Judging Freedom - INTEL Roundtable w/ Johnson & McGovern: Ukraine/Gaza Weekly Wrap

Episode Date: August 16, 2024

INTEL Roundtable w/ Johnson & McGovern: Ukraine/Gaza Weekly WrapSee 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, August 16th, 2024. It's the end of the week. It's the end of the day. It's our happiest time. It's time to catch up on and review the major events of the week in the military and intelligence worlds. And of course, we happily do so with our dear friends and collaborators, Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern, the Intelligence Community Roundtable. Gentlemen, my pleasure. Welcome here, as always. So I want to start out by talking about the invasion into Kursk. Larry, I'm going to ask you about the military, and Ray, I'm going to ask you about the intelligence. Ray, to you first. Is it even conceivable that this could have happened without the assistance and approval of MI6 and CIA? The answer is no. Not very often can you say a definitive no, but the Russians know that,

and that's what's the key point here. Nikolai Patrushev, who used to be Putin's Jacob Sullivan, National Security Advisor to all intents and purposes, he's now a very close aide of Putin. And he took to his vestia, which was released today, and this is what he said. The U.S. leadership, its claims of non-involvement in Kiev's actions in Kursk do not correspond with reality. Without their participation and direct support, Kiev would not have ventured into Russian territory. And Patrushev told ICSJ that yesterday. So here it is today. What else do we have? We have Podolyak, one of Zelensky's

personal advisors. Yeah, yeah, the Russians, the Americans were advised on this. We have Biden on Tuesday. Oh, we're in contact with the Ukrainian official, and I'm not going to say anymore. You know, the Russians are going to hold us responsible for this. And I think that Putin's patience is going to be tested in a way that hasn't been tested before. Because you have U.S., British, other NATO troops and equipment invading Russia big time for the first time ever. Let me just add this little footnote here. What the U.S. is, what the press is saying, AP yesterday, here you go, Ukraine's stunning incursion into Kursk with a bold gamble, okay?

Who, the military commanders committed limited resources to this with no assurance of success. Well, actually, I'd change one word in that. With no prospect of success. What's going to happen here is they're going to be all driven out. And, you know, even in AP, they try to cover their rear ends and say, well, you know, they're committing new troops at a time when military leaders are short on manpower. They're really needed in the Donbass. And so we're not really sure how it's going to come out very badly. And as I say, Putin and his advisers be hard pressed not to do something different from what they have before

with respect to direct NATO, in this case, U.S. and U.K. involvement. Larry, to the military side, now I may have asked you this question five days ago, but we probably know more about it now than we did then. Did the United States and some of the NATO generals helped Ukraine plan this operation. They helped supply it. And there are reportedly up to 2,000 foreign mercenaries that include U.S. citizens involved in that initial incursion, which consisted of around 12,000 men. So we're talking roughly six brigades. And it is the objective initially was to capture Kurchatov. I think it is the nuclear power plant that's just to the west of Kursk.

And they failed. Because what they're going to do, they're going to take it, hold it, and use it as a bargaining chip to try to force the Russians out of Zaporizhia. Again, why I'm convinced that this is Western planning is because of complete ignorance of Russian history. The Russians ain't going to negotiate with you over an invasion of their territory. They're going to kill you. Just ask Napoleon, how did that turn out?

Just ask the Nazis. Didn't turn out well. And it's one of those failures to understand that this is crossing a red line for the Russians in a way that what was called the special military operation is going to change in character. And just today, we're seeing some new reports coming out with the Russians saying, hey, those crazy Ukrainians are going to use a dirty bomb with a nuclear warhead and hit one of these nuclear reactors. Russia's not going to sit back and wait to take a punch in the nose. Is this embarrassing, Larry? Is this embarrassing to President Putin that it has gone on this long and that the geographic area, I realize it's not Moscow, but the geographic area, forests, and almost wasteland,

keeps expanding, or at least the Western press is reporting these expansions. Does this embarrass or, A, embarrass, or, B, put pressure on President Putin? I don't know if it embarrasses him. So what? It embarrasses him. That doesn't change if it embarrasses him. And so what? It embarrasses him. That doesn't change the course of the war. Does it piss him off?

