Judging Freedom - Jack DeVine: Ukraine/Israel Through CIA Eyes.

Episode Date: January 24, 2024

Jack DeVine: Ukraine/Israel Through CIA Eyes.See 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 with Judging Freedom. Today is January 24th, 2024. Jack Devine joins us in just a moment with his unique view on the war in Ukraine and the war in Gaza. But first this. Judge Napolitano here. Do you know that we the people have reached $34 trillion plus in debt? It's unsustainable and it's growing. Our government is addicted to printing money and it's not going to stop. And if you believe that, as I do, then you need to understand why gold prices will continue

to rise along with our staggering debt. In this report called $3,200 Gold, it explains how rising debt will cause the value of gold to rise and it could reach $3,200 an ounce. Listen to some of the stats that I pulled from this report. They make a very strong case for the likely surge in the value of gold. In 2002, gold was $256 an ounce and the national debt was $6.5 trillion. Last year, the debt broke through $33 trillion, and gold exceeded $2,000 an ounce. That is a 400% rise in the debt and a 700% staggering rise in the value of gold. And now the debt has hit $34 trillion, and the value of gold continues to rise along with it.

It's great information from my friends at Lear Capital, and I encourage every one of you to call today and get your copy of this report. There's no obligation of purchase. It's a free report. It's free education. Call 800-511-4620 or go to learjudgenap.com. And when you talk to my friends at Lear, tell them the judge sent you.

Jack Devine, welcome back to the show, my dear friend. It's always good to have you. Good to be with you, Judge. Thank you. I want to discuss Ukraine as well as Israel-Gaza, but let's start with Ukraine first. Has Putin lost the war in Ukraine, as American officials have claimed? Oh, absolutely not. We're just beginning the hard part, in my view. I think we're actually heading into, we're not quite there, a stalemate. But I do think during the winter months, we'll see a stalemate. And I do believe you're only going to see a kilometer, two kilometers going either way.

So I think we're virtually at the stalemate. But everyone has to accept the fact that you're at a stalemate before Putin's troubles really begin. But Putin will not be, you've heard me talk about this, I don't think Putin will be in trouble in his own country until it looks like we're going to stay this way for a long time and the economy will limp along. So I think he will come under more and more scrutiny by his own people about the worthwildness of his activities in recent years.

But, you know, it's not today. I mean, I'm often talking, people think I'm talking about tomorrow. I'm talking about a long process. And we started talking about this a long time ago and right after the war. And I've been saying the same thing. You need to get to that stalemate. And we're just about there. Here is a montage of American officials, you'll recognize all of them, and a European official

whom you probably know, claiming that Putin has lost the war. The answer is Putin's already lost the war. Putin has already lost, in terms of what he was trying to achieve. In many ways, Putin has already lost. Putin has already lost in terms of what he was trying to achieve. In many ways, Putin has already lost. Putin has already lost this war. And that is Russia has already lost this war. In short, Russia has lost. They've lost strategically, operationally, and tactically.

Are these rational analyses or propaganda from everybody, from the former Joint Chiefs of Staff to the President of the United States to the current National Security Advisor? To be fair with them, I think what they're trying to say is in the big picture, overall, long term, it's a failure. In other words, NATO has been mobilized. He hasn't taken over Ukraine Ukraine which was his primary objective but we're we're starting to look like we're going to seize the feet from success that's my concern it's a little premature to say the fight's over right so I think right now with this dysfunctional Congress inability to get funding to continue the forward Ukrainian side uh you know baffles me but if you if we don't provide the support Putin's odds of success go up it's too early to call call a game over so I understand what they're saying over the long term and I

believe in the long term that he sowed the seeds of his demise, as I said in the first op-ed right after the invasion. But we can screw this one up, and it looks like we're on our way to try and do that. Is not Ukraine desperately, at the present time, desperately short of manpower and desperately short of munitions? I think both of those issues are critical. They know they cannot sustain the fighting, the counteroffensive type fighting at the level they were. You heard it here. I never thought there was going to be a successful counteroffensive. If it's not going to be successful, why do you do it? And there was a failure, not so much on the battlefield at the end of the day. It breathed life into all those that said, why are we doing this? The Ukrainians aren't doing the counteroffensive. So they've changed their strategy. They're now back to a defensive

strategy, which under defensive strategy, they can handle the manpower. They need those weapons. They need them. And Russia has found allies in North Korea and Iran that are helping them out. The United States Congress doesn't seem to be up to the North Korean and Iranian capabilities to stay with it. So I'm hoping it changes, and I don't mean to be so snarky, but it annoys me to see us lose an advantage that we've really had. I think stopping him and not being able to take over Ukraine was a big success. We could lose that. I'll tell you where Putin's coming from. He really, from the very beginning, felt we'd get wobbly knees. And on this one, he made me right. Okay,

