Judging Freedom - Is A New Cold War Coming? w/Alastair Crooke fmr Brit ambassador

Episode Date: September 28, 2023

Is A New Cold War Coming? w/Alastair Crooke fmr Brit ambassadorSee 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 Thursday, September 28th, 2023. Our good friend Alistair Crook joins us from the hills outside of Rome, Italy. Alistair, always a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you for coming back on the show. These weekly injections of your big brain are so much appreciated by so many of our viewers, not the least of whom is your humble correspondent here. And I'm deeply grateful for it. Is there any doubt in your mind that the West has lusted for an opportunity to use Ukraine

to weaken Russia? Yes, there's no doubt. I mean, there's no doubt about that, that they were using it. And the question and the deeper question is, what were they trying to do? How were they trying to use it? I don't think it was just simply to try and project, if you like, the new woke agenda on Ukraine and to use that. I think that was just a sort of pretext and part of it. But it was also, I think, deeply, if you like, part of an ethnic conflict. It was designed to be a racial conflict between Ukrainians and Russians, whether you call it ethnic, to be polite, but it was basically a racial conflict. And you saw that very much in some of the language that was used by Ukraine.

And you've seen it also expressed in some of the Western language about how this is a sort of a fight for the end and that Putin has to be humiliated and defeated and his narrative buried forever. So yes, I think the question is, was it from the beginning an idea that they could use Ukraine as a sort of runway and a platform to take it to a bigger conflict with Russia, one in which the sort of Western cultural paradigm is set against, if you like, the old Russian values and sense of continuity with their own civilization. I think the jury's out on that, but I think it's highly likely that many people did see this as the ultimate objective. I realize, Alistair, the profound cultural, historical, and language differences, but why do you call it racial?

Let me refine the question. Do you mean white Anglo-Saxon Protestant West versus Slavic East? Or do you mean something Ukrainian versus something Russian? No, what you first said, yes. I think it is that against Slavic East. racial, animus, pushing Tony Blinken and the neocons versus Vladimir Putin and the East? I think that's clear. I mean, you've often remarked yourself, why is there such extraordinary sort of unfathomable hatred towards Russia and Russians? And I think there's no real answer for that, except that this is going to be used as part of the, if you like, a move towards a greater conflict between Russia and the Western sphere. I think fortunately, that's not going to happen, because I think the Ukrainian conflict is coming to a fairly rapid end so I don't think

we're going to get into the big war unless someone does something you know really dangerous always possible I mean look what happened with Britain all those years ago I mean when they were on the ropes and they were you know being beaten back they the Suez operation, and it was a disaster for France and Britain. And, you know, they did it simply to prove that they were not weak when all the world saw that they were weak. You are a student of history, American, British world history. You particularly focused recently on Zbigniew Brzezinski and his thoughts and ideas in the years when he was national security advisor to President Carter. President Carter, by the way, is about to celebrate his 99th birthday. God bless him.

Congratulations. Thank you. How long will it take the West to realize, Brzezinski to Blinken and everybody in between, notwithstanding, that their efforts to use Ukraine to weaken Russia have not only not worked, it's had the opposite effect? I don't think they're ready to see that at the moment, but there is a clear continuum from what Brzezinski was writing and saying, and he framed it entirely in this. It wasn't about democracy promotion or anything else. It was simply that because Ukraine was a divided society, rather as Ireland is a very divided society between, you know, both religiously and culturally in terms of a historical appreciation of the past. He saw this as the means to really to be used to attack Russia. was that the Western services, particularly the American and British services, focused very much on, if you like, the ultra-nationalists,

who were also very much at the forefront, the vanguard of, if you like, the cultural war, too, against Russia. They were the main, if you like, pillar on which this whole project, if you like, pillar on which this whole project, if you like, present project. Now, which ultra-nationalists are you speaking about, in the West or in Ukraine? In Ukraine. That was where they built it. And after Maidan, they took great trouble to put those into the key positions in the military and in the government and in the media. And as a result, we're still in this position,

which is unfortunate for Ukraine, that the ultra-nationalists, the extreme nationalists, have the primacy in Ukraine. I mean, no one can go against them, the military in theory, but no one else. They are in the prime position, and it is they who say very clearly, no, there will be nothing, no talks, nothing. The head of intelligence, Budanov, just said this yesterday in very stark terms. He said nothing. He said there will be no talks, no concession, no end to fighting. We go to the end. Is President Zelensky among the ultra-nationalists, a tool for the ultra-nationalists, or are they tugging him to the right? Oh, I think he's just a hostage to them. I mean, he's completely a hostage to them.