Oh, yeah. That's what you got to be concerned about. Because, you know, Putin has always been the moderate, the one slowest to anger, the one that's counseled, if you will, a steady hand, moderation, not getting overly excited. But now, you know, with this, it was clear from his conversations with other government ministers in the wake of the attack that, hey, I'm not negotiating anymore. He's really taking negotiations off the table. So any hope that the West had that this jaunt into Kursk would compel the Russians to negotiate, backfire. Just the opposite.

Ray, I'm going to play a clip from Baghdad Bob Kirby. Pretty much says the opposite of what Larry just said. And then I'd like you to comment on it. Chris, number four. Putin is embarrassed and furious. What are your fears that they've poked the bear and that he's going to really hit them hard? Well, there's not a lot I can say about the Ukrainian operation right now. I'll let them speak to this. We have seen the Russians react to I'LL LET THEM SPEAK TO THIS. WE HAVE SEEN THE RUSSIANS REACT TO IT IN TERMS OF DIVERTING SOME MILITARY MANPOWER AND RESOURCES TO THE KURSK AREA. NOT CLEAR TO US EXACTLY HOW MUCH

THEY'RE GOING TO DO OR HOW MANY FORCES THEY'RE GOING TO PUT THERE OR WHAT THEIR INTENTIONS ARE OR WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO ABOUT WHAT THE UKRAINIANS ARE DOING. WE'RE TALKING TO THE UKRAINIANS IN REAL TIME, AS YOU MIGHT

IMAGINE. WE WANT TO BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. IN THE MEANTIME, ANDREA, WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO MAKE SURE THAT UKRAINE HAS THE WEAPONS AND CAPABILITIES THAT IT NEEDS TO DEFEND ITSELF. as you might imagine, we want to better understand what's going on here. In the meantime, Andrew, we're going to continue to make sure that Ukraine has the weapons and capabilities that it needs to defend itself. I guess he could have extended that statement and said, defend itself and invade Russia. This is consistent with what you said earlier, Ray. We are talking to the Ukrainians in real time. It is inconceivable that this happened

without U.S. knowledge and permission. I can't even imagine them thinking they could get away with this without their masters authorizing it. Well, that's true. And the question now is what Putin and his advisors will decide to do. I have a clue here. There's a fellow named Dmitry Trenin. He used to be head of Carnegie Institute there, the Moscow branch. And during the war, he switched over and said, look, you know, this is this kind of war

that I need to support my Russian colleagues. So what does he say here? He's been a harbinger of things to come. He warned about small-scale nuclear weapons early on, and now he's saying this. Look, we can hope that America's instinct for self-prohibition will be stronger than its arrogance. Here's the key. But hopes are hopes. It is clear that Russia has already exhausted its reserve of verbal warnings. The hostile actions of our adversaries do not call for condemnation, but for preemptive response. Okay, here we go. We're now talking about airfields in NATO countries, including Poland, where F-16s handed over to Kiev might be based. A tough response, get this, a tough response at an early stage in the development of each of these schemes has a better chance of preventing later escalation,

okay? Of course, the strongest position for Russia is to be proactive, to pursue preventive strategies in which Moscow does not have to react all the time to what the West does. Now, this is a very well-respected with incredibly good contacts and influence in the West does. Now, this is a very well respected with incredibly good contacts and influence in the Kremlin. What is he saying? He's saying, as he said three months ago, advertise the fact that you too have low yield nuclear weapons, and this time advertise the fact that you're going to preempt some of these things. And, you know, when they clean out the residue from what's left of these battalions and brigades in Kursk, I fear for any Ukrainians still on the battle line, that 1,000 kilometer battle line that now exists, and this lake is very porous and could disintegrate

very quickly. So the question is, would that happen before the election? Would Putin want to do that? That's his calculation. I don't know what he's going to do, but the stage is set and he's been advised to take preemptive, proactive measures, not to just keep reacting. Larry, what would happen if the Russians destroyed F-16s on the ground in Poland, not attack the Polish people, not attack their infrastructure, not attack their military, but attack American-supplied military equipment on the ground in Poland? Well, they would initially confirm that, in fact, Vladimir Putin is intent on conquering Europe. That's how the West would play it, number one. It's like we set the fire and then when the Russians show up to put out the fire