we get wobbly knees, we won't stay the course. Nothing is going to happen until after the elections. There's no peace deal. You just said take over Ukraine. Do you really think that's what he wants to do? Does he want to govern a country that essentially hates him? Or in his own mind now, in his own mind, not yours, does he want to liberate the Russian portions of Ukraine and characterize them as legitimately part of Russia. Isn't that a more rational rationale on his part? There's no doubt at the beginning that was his objective. And his intelligence failed. And so did ours, I think, at this point. He thought it was going to be a cakewalk, that he was going to go in and they'd break the champagne in Kiev

and that'd be the end of it. his main objective was and this is what i think historians understand russia is a much less important country economically politically and so on but he has nuclear weapons without without ukraine it's a much smaller operation with ukraine you've added a big power base to putin and he wants that and at minimum again i think judge we could probably split the difference he wants to hold on what he have and he wants the other part to be neutral and pro-russian he what he really wants is does he have to subjugate it with force uh maybe not but if we if we fold you know there's not gonna be a lot of opportunities for the Ukrainians to do anything other than find accommodation with him. That's what he's counting on. So yeah,

I think that's the whole thing. It's not beyond the realm that he will succeed. I am worried. I am worried that he could succeed because of our failure to man up. Why would the Ukrainian military attack an open air market in the middle of Donetsk on a Sunday morning as people were coming out of mass, unless it was sort of an act of desperation at the end of the game? I don't know anything about the specific act. You could ask the Russians why they're hitting hospitals. Some things go wrong. Some things go wrong. It doesn't fit their plan. In other words, I think we all know, I think our military is very cognizant of what their objectives are. It's not to hit civilian targets. The Ukrainians are really bent on hurting

the Russian military restructure. Okay. What we're showing you. If it happened, one of the things we have to be really careful of all of this, and I'm going to do my own podcast next week on disinformation, because, for example, the shoot down today sounds like disinformation by the Russians. So I don't know how true that story is, Judge, but bad things happen in war. You try and get it down to the bare minimum, but I'm very comfortable it was not a deliberate act. What happens if the Republicans in the House hold out and Joe Biden does not get his $68 billion

that he wants to send to Ukraine? Western Europe is giving Zelensky next to nothing. How much longer could he last without Western aid? Well, let me leave the last out. I would just say it's probably one of the great historic failures of American policy, if that's what happens, and a great victory for Putin. If the weapons are not there that are necessary to hold the defense, he can hold that line. The Ukrainians can hold that line with the equipment

that is destined to go there. That's my view. So I think it's a great tragedy. I mean, I thought we would run into problems, but our Congress would hold tight on it and they could see what it means to the world order for Russia to take Ukraine and we falter. What do you think? Look at the world today. One of the things we should talk about for a longer time is our weakness today is starting to reverberate around the world. world many many countries are now being more aggressive with their neighbors because they're not counting on us to hang in there our allies not so much nature but the others are looking at us Israel we're going to shift to Israel at some point you know are we there when the going gets really tough and I I've got a question mark now

and it's not Republican or Democrat I'm just wondering whether our political process is really really fails to look at the strategic important things or just continually playing in our own backyard. One more question. I'd like to ask you one more question about Ukraine, and then we'll shift to the Middle East. By the way, the pictures we're showing were taken by one of our reporters, a freelancer who comes on this program. We did a show on Sunday morning. Within hours of this happening, two missiles hit this open-air market. He counted 25 people dead. He counted them with his own eyes. Turned out it was 27.

An open-air market outside of a Catholic church in the middle of town. I don't think you'll find too many examples of that. And so, again, I haven't studied this. Yeah, I understand. I'm just wondering. If you're looking at it and you're giving it credibility, I would say this was a mistake. Okay. It was a mistake. Why did the United States and the United Kingdom tell President Zelensky not to accept the peace deal that had been negotiated in Turkey in March of 23, to which his negotiators provisionally agreed and to which the Russian negotiators provisionally agreed?

