Judging Freedom - INTEL Roundtable w/ Johnson & McGovern: Roundup on Ukraine and Gaza

Episode Date: March 22, 2024

INTEL Roundtable w/ Johnson & McGovern: Roundup on Ukraine and GazaSee 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, March 22nd, 2024. It's on the East Coast of the United States, everybody's favorite time of the week, because it's the end of the day, it's Friday, and it's time for our roundtable discussion, where we sort of recap everything that happened during the preceding week from an intelligence, geopolitical, and military perspective with, of course, my dear friends and comrades, Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern. Let's start with breaking news, which is the explosion and shootings at a concert venue in Moscow. The New York Times says 40 dead and 100 injured.

Larry, do you have information on the latest on this? Ukraine didn't do it. And we know that because the State Department just announced it. Now, think about this. We still don't know how many attackers there were. We still don't know what weapons were used. We've heard gunshots. We've heard explosions. But we don't know any specifics.

The FSB, the Russian Security Service, have reported 40 dead, 100 wounded. And yet the State Department is out saying, Ukraine didn't do it. Ukraine didn't do it. Well, that is really unbelievable for them to make a statement like that with no. How can you make a statement that's a negative? Who did they call, Zelensky? No, because they know that Ukraine did.

And here's how we know. March 7th, the United States Embassy, Moscow, and the U.K. Embassy, Moscow, issue a warning to a travel advisory to all Americans and British citizens. Stay away. There's going to be a terrorist attack within 48 hours. Now, that didn't happen. But I used to be, that was my job. That was part of my job when i was stayed in counter-terrorism those kinds of warnings are only issued when you have specific

credible information and cannot prevent the attack now usually in those circumstances if it had enough specificity and was really solid, we would pass it off to – I don't know who that is. We would pass that information off to the other government and let them take action to prevent it. It wouldn't happen. But in this case, what we've had in the last day on open source intelligence defenders, one of those Twitter channels, very much a part of the propaganda effort out of the CIA. They put out that the U.S. National Security Council and the White House are becoming increasingly frustrated by, quote, unauthorized brazen actions, end quote, taken by Ukraine against Russia.

So this means the United States knew that Ukraine had something in the pipeline. They knew what they were. They had some idea what they're going to do. And the odds are that not only did Ukraine do it, but they did it with weapons and assistance provided by the United States. That's what's got the White House scared to death. Ray, President Putin addressed his senior FSB people on Tuesday. This warning comes out, these warnings, British and American, come out on Wednesday. The explosion is on Friday evening.

The place is packed with young people what do you conclude well i think larry's got his finger on the pulse here um the ridiculous immediate announcement by our state department that ukraine didn't do it reminds me of the biden's certainty uh one hour after navali died that the russ did it. So there's nothing you can trust that comes out of the official organs of our government. We'll have to see how this plays out. You know, it'll be really interesting to find out what the Russians find out about this. I would caution against any expectation that the Russians will retaliate in kind. I think they will retaliate, but it will be typically measured,

and it will be the kind of attack that they have been doing. Witness the fact that about 40 strikes in Kiev just two nights ago. So there will be retaliation. I don't think there will be terrorist attacks, at least not of the Russians. Yeah, very, very sensible analysis. Larry, the initial report said three males in fatigues, in camouflage. Does Russia Today confirm that? No, no. Again, there's all these initial reports about number of attackers, how they were dressed, what they were using. I always put that aside because invariably a lot of that ends up being wrong. Or once we get to the information later, the details will become clear. But just note that historically, this isn't the first time you've had this kind of thing happen in Moscow.

You know, 22 years ago at the Dubrovsk Theater, you had Chechen terrorists break in. They shot and killed 172 people. Or they died when the Russian security services put in gas to try to put everybody to sleep. And a lot of the people suffocated as a result of that. And then two years later, in 2004, a major terrorist attack on a school in Beslan where over 370 people were killed. So but the point of all of this is when you listen to what Maria Zakharova, the spokeswoman for the foreign ministry, said on March 8th, in the aftermath of this warning out of Washington and London, she said very clearly, if there is a subsequent terrorist attack, we'll know that Washington and London were involved.

Now, that tells me that there had not been an information pass from the U.S. government to the Russians saying, hey, guys, heads up, we got this intelligence. We think there might be an attack coming this way. Because if there had been, she wouldn't have said that. Yeah. Ray, is this the type of thing that MI6 and CIA would plan and perpetrate? Well, yeah, it would be. I mean, this is the kind of thing that agencies rogue or instructed do. So I wouldn't rule out and make believe they're Russians.