they get accused of starting the fire. I mean, that's how this thing works. But there would be howls of outrage. But I think that's about where it would end. Because then when it comes time, you know, the time to start doing the cutting, nobody wants to be the first one to step up with the knife in hand and risk getting cut back. So it would certainly send a clear message. Plus, on top of it,

the U.S. is quite distracted with what's going on in the Middle East. It's got two-thirds of its navy, maybe half of its navy floating around out there. The United States is not in a position where it can do two things well at once. It does have trouble walking and chewing gum. Chris, do we still have those two senators, without me even mentioning their names, meeting with and addressing President Zelensky? You're fighting our fight, the independence and freedom of people around the world,

including the United States. But we want the American people to appreciate the value of this alliance. So two and a half years later, you're still standing and you're in Russia. Remind me not to invade Ukraine. I'm so proud of you, your people, your military, your leadership, your country. You're under siege. Unlike anything I've seen in my lifetime. They were predicting in Washington that Key would fall in four days, the whole country fall in three

weeks. Well, they were wrong. As repellent as all of this is, it is very telling. I mean, you have two United States senators, Richard Blumenthal and Lindsey Graham, whose voting records overlap on nothing except war. This is a classic example of the war party, a conservative Republican, if ever there was one, and a liberal Democrat, if ever there was one. Ray, is President Zelensky on his way out? Oh, I believe so. I think the latest thing is this Nord Stream business where, what, six run in a boat and they blame it on Zelensky. Oh, no, it's Zalushin. No, it was Zelensky. No. I mean, give me a break. They're setting him up. Now, the question is, who can they replace him with? Zoloshny, I think, is in London.

He's the ambassador. Is there somebody, Sierski, who's frittered away the Ukrainian army? They have nobody to put in his place. I don't see much happening until the election, our election, and see what happens. Now, with respect to what you just showed those two senators, you know, I'll just repeat the first line of what I quoted from Dimitri Trenin. Let's hope that America's instinct for self-preservation will be stronger than its arrogance. Now, the arrogance comes through. The question is whether Putin is moved by arrogance. Does he rise to the bait or

not? My bet is still that he'll go real cautiously here. He won't hit Polish airfields. That would be a no-no. That would be rising to the debate. What he would do is hit those planes as soon as they arise from airfields. He doesn't need that. He's in the driver's seat here. He can wait until, as he said he would do before the latest fracas in Kursk. He can sit and wait and see what happens before the election and see if anything has any prospect of changing afterwards. There's no need for him to bite off more than he can chew right now. Chris, can you put up the Wall Street Journal headline while I address Larry on this? I mean, look at this, Larry, a drunken evening, a rented yacht.

I mean, the Wall Street Journal of all people? Why would they be doing Intel a favor, American Intel presumably, and publishing this nonsense in the face of the 20-page documented report that Cy Hirsch wrote about this a year and a half ago? Yeah, let's be clear. We're talking here about the Gilligan Island scenario. So we got the captain in Gilligan. We got Marianne, the professor in the house. And they decided to go out and do some deep sea diving and plant themselves some explosives. But after having some cocktails,

they had to have an adult beverage or two, I guess, to get the courage up. I mean, as Ray said, this is simply prepping the battlefield for dumping Zelensky. If I was him, I'd be packing my bags and be ready to get out before he is given the choice of being carried out feet first, which means he would not get to live in any of the villas

that he's built up overseas. This thing is so silly on so many levels, and yet it's being put out for a reason. It's constructing the narrative that, you know, because the storyline is the CIA, they're like Butterfly McQueen in Gone with the Wind. You know, Miss Scarlet, I don't know nothing about birth and no babies. And it's like, we didn't know nothing about this Nord Stream pipeline until we heard that these terrible, bad Ukrainians were going to do something. I mean, for God's sake. It's just, it's not even good propaganda. That's the problem with it. It's so amateurish. We have, Chris Runn, do you still have the clip of President Biden

predicting before it was exploded that we would take care of while standing next to the Chancellor of Germany, Chris, and it's been questioned by a German journalist in the White House. You can't make this up. Chris, run that clip. If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it. Well, Judge, you have not only... How did the Wall Street Journal explain that part, Brad? Well, they don't. They don't have to. You have not only Biden, you have Mullen, you have Tony Blinken bragging about what a great thing this was because it creates all kinds of opportunities for U.S. business. of the thing, if the Russians wanted to stop the flow of gas, they could have turned it off, for God's sake, you know. They had to sabotage this $12 billion monument to engineering efficiency.