They surround him. They control him. He is a hostage to them, and he is also a hostage to a certain extent to Western leaders as well. But I mean, the ones on the ground, the ones that matter, are his bodyguards. They're all around him. I mean, he doesn't move anywhere without them having a very close eye on him. He's tightly controlled, very tightly controlled. And now we see he's getting quite desperate because the Americans are trying to push him to go towards elections next year. And he's pretty unpopular. I mean, about 70 or 80 percent of Ukrainians are complaining that he's responsible for corruption.

And so I hear, I'm told that what he's going to do is trying to move to a much more presidential role. So he'll have complete authority and not be so dependent on the political, if you like, structures of Ukraine beneath him. I don't know if this is possible. I'm not sure. But it does look as if there's quite a lot of pressure from Washington saying that he must go. And the way to do that is to hold elections. Who they're going to push in, I have no idea in his place. I suppose if it's up to Tony Blinken and Victoria Nuland, it'll be an ultra-nationalist. It won't be a moderate. That's just speculation on our part.

You mentioned his bodyguards. I don't think they are, correct me if I'm wrong, Alistair, bodyguards like the Secret Service guards the president. I think they are bodyguards in that they are some sort of a control mechanism of where he goes and who he visits and what he says as much as they are physical protectors of him. Do I have that right? Exactly. And it's the same, you know, in many parts of the government, you have these people who are there to watch and comment and record everything you do and hand it back to their overlords. I remember even a British ambassador in Washington had two people who were there simply to keep an eye on him and everything he said and to record that and send it back to London. So he's in rather a sane position. It's not extraordinary, but this is his position, I think.

So he's very limited in how far he can go. However, you know, the real point is that, I mean, I think the most important thing that's happened in this last period, which he doesn't know how to deal with, is that the Senate, in their continuing resolution, the Senate, I mean, not the House, but they passed it down to the House. Of course, it's not going to fly. But they cut the funding from $24 billion to $6 billion. So we're talking about Schumer, McConnell, all those people had cut the funding down to $6 billion.

And this is sort of the token of the end, I think, really for the project, because unless that's all restored in the House, which seems quite unlikely, it'd probably be cut even further, given the sort of opposition amongst the Republicans. I think, you know, you can't afford it. They spend, you know, huge amounts every day on the war, and they require 50 billion a month just to keep the government going. Right. So I think it's very important, those finances. And there's been that television program on 60 Minutes, which is showing that American taxpayers' money is also going to sort of

subsidize small businesses and first responders and everything like that. And I'm sure in this present atmosphere that irks many Americans. I want to deviate just a little bit. You talked about the minders from the government watching Zelensky. When you were a British diplomat, did you ever feel that Whitehall was minding you, watching you, monitoring your words? Sure. As I was saying, I remember going to see the British ambassador in Washington, who I knew well because I dealt with him in Downing Street. He was my opposite number when

I was dealing with the Palestinian-Israeli issues at that time, so I knew him well. And, you know, it was quite clear. I think London didn't totally trust him. So we had these two people in our discussion. He said, I can't see you alone. I have these two minders with me to report back on London that I don't say anything wrong to you and to report on what you say back to London. So if Donald Trump didn't like the way a Secret Service agent spoke to him or looked or maneuvered his behavior, the guy was gone. I guess this can't happen in every government in the world. If Zelensky fired these people that were listening to him, they'd be replaced by more listeners, I would assume.