They have free reign to do these things. The security, however good in Moscow, is not, you know, foolproof. So yeah, I would say, well, we'll have to see how Putin reacts, because I dare say there's a fairer chance of getting to the bottom of this thing after the very equivalent of the FBI looks into it than there would be in other countries. I won't mention others. Yeah, but you're talking about a Friday night at a concert in a major city. Who's going to get killed? Young people, innocent people, people that have nothing to do with any of the conflagrations between Ukraine and Russia. This is as far away from a legitimate military target as you can

imagine, other than maybe a hospital or a school or a church. Well, it's terrorism. And, you know, if further proof were needed for Putin and Lavrov's charges that it's a terrorist entity there in Ukraine, well, this is it. And the main effect will be to solidify the support of the Russian people. Okay. Now, 87% is pretty good for the election. 77%, even better in terms of turnout for the election. Right. So this will add to the fact that whatever Putin in his own measured way, I hope, decides to do, will have the full support, 90% maybe, of the Russian people. Larry, do you agree with Ray that this is within the CIA's basket of tricks, either direct or rogue? I shouldn't call it tricks. I can't demean it. A basket of horribles,

whatever you want. That's a Hillary Clinton phrase, whatever you want to call it. Yeah, it potentially it is. But what I do note is that this, this OS, this open source intelligence defender, this Twitter handle, the fact that they came out just today or late yesterday with this complaint from the NSC and other officials in Washington, that tells me that there are many times in history where the CIA has trained people and had associations with some unsavory characters. And then when the CIA tried to get control of them, they didn't have effective control. And those people went off and did whatever they would do. But the CIA was still complicit because it was involved with the training. And so I think in this case, I think

the most likely scenario is that the Ukrainians carried this out despite some objections or complaints by the West because they've reached the conclusion, we're not going to get any more help from Washington anyway, so we might as well do whatever we can do to save ourselves. And this is such a desperate act because, as you correctly note, you're killing civilians for military purpose, other than this is simply going to unify the Russian people even more behind Putin. Ray, what happens if the Russian forensics people discover indisputably that the means were manufactured in the United States, the explosive means?

Well, it's unlikely they will. In other words, these things are usually very artfully concealed. But if they do, they'll bring it to the UN, as they were bringing things to the UN today, and they'll explicate their grievances, and not many people will listen, except those who are more inclined now to give credence to the Russian representative than they are to others.

And what happened today, of course, is really, really interesting. Perhaps we'll get to that a little bit later. Right. Well, we can get to it right now. The United States offered a resolution which was intended to begin a process toward a ceasefire. The Russians and Chinese vetoed it. They said because it wasn't strong enough, it didn't actually call for or demand a ceasefire. It called for a process toward a ceasefire. Mearsheimer has read the resolution.

He says the Russiansians the chinese are correct uh that it wasn't uh a ceasefire as the other ones that the u.s had vetoed were so before we start here is a very very craven hand-wringing secretary of state of the united states it's embarrassing but you have to watch this if you haven't seen it. Cut number two, Sonia, attempting to explain what the hell happened at the UN today. Can you tell us in practical terms what the U.S. was trying to achieve with the resolution that was put forward at the United Nations today? And then on your conversations today, you described in broad strokes some themes that

are familiar. I wonder whether you delivered or heard any messages today that are new and different from your past conversations here. So on the resolution, which got very strong support, but then was cynically vetoed by Russia and China, I think we were trying to show the international community a sense of urgency about getting a ceasefire tied to the release of hostages, something that everyone, including the countries that vetoed the resolution, should have been able to get behind.