So the whole thing makes no sense. The problem is American people, well, not everybody tunes into our show. Now, I'm delighted to hear how many do and how many are still doing, even though we have trouble with other places. But, you know, not everybody knows this stuff. And that's the fly in the ointment. People don't know what's going on. They don't even know that the president said, yeah, we're going to shut down that pipeline. No, it's six Ukrainians on a boat, and Zelensky is illusioning, and that's great, great story. Give me a break. Cy Hersh told how it was done. The president said that it would be done.

What more do you need? Right. Harry, switching subject matters over to Gaza, can you explain why Iran is taking so long, or what, to a layperson like I am, and not to you guys who are professionals, but to me, seems so long to respond to the most recent assassination, the one that occurred in the guest house in Tehran? Because they're not acting emotionally. Let's recall history. In July 1988, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian Airbus. Six months later, in December, Pan Am 103 was blown out of the sky. Now, although two Libyan agents were identified as having planted the bomb,

I know that some CIA guys, Bob Baer in particular, still believe very fervently that that was a revenge attack by Iran paid the Libyans to help carry it out. So they're willing to wait. They're in no rush. I mean, but they're going to respond and they're going to deliver a message. I think what will happen most likely, well, they'll deliver a ballistic missile or two to a highly sensitive Israeli site that's south of Jerusalem. It's out in the desert, but it is an important intelligence site

that basically controls a lot of Israel's ability to secure its borders and its airspace. And that they'll blow that out of the way. But they're going to do it in their time when it's convenient for them. And there's nonsense in the West that they think that Iran's chickened out. Iran has not chickened out. Iran has not chickened out.

Iran's working with the Russians. Iran's shoring up its air defense systems. Iran is putting in place robust electronic warfare systems. And best of all, and I think Pepe Escobar made this point on your show the other day, where he said that it was noteworthy about China's role. China is really behind the scenes on this, but supporting Iran in a way that it never has before. And part of that has been accelerated because the Israelis had the audacity to murder Hania, that's Hania, the Politburo chief of Hamas, two to three days after they'd been in Beijing,

signing an agreement where all Palestinian groups are going to cooperate. So this Western notion that Iran somehow has to act like we do, and let's be candid about our history of action, we don't really have what you'd call a winning record. Ray, as we speak, the worst American Secretary of State in the post-World War II era Amen to that. is flying to, I guess, Jerusalem, maybe Tel Aviv. I'm not sure where he's going to land.

Supposedly to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu, who hasn't been seen in public in 12 days. It was probably in a bunker somewhere. Does anybody take Netanyahu seriously with respect to negotiations? Even the New York Times acknowledges he keeps upping the ante every time the Hamas people agree. And of course, he infamously murdered the chief negotiator for Hamas.

Does anybody think, does Blinken think that Netanyahu seriously wants a negotiation? If he enters into a ceasefire and Smotrich and Ben-Gavir leave the government, He's Mr. Netanyahu, not Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the House of Cards collapses. Well, the Blinken to Israel, I think it's tomorrow, actually, he departs or arrives in Israel. That's a charade. But the rhetoric says that Blinken is pushing a new bridging proposal with pious proposals that say, yeah, well, release the hostages. We'll have a ceasefire and all that stuff.

And this was great progress in Doha just yesterday. Okay. The only problem was the Israelis and the Iranians weren't involved, and neither was Hamas. So this is crazy stuff. But what does it really mean? It means that Blinken wants to make sure that he's in Israel so when Iran does react, that he'll be around to say, look, it wasn't our fault. We had this bridging proposal here, and the Iranians and Hamas and everybody else reacted to that to sabotage it. So, you know, this Blinken to Israel is really getting pretty old. What is it, the sixth or seventh time he's gone there? He has no real influence with Netanyahu.