No, it happens. It certainly happens in the UK, and it happens to one of my staff that wrote something the government didn't like, and he was out the next day and sent off to Social Security Department to survive a sort of long term. So, I mean, they don't get, you don't get, I mean, you don't get sort of completely on the street, but, you know, Social Security Department is the next thing to be in prison, I guess. You're talking about nationalism, even nationalism with a racial animus. I want to show you two clips.

We'll show them back to back. One is President Zelensky at the Canadian Parliament with the Parliament giving a standing ovation to a former SS Nazi. The guy's now 98 years old. And the other, an absurd, frivolous explanation for it, blaming Vladimir Putin, of all people, by President Trudeau. And then I'm going to ask you if there's any nationalism or racial animus in this.

His speech received at least a dozen standing ovations There was also one for this man a 98 year old Ukrainian Canadian who fought for Ukrainian independence against the Russians during the Second World War Obviously it's extremely upsetting that this happened. The Speaker has acknowledged his mistake and has apologized, but this is something that is deeply embarrassing to the Parliament of Canada and by extension to all Canadians. I think particularly of Jewish MPs and all members of the Jewish community across the country who are celebrating Yom Kippur today. I think it's going to be really important that all of us push back against Russian propaganda, Russian disinformation, and continue our steadfast

and unequivocal support for Ukraine. I mean, the suggestion that the Russians had anything to do with that absurd display, the efforts to dissociate himself from it. There's another camera view, which we don't have, that shows him standing next to the Speaker of the Parliament and directly behind President Zelensky looking up at the balcony at this ex-Nazi fellow and applauding as enthusiastically as anybody else applauded the idea that the Nazi got into the parliamentary chamber without some sort of security vetting of everybody that was there. The thought that Prime Minister Trudeau didn't know about this. I mean, one could go on and on and on. But my question to you is, ultranationalism, racism, or just stupidity? Well, like you say, there's no question

that you can't just get into parliament and get a standing ovation without anyone knowing who you are. Of course not. So they knew. And I think it was a ploy that went wrong, probably. But it's more important than anything, because it really just shows, you know, even though they've tried to cover it up and sweep it under the carpet, it just shows the extent and the depth of, if you like, ultra nationalist support there is in countries in the West, Europe, as well as in Canada and the US, and that many of those from the SS were transported

with the support facilitated by Europe and by Britain, and they were facilitated. Several thousands went to Canada. Thousands went elsewhere. Many of the German intelligence services went to the United States. Many scientists and technicians were taken to the United States. Many of them were working for the Germans and working in the military. So there is a sort of basis like that. I mean, it came out badly and came out wrong and went completely. No doubt someone thought it was going to be a good idea that showed, you know, the sort of the support and that it had been going on for so long and the support against Russia.

It was part of this revisionism of history, I think, which suggests that, you know, we, the European family, were always against Russia. And that, you know, this and which is going on in Europe at the moment, sort of revising history to suggest, you know, that it was really Europe and Germany included was part of the European family fighting Russia. When the converse was an absolute travesty of history, it was completely the converse that was true. Here is a cheerleader. I want to talk to you about Tony Blinken and the new moral community. But here's a cheerleader for Tony Blinken for the new moral community, as they call it, and for NATO. This is former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, just a few days ago, at the State Department, at the unveiling of her formal portrait as Secretary of State,

remembering, of course, that as Secretary of State, she's in a direct line of dissent from the first Secretary of State, whom King George III would like to have hanged, by the name of Thomas Jefferson. But here's Mrs. Clinton, I couldn't resist it, Al. Here's Mrs. Clinton two or three days ago. ANNE RADWAY. An invasion of Ukraine that, instead of driving a stake between us and our allies brought us closer together in order to support the right of the Ukrainian people to defend their liberty and freedom and democracy people might have doubted that because we had burned so many bridges with our allies and our friends. So reinstating a foreign policy that

plays to the best of American values, that puts our interests and security front and center, but does it in a way that actually brings people to us, not pushes them away, would have been thought to be extremely difficult. And indeed, it was. In looking across the globe, defending democracy in Ukraine, expanding NATO, just as an aside, too bad, Vladimir.