The resolution, of course, also condemned Hamas. It's unimaginable why countries wouldn't be able to do that. But I think the fact that we got such a strong vote despite the veto by two of the permanent members of the Security Council, again, is evidence and demonstration of the commitment, the conviction of countries around the world, notably on the Security Council, to see about getting the ceasefire and getting the release of hostages now. That's what the resolution said. That's what it called for. And I think it showed a strong commitment to that from many, many countries. With regard to the conversations we had, look, this is an ongoing process. As I said, we really were focused on three things, the hostage negotiations, humanitarian assistance, and Rafa. And it was

important that, again, we focused on all three things. I'm not going to get into the details of what we discussed, but I think from my perspective at least, these were important, candid conversations to have at a critical time on all three of those issues. Is it real that it will be isolated if it doesn't change its path? Again, what I shared, and I think what they've heard from President Biden as well,

directly, is we have the same goals, the defeat of Hamas, Israel's long-term security. But a major ground operation in Raqqa is not, in our judgment, the way to achieve it. And, you know, we've been very clear about that. But most important, we have a senior team coming to Washington next week. We'll all be taking part in those discussions. We'll be able to lay out for them in detail. I started to do that today, but it's important that the teams with all the expertise lay out in detail how those goals can best be accomplished with an integrated humanitarian,

military and political plan. We'll put all that on the table. Of course, we'll hear from them too. And we'll take it to next week. The two of you took courses in your early days of training on body language. What did you see there, Professor McGovern? Well, I saw an overly defensive person who had every reason to be very, very defensive. You know the expression giving hypocrisy a bad name? That's what happened at the Security Council today.

The US resolution did not, I repeat, did not call for immediate ceasefire, okay? It, in the words of the Chinese representative, it gave the green light for further killing, okay? It's tied to hostage stuff, tied to other things. It was really, really disgraceful. And I have to say that that is the word that the Russian representative gave to the charade here. He pointed out, the Russian representative and ambassador, he said, look, you know, you all voted for the resolution because you like to be dictated by the lords in Washington. You knew, they told you that we would, that Russia and China would veto this. You just wanted it to be in good odor, and you knew that this was not a call for an immediate ceasefire, which has to happen now. Otherwise, there's further bloodletting, okay? This is pazar. That's the strongest word you can use in Russian. It's a scandal.

It's a, what did he call it? A disgrace. Pazar. It's as strong as sukin sin, which is some of the... All right, you don't have to translate everything. Larry, same question on Tony Blinken's body language, but also opine on his characterization of the intellectual honesty of the Russians and the Chinese by calling it cynical. Yeah, the pot calling kettle black. You know, there's a revelation that, look, this is this is all part of this new political strategy that the Biden White House has trotted out over the last two weeks.

And, you know, and part of that was they welcomed Benny Gantz to the White House. And then Chuck Schumer gets to go out and make his speech about, hey, let's get rid of Bibi Netanyahu. And then then the United States is stepping up to the to, hey, we're offering a ceasefire resolution. This has nothing about changing things on the international front. This is all a domestic political play. They are trying to bamboozle the American Arab and American Muslim voters who are outraged at the Biden policy of enabling genocide against Palestinians. And so they're trying to put a bandaid on this gaping, sucking chest wound. And it's not going to work. But that's what Blinken was up to today. And

there'd be one thing, it was just Russia. But Russia and China together blew the whistle on this. And it's becoming increasingly clear to, I think, most people that the entire UN Security Council is a broken mechanism. It needs to be altered. Countries like India and Brazil, actual big countries that weren't really in a position to do anything 70 years ago, they now need a seat at the table so that this European controlled council is weakened. Ray, let's say that this explosion and these killings at the Moscow concert were not pulled off by CIA or MI6 or anybody that knew about it. And let's say that CIA and MI6 found out about it ahead of time. In this era of zero diplomacy, as far as we know, between Russia and the U.S. Would CIA or MI6 inform their counterparts, hey guys, there's going to be an explosion sometime Friday night at a concert

in central Moscow? Yes, this has precedent. This has worked. The Russians have thanked us in the past for alerting them. Larry is the expert on that. But with respect to the Security Council, I'd just like to make one more remark here. Larry Sabato. Larry Sabato. Larry Sabato. John Haskell.

John Haskell. Larry Sabato. John Haskell. John Haskell. Larry Sabato. John Haskell. John Haskell. Larry Sabato. John Haskell. John Haskell. testified before the UN Security Council today in an eloquent way, managed to stick in. Hey, you guys, the veto power should be dissolved. We should change the ground rules here so we can do

some sensible things by majority rule. It was amazing. He spent a half a minute on that in addition to all the wonderful other things he does on YouTube. You can look at it. Well, it's also on judging freedom under videos. It's a brilliant and moving statement. But getting back to the, Larry, let me ask you what I asked Ray about the cooperation between intelligence agencies, even when their bosses are shooting verbal arrows at each other. Would the Americans have told the Russians, somebody's going to kill 45 of your kids on Friday night?

