labor government would probably say no to that. And that's hence the reason you see the reports in the financial times. Right, right. So it appears that the American Department of Justice looking at international law and the British, I'm not sure what they call it, Ministry of Justice, Crown Prosecution, I mean, tell me what it's called, looking at the same laws have come to two entirely different conclusions. What do they call the branch of the government that administers justice in Great Britain? What is the British equivalent of the American Department of Justice?

Well, we have a Ministry of Justice. I think it's called the Department of Justice under David Lammy, the Deputy Prime Minister. The Crown Prosecution Service is the operational arm. They're the people that actually look at and pull together cases, a bit like your attorney can assist them in the United States. And that's the difference. The actual kind of executive bit is the... Do you have an attorney general as we do?

We do have an attorney general, yes. Although they perform a slightly different function from the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice is more involved in writing laws and proposing and scrutinizing laws, whereas the Attorney General actually gives legal advice to the government on its actions. It has one foot in courts and one foot in government. Got it.

What leverage do EU leaders have to intrude upon the, or with which to intrude upon the Russian-American negotiations over the special military operation in Ukraine? well they have no leverage but they're still trying to intrude okay but so why would anybody pay attention to them they have no leverage whatsoever well that clearly the u.s administration isn't paying any attention to them because now the Europeans have left completely out of the peace tent not they've already not they've already been inside of it and the negotiations are entirely being led by the u.s. administration now in a form of diplomacy, talking to the Ukrainians, and now Wyckhoff and Kushner in Moscow,

obviously talking to President Putin and members of his government as well. So the Europeans are absolutely nowhere now, and in fact all they're trying to do is keep the war going by stealing the Russian assets through this so-called reparations loan, which isn't for reparations at all. And that looks like it's very rapidly being torpedoed, not just by the Belgian government, but now it seems by the European Central Bank as well. So, you know, Ukraine will run out of money at the end of this year, as will, in fact, Europe, but they're clinging on regardless. It's like a wooden dingy that's been possibly, you know, torpedoed by Pete Hegeseth, you know, somewhere albeit in Europe.

And they're clinging on to the last few planks of it before it sinks. It's quite, it's quite embarrassing to watch. Hmm. What happened in Geneva recently? wasn't our de jure, he's hardly de facto, de jure secretary of state Marco Rubio recently in Geneva speaking with EU leaders. And if he was, what the hell were they talking about? Well, what they're trying to do was hollow out this 28 point peace plan, which emerged

from the US administration. As soon as that was made public, the Europeans produced not. one but two alternative versions to that peace plan one a 27 point plan which the three national security advisors of germany in france and uh britain had conjured up while they're in the kind of in the coffee room in geneva you know while the grownups did the talking and that that you know tried to hollow out the the the stuff on nato in particular and then a totally delusional 24 point plan which emerged from the european commission which you know was a complete fantasy and that everybody in any case has completely ignored since that time.

So the Americans have got back to doing the hard yards with actually having tough discussions with the Ukrainians and now with the Russians. It's for them to kind of push it over the line, you know, with the Europeans undoubtedly still chipping unhelpfully from the sidelines, but to no avail, I suspect. Here's a comment from an American congressman. And you have no reason to know of him. His name is Mike Turner, but he is a typical American neocon, who I think, whose views, I believe, are mirrored by EU leaders. And here's what he said over the weekend on one of the Sunday talk shows manifesting Russiaphobia, fear and hatred of all things Russian.

Tell me if this accurately represents what European. leadership thanks Chris cut number 10 one thing that I think everybody understands is that you can't have you can't be America first and and pro russia because you know russia has is a self-declared adversary of the united states it's fielding you know new advanced nuclear weapons that are specifically targeting the united states it's constantly attacking the united states with offensive cyber it continuously uh identifies both NATO and the West, the United States, as its adversary. So in this, and of course, when it identifies Ukraine as its adversary, it does so in identifying the West and the United States as its adversary.

You have to understand that the balance of this peace arrangement has to be one where you have to look at Russia as a skeptical adversary. Is that pretty much how Kier-Stramer and Emmanuel Macron and Frederick Mertz feel about Russia? Pretty much, although I'd say it's probably a slightly milder version than what you might hear from Friedrich Mertz in particular, you know, who's got the Bundesweir out, burning torches and singing almost World War II-Smartial songs in the Foss of Lithuania, according to their propaganda videos.