People are not forced to join NATO. People choose and want to join NATO. Didn't Vladimir Putin once ask for Russia to join NATO? It happened, yes, shortly after he came into office. He made that suggestion because he still thought at the time that Russia would be part of Europe, linked to it, integrally part of Europe. And he'd hoped so. Of course, now that's all gone completely. But he did at one stage see a greater Europe. And that was true. I think what is striking with that clip you've just shown was, you know, the efforts to create the sort of moral community and to make

that the identity that will fight, if you like, Vladimir Putin's sort of, as they see it, regressive return to traditionalism, to religion, to the family, and to Orthodox Christianity. And that we will have this sort of clash between these two things, the sort of woke moralism on the one hand, and the sort of backward, sovereigntist religious views, the counter-revolution, if you like, that Putin has been. And they want that buried.

They want that buried as deeply as possible because it threatens them. Do the neocons from Mrs. Clinton to Tony Blinken from Jake Sullivan to Victoria Nuland, plan to build a new moral community? And if they do, what are they talking about? Well, basically, I mean, I don't want to go into too much of the language, but it's the woke idea. It's about diversity and also pride and all of these things together, which are being, if you like, implemented at government levels and at sort of educational levels throughout our societies, mine as well as in yours. And so this is the task. But what's happened and what's made it, what's discredited is that they have been so busy talking about issues of gender and diversity and

LBGTQ and so on, that nothing has got done. They have not been effectively able to resolve any of the real problems that we face in day-to-day life. I mean, instead of which we are facing deeper and deeper crises and nothing gets better. There's a lot of talk and no one listens to it because nothing gets better. All the problems, the can is kicked down the road and nothing happens. We live in a society that, in my view, can best be described as chaotic or disordered.

Things don't get better. They seem to get worse. That's not always the pattern of history, but it's what we're enduring now, Alistair. Absolutely. In every area of life, it's becoming, certainly in Europe, becoming more dysfunctional. I mean, really dysfunctional. Things just don't work. Trains, airports, whatever, education, these things are just not working. And no one seems to care. They just go on talking about Russia and Ukraine and about all of these values

that they're inserting, but nothing changes. And the problem is getting worse and worse as inflation is really biting. I saw in France just before coming on that all the young students in France are lining up for free food because they can't afford to keep themselves. I mean, huge lines. And what's happened? Nothing. I know we only have a few minutes left, but do you think the chaos and disorder is contributing to the rise of the right, hard right, in France and in Germany, and to some extent in Italy is where you are as well. Well, I don't ever use that hard right expression, because I think it's intended to be,

you know, to diminish people. What do you call, AFD, the German party. It believes that there should be more sovereignty for Germany and less for the European Union. It doesn't want to leave the European Union or burn it down or anything, but it wants to reform it. Is this hard right? Is opposing the form of immigration policy that we have now in Europe, I mean, hard right. I mean, you can say it's right, but I don't think, I don't know what then hard right is in this. We're not talking about violent people at all. Well, what I'm driving at is, does this disorder often leads to authoritarianism? Yes. I mean, I think this is, I think people would welcome a little bit of authority if that authority would get things done. Frankly, I know that's not a fashionable thing to say, but, you know, it hasn't worked until now.

They wouldn't mind. I mean, you know, this is why, you know, people look and occasionally look at Putin and say, well, you know, he is a leader. He gets things done. He runs the country and has run it very successfully from the chaos that he inherited in 1991. So, I mean, I think people are going to look that way. Is it a good thing or not? I don't know. But that's where we're going. I think it is what it is. It is what it is. Alistair Crook, always a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you for all your wonderful insight. Enjoy the remainder of the week and the weekend. We look forward to chatting with you again next

week. Thank you so much. Same to you. Of course, of course. There you have it. We'll always give you more as we get it. Scott Horton later this afternoon. Tomorrow, our intelligence roundtable, Friday, our intelligence roundtable with Ray McGovern and Larry Johnson. And then ask the judge, ask me any questions you want about the subjects that we discuss on air and I'll do my best to answer them live and directly. Until then, tell your friends we're moving up and the subscriptions are up to $203,000. $250,000 is our goal by Christmas time because here at Judging Freedom, we are looking out for your liberty. I'm out.