Judging Freedom - Ian Proud : Why Britain Wants War!

Episode Date: June 11, 2025

Ian Proud : Why Britain Wants War!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

. Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, June 11th, 2025. Ian Proud will be with us in just a moment, but first this. While the markets are giving us whiplash, have you seen the price of gold? It's soaring. In the past 12 months, gold has risen to more than $3,000 an ounce.

I'm so glad I bought my gold. It's not too late for you to buy yours. The same experts that predicted gold at $3,200 an ounce now predict gold at $4,500 or more in the next year. What's driving the price higher? Paper currencies. All around the world they are falling in value. Big money is in panic as falling currencies shrink the value of their paper wealth. That's why big banks and billionaires are buying gold in record amounts.

As long as paper money keeps falling, they'll keep buying and gold will keep rising. So do what I did. Call my friends at Lear Capital. You'll have a great conversation and they'll send you very helpful information. Learn how you can store gold in your IRA tax and penalty free or have it sent directly to your doorstep.

There's zero pressure to buy and you have a 100% risk-free purchase guarantee. It's time to see if gold is right for you. Call 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620, or go to learjudgenap.com and tell them your friend, the judge sent you. Ian, welcome here, my dear friend, and thank you for accommodating our schedule. I know it's late at night where you are

and much appreciated. I basically want to explore your thoughts on why Britain wants war, but before we get there, Sergey Lavrov, the Foreign Minister of Russia, has said, we'll run the clip for you in a minute, he's 100% certain that the British government, he must mean MI6, but he said the British government was behind the drone attacks on Russian military bases and civilian sites two weekends ago. Do you agree with that? Is there a feeling in Great Britain that its government did this? It's been clear for a long time, and actually the British government has been quite open about the direct support it has given to Ukrainian military operations.

Just two months ago, there was a bizarre long piece in the Times, the London Times, setting out UK's military involvement in the failed 2023 counter-offensive. What is clear is that these drone attacks recently could not have been conducted without external foreign help. I don't believe that the Ukrainians have the sophisticated capabilities to do it on their own. They got help from someone. UK has been front and centre of providing that help. I think Lavrov is joining the dots, but I think he's got good reason to believe that the British have been involved in some way. Chris, cut number eight. Watch this. Here's Prime Minister Lavrov two days ago in Moscow. It is obvious that the Ukrainian side is doing everything possible, but it would be absolutely helpless without the support. I was tempted to say Anglo-Saxons, probably without Saxons just without the support of the British

Although you never know probably by inertia Some US special forces would be involved in that But the British are actually on behind all those things. I'm 100% sure But the British are actually behind all those things at 100% sure. I did have to chuckle about this Anglo-Saxon or just Anglo without Saxon. That's just his... Small-okey, yeah. Yes, that's just his academic mind. Is that accepted in parliament, that statement, has anyone said to Sir Keir, did you authorize this? And if so, why? Do you consider the consequences of Great Britain attacking

another sovereign country, particularly a nuclear armed country? Well, there's only been celebration in the UK mainstream media about what is considered to have been a spectacular audacious attack even though its actual strategic and in fact tactical value was fairly limited by all accounts. So no, don't queue up and wait for the British Parliament you know to challenge you know the Prime Minister on the level of UK support for that. They're

completely lined up with everything the UK is doing to continue the war. As we take this, it's probably about 10 o'clock at night London time on Wednesday evening. Are you hearing what we are hearing at four in the afternoon here in the West or in the US about preparations for an American war in the Middle East. Yes, I am. But then, as we were discussing before coming on the show, Judge, I've been hearing this for the past several months, America is immediately on the verge of starting a war with Iran. I've never believed that actually to, you know, to be remotely likely, clearly the Trump administration wants to put maximum pressure on the Iranian authorities to drive some sort of concessions out of them on

their nuclear program. I see very little strategic value to the US in unilaterally starting an unprovoked war against Iran for no obvious kind of end goal in mind. So I've been hearing this non-stop for some time now as you make your judgment. We're hearing that the United States has ordered its embassy in Iraq to be evacuated and soon others will be ordered. We're also hearing that this is just a stunt, that the orders have been issued, but it's a stunt to put pressure on the Iranians as these negotiations in Rome continue. Well it may also be because they're credible threats of terrorist attacks against those embassies. If you take your mind back to the late 1990s and the attacks on US embassies in East Africa, then it may also be because of that reason.