Biden sent Boris Johnson there hang on hang on Biden sent Boris Johnson there and Boris Johnson said uh Vladimir don't sign this we'll back you up in the U.S. will back you up why did we do that I don't believe any of this nonsense look I look I know what took place in some of these talks right they were going nowhere Putin does not want to deal until after our elections. Okay, that's where it stands right now. Chris, do we have the Ukrainian ambassador? He thinks he will be able to cut a better deal. There's no good deal that either Zelensky or Putin can accept. This is why all this dancing, I mean, I'll name others who

have claimed that they they were close to getting it what can the ukrainians give up without having internal turmoil what can putin give up can he just say oh i was wrong i just took dunbas and now i can't beat them and i'm going to sign it you think that's real none of that's real no treaty is to be made jack devine's telling you here on your show don't count on any peace treaty until after our elections are done. And if there's a stalemate, if you don't have a stalemate. You have been saying stalemate quite consistently since your very widely read and very well written op-ed in the Wall Street Journal a few months ago. Do you see any circumstances under which Putin leaves, the Russians leave Eastern Ukraine,

the parts that they claim are part of Russia? No, I don't see them leaving. Okay. I think where the lines will be drawn at the existing line. Okay. Here is the- Well, I do think if I were Ukrainian, I want to try and really fight on for Crimea. But I

don't think it's going to- when stalemate means you're not going to be able to take- what happens if they take Donbass back? Who's going to be there? I mean, why take it back? I mean, so I think you're looking at the lines, but you have to say uncle under the right set of circumstances, and we're not quite there. Here's a clip from the chief Ukrainian negotiator at the peace talks in Turkey in March of 22. And to my mind, very quickly after invasion in 24 of February last year, he very quickly understood his historical mistake. And I was in that moment in the group of Ukrainian negotiators. We negotiated with Russian delegation practically two months, in March and April, the possible peaceful settlement agreement

between Ukraine and Russia. And we, as you remember, concluded so-called Istanbul communique. And we were very close in the middle of April, in the end of April, to finalize our war with some peaceful settlement. For some reasons, it was postponed. But to my mind, Putin, this is my personal view, Putin in one week after started his aggression in 24 February last year, very quickly understood he did mistake and tried to do everything possible to conclude agreement with Ukraine. It almost sounds like Jack Devon. Total, total, unadulterated nonsense. I don't care who he is. The facts don't support that nonsense, okay? Well, look at it. He's not seeking peace now. He's in a better position today.

You say it's nonsense. You think he's lying when he says he was one of the negotiators and that there was a handshake agreement? There wasn't no handshake agreement. With whom? With the waiter at the club? No, Putin did not want to sign the agreement. Zelensky wasn't going to sign the agreement. These are all the actors around the side that think they're big dealmakers. I'm sorry.

I don't mean to offend the guy, but it's all nonsense. Why is the United States? Putin really wants to have this come out in his favor. Why would he allow himself? My line on him leaving would speed up immediately if he acquiesced at this minute. Okay? If he acquiesced, and he's not stupid. He knows a peace treaty would mean defeat.

Why would we even believe such nonsense? Jack, around Christmas time, you told an Australian publication you thought Putin would be gone in a week. No, no, God, no. It was repeated in the New York Post and you repeated it again on News Nation. No, no, no. Read the article. There's a difference between the head. No, read the article.

What I said. No, there's two things. the head now read the article what i said no there's two things this is a good point judge i said a black swan could happen at any time if you define a black swan that means you don't know when where how i said he could leave tomorrow and i wouldn't be surprised what i really said was when there's a stalemate maybe you've heard me say this before when there's a stalemate his problems will begin heard me say this before, when there's a stalemate, his problems will begin. And that I'm talking, this isn't even his, his, the minds will not actually kick in the gear until until it's clear to his own people that this has been an unequivocal failure. And there's a stalemate that we're not there. I never look at the article. It's it's really a miss. It's it's people trying to pump up and make things glorious.

But I got a lot of reaction. Christ, I get more calls from people. Wow, you did get a lot of reaction. Former head of the CIA chief of operations predicts Putin demise in a week. Jack Devine. The first time I saw that headline, I knew it was you. Well, let me go on record for your audience, because I like the fact that I have tracked what I'm saying, and your audience hadn't if you're taking notes. Jack, I said the day went in, he's going to leave. I didn't say 365. I said he sowed the seeds, sowed the seeds, sowed the seeds of his demise. And I'm saying again again there's not going to be a demise of putin

until there's a stalemate the other thing i said is we should stay out of it don't putz around inside russia with gains just be strong hold them and that's where we're getting weak this is where my my view of the world is vulnerable and that is our weakness could turn his demise into everlasting life. All right. Isn't it reckless and dangerous for the U.S. to give long-range offensive weaponry to Ukraine and they might use it inside of Russia? Isn't that really poking the bear? Well, I would give them everything I could possibly give them, okay? What's Putin going to do? I would recommend, look, I want to see, where does he push back? Look what Prokofiev did. He

sat on his hands for 48 hours look i would give him weapons honestly the intent would be to hold them where they are it wouldn't be the ukrainians know at the highest levels they are not going to gain any any russian territory they're not going to drive the russians into the you know into into their territory they know that so why would you waste your time just firing into it? Now, if there's military bases in there supporting the Ukrainian in close within your missile, that's fair game. I'm sorry. Does the CIA have assets on the ground in Russia telling the Ukrainians where to fire? I would hope so. It helps your targeting. Are the CIA agents themselves who are directing, are they fair game for the fire? No, they're not there. They're not there. Well, wait a minute. First you said you would hope so.