That shows. And, of course, whether he really wants to have influence with Netanyahu is another question. So I think the Iranians are going to move next few days. I think that's part of why Blinken's gone to Israel. And I think they'll target, as Larry said, sensitive military installations. I think they may also wink when parts of the resistance in Syria and in Iraq, where U.S. has in Syria about 900 troops, in Iraq, I think 1,500 last time I checked. They're vulnerable. They're sitting ducks. I think that they're intentionally sitting ducks, but they're going to get whacked, I think, as part of this response. And then we'll have to decide what Biden's going to do, since he seems

to be incapable of saying, look, you're on your own, Netanyahu, if you go any further. He can't say that. So all is necessary of what he should say, and that would tamp down things. But in an election year, you don't say that to an Israeli prime minister. One of our viewers says, Judge, I'd like to see Blinken's plane land in Jerusalem. Obviously, it lands in Tel Aviv or the airport for Tel Aviv. Larry, you're a former official of the State Department. What do you think that mentality thinks of Netanyahu now? They must know he's just interested in, I'll use their phrase, mowing the grass. He's not interested in peace. He's not interested in ceasefire. He's interested in mowing the grass and self-preservation, period.

Do you agree? And what do you, I think you agree, but what do you think they think about this? Well, I'm not sure we have too many thinking people left at State. I did an interview the other day with Chas Freeman. Boy, you know, that brought back memories of competence. Because, you know, when Chas was there, we also had a secretary of state by the name of George Schultz, who was magnificent and being an, demonstrating how a secretary of state is supposed to operate. We had some other, you know, really quality diplomats that were thoughtful. And what made Chas so unique back in his day was like when Deputy Secretary Eagleburger was trying to push something that Chas thought was just a damn stupid idea. Chas would push back. He wasn't going, oh, you know, I'm not the deputy secretary.

He wouldn't genuflect. There would be active open debate back and forth. You don't have that now. What happens now? Well, what happens now is we've got, we're the equivalent. Hopefully you've never been on that airplane where you're sitting there on the aisle seat. You look up towards the cockpit, the doors open, and there's nobody in the pilot seat or the co-pilot seat. You realize the plane's on autopilot, which is not a good situation.

That's exactly where our country is right now. We are drifting into war, both in Europe and in the Middle East. I mean, think of all the military assets we've now deployed. Not a single one of them have the capability to intercept and destroy a ballistic missile fired by Iran. I mean, I guess there are to be targets for target practice. It's insane. So this failure to have an adult in the room recognize that we've got to talk, we need to defuse the situation because it's heading someplace bad. Ray. I'd endorse what Larry said here and remind people that some 30 Foreign Service officers have already quit the State Department. And when you think over this issue, over Gaza mostly, and when you think of what kinds of people would sign up for the State Department after Pompeo and other people have corrupted it. Well, that's another thing.

A footnote on Chas Freeman. How many of you know, your audience, that Chas Freeman was the director, was the chairman of the National Intelligence Council? He was picked to do that job by an admiral who was the National Intelligence Director, and he was in office for seven hours until the Israel lobby got him, okay? You can look it all up. This admiral had the presence of mind to put somebody in this key possession this is the director of national national council for intelligence it had to do with preparing national intelligence estimates the president's daily brief and chas freeman was picked to do that he came it was a demotion for him under Under what president was this, Ray? This is fascinating. Let's see.

This would be. H.W.? No, this was under Obama. Obama caved. Larry, should I be surprised that the Israeli influence reaches so deep into the American government that they can determine who fills what position in the defense department and the intelligence community? Judge, listen, man, they pay good money for this. I mean, they deserve to get value for their dollar. Come on. What are you, a socialist? As Ritter says over Netanyahu's 58 or whatever it is, Pencil, you count them, standing ovations.

Judge, that audience was bought and paid for. Yeah, absolutely. Gentlemen, thank you. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Larry. No, I just said we're in an awful situation where we don't have somebody, you know, when Dwight Eisenhower at least could tell Israel,

the Brits, and the French, get the hell out. Stop what you're doing. this is going to end now. We don't have anybody that could do that. I'm going to ask Ambassador Freeman about this experience when I interview him next week. Thank you for it, Ray. And thank you both, of course, for all the time that you give us. I look forward to seeing you both as usual at your usual slots on Monday

morning. All the best. Thanks so much. Of course. And we will have all of your favorites on next week, no matter what's going on in the world or in the internet. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.