US military strikes against the Houthis over the recent months may have elevated that terrorism risk, so that may also be the drive over that. I know that from your years as a diplomat stationed in Moscow that you understand the Russian mind. How do you think, what do you think that the Russians truly believe what Foreign Minister Lavrov said and if so, what do they do about it? Nothing to gain by attacking British assets or do they have to send some kind of a message to Sir Keir? Well, I can tell you now the Russians absolutely believe that the British are involved in this lock stock and two smoking barrels quite frankly, and they will be

planning ways to to respond to that as they have done before, you know, including through nerve-asian attacks and all those cyber things that we know about very well. So they will be planning something, but I think from their perspective right now what they can see is the Brits are backing and losing war in Ukraine, and that's actually only weakening Britain itself as political concern is elevated about the continuance of war, which is making life harder for ordinary British people. So I mean, I think, yes, I can imagine there will be some sort of retaliation. But right now, it seems to me the Russians have the upper hand anyway, in terms of the big strategic game of what's going on in Ukraine. What, just to explain to me a little bit

about how the government works. I mean, President Trump has denied that the US was involved in this. It is well accepted here that the Secretary of Defense knew about it and others, that they didn't tell him because American assets were not involved and they wanted him to have plausible deniability. I don't know if that's true or not, but my question to you is, could MI6 have done something like this, an attack on one of the triad, one of the three means that Russia would use to deliver nuclear weapons, without an express authorization from Prime Minister Starmer? Well, on that specific question, I don't think they could. Anything

of this level and severity would need authorization from the very highest levels of government if indeed that was the case, if Britain was involved. So yes, I don't think they could freelance and do this. I think it would have been authorized at either ministerial or prime ministerial level. I mean, could it have been authorized by Prime Minister Sunak a year ago, and they just kept it from Prime Minister Stammer, or once the government changes, does the new government have to authorize it? I doubt that very much.

I doubt that it would have been authorized 18 months ago when apparently planning started, and then the military and intelligence folk wouldn't have then told Stammer about it before it had happened. I just don't see any likelihood that that would have taken place. Okay. You have accused Prime Minister Stammer of stealing money from the British people. I don't think you're accusing him of putting it in his pocket, but I'll let you explain what you mean by that. Well, we're funding 4.5 billion pounds every year, a war that Ukraine is losing. At a time where we're imposing cuts on ordinary British people, there's no clear plan for what

this strategy is intended to achieve. Everybody knows that Ukraine can't win. They can't push Russia out. There needs to be some sort of peaceful settlement. But Kyr Stalmer, he should be cling on Kyr, that he keeps carrying on, pouring billions into it with the parliament playing no role in offering challenge, the mainstream media totally baying like hounds, supporting him in everything that he does. And ordinary British citizens are sort of kept like

idiots, starved of facts and information about what's really going on while their front line public services are cut. So this is utter nonsense. Clearly we should stop this war, we should stop pouring billions you know into the Ukrainian money printing machine, and we should actually start spending money on British people. This clearly makes sense. You use the phrase money printing machine. Is the 4.5 billion pounds that Great Britain is giving every year to Ukraine borrowed? Or is it taxpayer dollars that they have in the bank? Well of course it's both. The UK has stoked up massive debt. It wants to increase defense spending even further. Rachel Reeves this week has been talking about further temporary tax increases. When a tax

increases ever temporary, I ask you that, Judge. So yes, there is both massive borrowing, huge monthly debt payments and promises of further taxes as well at a time that cuts are made to frontline services to British people. So we're getting the worst of all possible worlds in the UK, and nobody is challenging the ridiculous spending on a war that Ukraine is losing and will lose. Are these appropriations authorized by a vote of parliament after a debate, or is this discretionary with the Prime Minister? Well, the government of the day sets the budget plans, it announces budget. There's a debate in the House about the budget, you know, where the opposition party offers a challenge and then the government carries on, but the opposition is so

weak at the moment that it's unable to offer much challenge, and in any case there's no challenge on the wasteful spending in Ukraine. I wish that George Galloway were still in Parliament and he could at least stand up on the back benches and challenge the Prime Minister the way he did to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. So I was going to ask you why Britain wants war, but I think you would correct me and say, Judge, ask the question why the British government wants war. Do the British people want war? Do the British people go to bed at night fearing a Russian invasion in the morning? Well nobody's ever asked them, Judge. You know, when I speak to ordinary British people in the village out in the

rolling hamster countryside where I live, most people are curious about Russia. How have we ended ended up in this situation? They want to find out because they get force-fed propaganda from the state-owned media in the UK. People feel starved of the truth. So when I speak to people, I find people remarkably open-minded to make sense of what's going on and they're prepared to consider the idea that actually maybe it's us that are making the mistakes here and it isn't all entirely Russia's that actually maybe it's us that are making the mistakes here and it isn't all entirely Russia's fault. So that's the impression I get. This is entirely driven by the British government and the blob on which it sits and

this complete alignment between the media and the political establishment allows the government to sail forth completely unhindered by the massive weight of the bullying of debt that's weighing its ship down and threatening to sink it. Is there, or are there domestic political reasons why the British government wants war? I mean, is there about to be a vote of no confidence? Does he think this will stave it off? No, he has a vast majority. I suspect it's the majority that he may lose, or even if he doesn't lose power in the next election. No, there is no political imperative to mess in the UK for us

to continue to fund the war that Ukraine is going to lose. The problem is that we invested in Ukraine winning and when Ukraine loses we have to actually explain to our electorates why we promised them for so long that Ukraine would win. That makes it far better political bet than to kick the hot can down the road, rather face the terrible reality of defeat and tell the British public that we messed up. This is digging a hole deeper and deeper. Almost literally.