Yeah, if we had that kind of information, absolutely, unless we were involved with the plot, unless we were involved with the planning and the training, then of course not. We're not going to go to the woods right now. If we were involved with the plot in any way, as obtuse as looking the other way or as profound as training, would FSB, the Russian security forces, know that? No, not necessarily.

No, they wouldn't. So, you know, we've had some examples during the coup to overthrow Salvador Allende in Chile as an example. Yes, the CIA was actively involved prior to that coup trying to gin up a coup. But when the actual coup happened, and you'd be interested to know, one of the junior intelligence officers that was there on scene was your buddy Jack Devine. Another one was a friend of mine, Bill Wagner. And I heard directly from Bill that once Pinochet started the coup, they completely shut out the U.S. Embassy. So even though in that case, the U.S. embassy through the CIA had been involved in plotting and planning, when it came to the actual execution, they got shut out and just told, you know, go away, leave us alone. We also had, though, the Russians about a year before

the marathon bombing by the Sarnieff brothers up in Boston, they alerted the CIA and they alerted the FBI that, hey, you got the Sarnieff kid in your country and he's tied to these Chechen extremists. You need to keep an eye on him. And what did the FBI do? Filed it and didn't do anything with it. So there is that kind of information sharing that goes back and forth. You do get this fine line. If you have very specific,

very credible information, you don't need to scare the hell out of people. You take care of it behind the scenes. You take care of it quietly. What does Putin do, Ray? What does he do now? I mean, does he bomb

Kiev? He's not going to start killing civilians. That's not his style. He's been bombing Kyiv now. I think there were 40 strikes just two nights ago. I think that with the mandate Putin now has, he can afford to, like Putin, cautious, attrition, attrition, attrition. If he finds out, if there's compelling evidence that the U.S. or Britain or Ukraine was involved, he'll make a big point of that. And there will be retaliation, but it won't take the form of terrorism in the traditional sense, I don't think, unless he goes off half-cocked, unlike Mr. Putin, I know, and just kind of says, I'm so angry, I'm going to do this back to them, tit for tat. I don't think it's going to happen.

The Russians have the upper hand in Ukraine. They're playing with the high cards. They can do what they want with the power that they already have larry um before we go you have a interesting fascinating piece you put out in the wee hours last night on the roots of western hatred of russia what are those roots oh it goes back to support the Nazis in the immediate aftermath of World War II. We rounded up and got behind a guy named General Reinhard Galen.

Galen was set up initially by Army intelligence but then passed off to the CIA. Galen was out recruiting among, you'd be shocked to hear this, Ukrainians. Ukrainians who had been allied with the Nazis in the war against the West and against the Soviet Union.

So it started off very early that the CIA was enabling and cooperating with Nazis. So it wasn't Nazism that bugged us so much. It just, you know, they had gotten outside the boundaries of their country. What we were really angry at were the Soviets and the commies. Well, now we jump ahead 70 years later, and where are we? We're back to supporting neo-Nazis in Ukraine. So that's one of the elements of it the the other element has to do

with the bureaucratic leadership of the cia throughout time mistake after mistake failure after failure this is not to besmirch a lot of good intelligence officers that are involved both in the operations side of the house and the intel side of the house but inevitably things get really fouled up at the management and especially the senior management level because you know ray and i can both recount incident after incident where the those of us down in the bowels of the ship rowing the you know with the oars like the ben-hur slaves, that when you try to put the word up on top that they've got it wrong, they don't want to hear it. And we've seen that repeatedly throughout history. So you've got this strange dichotomy.

On the one hand, you've got some very good officers in the CIA guided by some of the most inept, corrupt, obtuse people that you can imagine. Wow. All right, guys, been a heck of a week. We will be dark on Friday next week because it's Good Friday, but I hope we can get, I'll see you both on Mondays, but I hope we can get the round table in on Holy Thursday because this tying everything together that happened in the previous or in the preceding week is very much appreciated and very fulfilling for the audience and for me. Thank you, gentlemen. Have a great weekend. I'll see you both on Monday at your usual times. You too, Judge. Okay. So we have a little bit of a shortened week next week, but we will get all of our regulars in for you because I love this work

and you've been so appreciative with your subscriptions and with all your views. The numbers are out of sight. Believe me, I hear the comments about our numbers from my friends at those alphabet-numbered places, one of which I worked for 24 years. All the best. Have a great weekend. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. 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.