I mean, Starmer just talks nonsense anyway on Ukraine because he came into government with no ideas of his own. and mccorn you know mccon just makes stuff up as he goes along anyway so but i mean generally speaking the tone i would say would be even harsher than that from that not particularly learned um u.s. representative so where are where are the Europeans going to go you have opined consistent with almost everybody else that comes on the show that ukraine will run out of money by the end of the year the end of the year is 30 days of now what are the europeans going to give cash for a corrupt system to operate its government are they

going to be borrowing money to pay american arms manufacturers to ship arms to Ukraine the arms still have to be built because they'll never be built in time is there a cash of arms existing somewhere in the u.s or elsewhere which could make its way to keve i mean how do you see this playing out where are the Europeans going with this? Well, they're going to borrow the money. If they had any sense, you know, that they would see what comes out of this peace deal, hopefully kind of get behind it and, you know, support from there. But, of course, the problem is that even if the war ends judge,

the Europeans will still be on the hook for over $100 billion. You know, because Ukraine's army isn't going to shrink overnight. They're still going to spend a vast amount next year, far more money than they actually have in their possession. They will need that money from Europe, you know, because they won't get it from the US. So it's actually whether or not peace happens is separate to the fact the Europeans have a massive bill on their hands

to pay in the next two, three, four years to keep the Ukrainian finances in the black. And nobody's asked European citizens whether they're happy about this at the time of deindustrialization of cost of living crises. the massive, does the revelation, we all knew about it, but does the revelation of the massive corruption scandal in Kyiv resonate in European capitals? I don't think it does enough, you know, quite frankly, and it's reported, certainly on the BBC, which is kind of the UK's version of Russia today, in a very kind of toned down way. But what you

are starting to see is increasing numbers of mainstream journalists coming out to say to actually look, Ukraine's in real trouble, and Zelensky himself is in real trouble. You know, the parliament in Kiev is in complete chaos, you know, right now. They can't pass the budget for next year. Zelensky seems to spend most of his time out of the country. Andrew Yermak has apparently gone to the front, I suspect, with Fartal 95, to do some sort of documentary about how he saved the country. You know, the whole system, you know, the European system is going to driving towards a brick wall with, you know, Ursula von der Leyen and Kai Callis with both feet on the accelerator pedal.

Wow. That's where we are right now. And whatever happens, we're still going to have to pay billions and billions to Ukraine to keep it afloat, even if fighting stops. So, you know, whether we buy any weapons from the U.S. is immaterial to the fact that we're, you know, We still have a huge bill. Here's a good friend of Cayacallus, Ursula von der Leyen. Tell me what you think of the EU demands for peace with Russia. Any credible and sustainable peace plan should first and foremost stop the killing and end the war

while not sowing the seeds for future conflict. We have agreed on the main elements necessary for a just and lasting peace and Ukraine's sovereignty. And let me highlight three of them. First, borders cannot be changed by force. Second, as a sovereign nation, there cannot be limitations on Ukraine's armed forces that would leave the country vulnerable to future attack and thereby also undermining European security. Third, the centrality of the European Union and securing peace for Ukraine must be fully reflected. Ukraine must have the freedom and sovereign right to choose its own destiny.

They have chosen a European destiny. It starts with the country's reconstruction, its integration into our single market and our defense industrial base, and ultimately joining our Union. We will continue our work together with Ukraine, our member states, the Coalition of the Willing and the United States to make real progress towards peace. What is important is that we move forward as partners on a single track. Is she delusional? Yes.

I mean the first point is completely obvious. Clearly borders shouldn't be changed by force. Everybody knows that, but that's meaningless in terms of a peace plan because the board is have changed because of events. Now, you can argue who's to blame for that, but that's the way it is, unfortunately, at this stage in the war, you know, on the second point, you know, in terms of capping Ukraine's army, I mean, Ukraine can't afford to have an army of one million personnel. I mean, if it does, then we're going to be paying for it. And actually, at the same time, Ukraine will have an army 10 times bigger than Germany's army. And do we really want that? And in terms

of the European future, okay, that all sounds motherhood and apple pie, but actually it's not at all clear that some of you member states really want Ukraine to join, certainly not Poland or France for that matter, because they'll lose all their massive subsidies. That's why, notice when you look back at our video again, she talks about eventually Ukraine joining the Union, that's not going to happen for 10 or 15 years, Judge, because nobody wants it in the EU. It's fine, you know, getting them into the advanced industrial complex, even getting into the single market, it's because of the low cost of Ukraine and agricultural exports. You know, this is all total waffle.

Where did she come from? I mean, how did she acquire the position that she now has? She wasn't popularly elected by the people of Europe, were she? Well, nobody in the commission is elected. That's the point. There's a big pork, pork bowel negotiation, you know, whenever there's a change of these apparatchiks at the top. every country in the European Union gets one person.

You know, Germany got the top spot and unfortunately it was Buggin's turn and we ended up with her in the same way that Annalina Beirbook is somehow President of the United Nations General Assembly. Strange things happen, Judge. But, I mean, Democratic, the European Union most certainly is not, unlike the individual countries, of course, within it. Wow. Ian, thank you very much, my dear friend. It's great to be able to chat with you and we appreciate your. perspective and your observations from great britain we hope you'll join us again soon

thanks so it's nice to talk to you again talks likewise likewise coming up later today at one this afternoon on all of this including uh the heggseth killings uh in the caribbean colonel karen kutkowski and at three o'clock on all of this professor geoffrey sacks Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.