Yes, exactly. And actually, if you take it a step further, for the Europeans, they want to kick the can down the road as well, because actually, when the war stops, then they have to face the even more terrible prospect of admitting Ukraine into the European Union at an enormous cost which they can't afford. Oh good lord, would the EU embrace a raggedy, crushed shadow of its former self Ukraine in the European Union? Well they've been saying that they will. They've been saying there will be accelerated, turbocharged membership, but hold on a minute, a new Polish president has been elected. He

recognizes that his country will lose billions in yearly EU subsidies that will all go to Ukraine in the event of Ukraine joining and he said well let's just wait a minute maybe this isn't such a good idea after all. Hungary has been saying this for some time. Does it require a unanimous vote? Can the presidents of Hungary and Poland stop it on their own? Every stage of the negotiations require unanimity among member states, yes. Okay. Okay. Can the EU absorb Ukraine or would the cost be prohibitive? It cannot. It cannot on the current terms of membership with the same level of subsidies that other members get. Ukraine would account for one quarter of total EU agricultural land that would completely throw up into the air the subsidy system. That's even before you

get into the subsidies for building motorways and that sort of thing. France would veto that because they're the biggest beneficiary of agricultural subsidies. Poland would. That then creates the other option of coming in as a second class citizen, you know, in a country with an army of one million citizens joining and not actually getting the economic benefits that they were promised, that doesn't really seem a very good idea either. Two of our regular guests, both with military backgrounds, have referred to Chancellor Frederick Mertz as the most dangerous German Chancellor since Adolf Hitler himself. Do you agree with that?

dangerous German Chancellor since Adolf Hitler himself. Do you agree with that? Well, apparently he does have some in his relatives, Nazi associations in some way. But I think he's trying to position himself as the new and tough kid on the block. And the problem is that actually he's not matching his words with these. He said that gloves off in terms of the distance of cruise missiles used in Russia. He had to vote back on that. He promised to give Ukraine support, but when Zelensky turned up in Berlin, he said, well, actually, in the end, I can't give you tourist missiles. So the problem is all this bluster and rhetoric, like frankly every European leader before him, he isn't matching up with actual deeds and the problem long term is

actually if France at some point decides to leave the European Union, I'm not saying this early well in the short term, but the way things are going it does seem likely over the next decade you're going to get Germany as by far the biggest state in Europe which poses all sorts of bigger challenges for obvious reasons related to that country's history. Where is Chancellor Mertz on the American destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines? Well, the Europeans now have said they will never again, these pipelines will never again be reopened. Why? Because they hate all things Russian, even cheap natural gas. They hate all things Russian, even cheap natural gas. Yes, even cheap natural gas, even good living standards for their citizens. They hate that too. But they're buying expensive Russian liquefied gas.

At the same time, they're not having piped gas. Judge, none of this makes any economic or political sense. But these guys have bought into this narrative for so long that the cost of them stepping back from these positions is too high. And they'll go on until they're burned by the flames of... We have a game of that meeting on the train with Prime Minister Stammer, President Macron, Chancellor Scholes. I guess it was a train ride.

Oh, on the code carriage. Or it may be in Paris, but I guess it was a train ride to Kiev. Yeah, the code carriage to Kiev. Yeah, I mean, that's just like the standard. That's what I mean. Did anything in terms of positive public policy come of that or was it just a PR stunt? Well, there has been no positive public policy on Ukraine.

We are failing and every time they show up, it's to say that we are winning when clearly we're not winning. So, yes, every time they turn up in their fortified train carriage, that is exactly the purpose. There is no other strategic benefit from these PR stunts whatsoever. Wow. Is Russia, excuse me, is France as warmongering as the Stammer government? I don't think anybody's quite as warmongering as the Starmor government? I don't think anybody is quite as warmongering as the Starmor government. I think Mertz may be second, Macron may be third. But I mean, between the three of them, there seems to be no deviation from the line that we should support Zelensky until he kills the last Ukrainian. In fact, they so hate Trump and his attempt to bring about a negotiated settlement that if anything,

I think that has actually hardened the European position on Ukraine because they don't want Trump to have swept in and delivered a spectacular successful world peace. Unbelievable. Ian Proud, thank you very much, my dear, for thank you from the great Substack articles that you keep sending us. They're absolutely fascinating and thank you. I know it's late at night as I said earlier, thank you for the time you've spent. All the best to you, my friend. We'll see you again soon.

Sure. Bye-bye. We have an interesting and fascinating day for you tomorrow, Thursday at noon Eastern. Alastair Crook at one o'clock, Professor Glenn Deason at two o'clock, Professor Jeffrey Sachs at three o'clock, Professor John Mearsheimer at four o'clock, Professor... All right. At four o'clock, Max Blumenthal, Judge Lopaltano for Judging Freedom. MUSIC