Now you're saying they're not there. I would hope the Ukrainians had people spotting. I didn't mean to have you. The reason we wouldn't do it is a very practical one. Suppose you captured a guy who was a CIA guy. You'd have him on TV, right? It would completely change. You know, there'd be what we call a major flap. Then that's not going to happen. One of the things that just as background, so that people understand I know what I'm talking about, we never went into Afghanistan during that entire struggle.

No CIA official went inside. You had an embassy but no us why if we got captured the hostage situation could have turned into major concessions and we we were prohibited from going in Charlie Wilson thought he went in but I'm not convinced that the chief took him in there but it looked like it looked like he went in. We're not inside. We weren't inside. You can't be inside Russia. That's us. And I'm very clear what I'm writing over and over. U.S. activities inside Russia is off balance.

It's going to be. It's hard for me to believe that because you know, because you chased them, that the Russian intelligence agents are here. You're telling me the CIA is not in Russia? No. No, you were asking me about targeting the weapons, and I'm saying no. They're not in that part of Russia involving Ukraine. They're not involved in the war. They're surely in Moscow. Well, I'm certainly hoping, and reading of history books will tell you, a lot of times there's books, documented books that would suggest that the Russians are here and we're there. And people get wrapped up once in a while.

It's part of the game. I'm saying that, but that's intelligence collection as opposed to action. So what I'm saying is don't meddle in politics. And you've heard me say it here before. I'm livid that the Russians meddle in politics. And you've heard me say it here before. I'm livid that the Russians meddle in our elections. That's against the rules that we sort of have been working since the end of the Cold War.

It's a big deal, and I want to go into that in this information. Okay, one more topic before we go. We're going to have to save Israel for the next time. Here's a great clip of a foreign... I know you know him. You probably surveilled him, and you probably still listen to his phone calls. Russian foreign.

I can't wait. I cannot wait for what you've got for me today. Russian foreign minister. You got a guy that doesn't know what he's talking about. Bring it on. I want to see who this wonderful person is. Lavrov himself, Chris. Cut number two. Anybody who is sincerely interested in justice, including justice being established in the relations between Russia and Ukraine,

which would involve, of course, stopping the Western policy of using Ukraine as an instrument of war against Russia, we would be ready to listen. President Putin repeatedly said that it is not true when somebody is saying that Russia is against negotiations. Russia was always emphasizing that any serious proposal which would include the discussion of the situation on the ground, of the origin of this situation, and of reaching a solution which would guarantee legitimate national interest of Russia and Ukrainian people, we would be ready to discuss it. Incredible attack. Watch his body language when he says Ukrainian people. He tilts to the side. I recommend everybody read Animal Farm, written years ago about how dictators and dictators talk.

Putin has shrunk, but so has Lavrov. I mean, he used to be taken more seriously. This is nonsense. You know, I'd be for a peace treaty too. The peace would be, Russia would have to get out. Putin said, sure, I'll negotiate. All you have to do is turn everything over to me. That's the nonsense. People in the middle hear these words and think this is a serious offer they're not a serious thing you know how long it would take to solve an issue if both of them were ready to go to the table it'd be a 24-hour exchange but neither of them can afford to go to the table so you're not going to have a deal you know it's not going to happen and running around saying there's a deal, people have to think about why. This is – and I'm not going to go on a run.

People in the United States think you can make a deal with the Iranians, that there's moderates in Iran. I mean, it's such ludicrous thinking. We talk ourselves into silly things. And thinking that the Russians want a deal, that could have a deal tomorrow if they want it. But they're not going to settle. It's like saying, oh, I want to buy an apartment building,

but I don't have any money. So I take all this stuff with a grain of salt. Lagerhoff is just a puppet. I mean, he's a mouthpiece of nonsense. Look at Putin. I mean, he blows guys out of the sky and poisons them.

You look in his eye, you know he's a straight shooter. Go on. He's a mafia don. And how do you negotiate with mafia dons? Oh, we're going to sit down Article 3, Article 4. No, you go to the mattress. Thank you, Jack. Always a pleasure, my dear friend. You haven't changed the bed. Christmas did not soften you, it toughened you. I just say, when I come here, I come to have a good time and to be unequivocal because it's so easy to be misinterpreted. So I hope today I was

sufficiently unequivocal. Well, you were unequivocal, but that Black Swan thing just went all around the world. Jack Devine says Putin is gone in a week. But that doesn't come out of Jack Devine's mouth. They don't even know what a black swan is. If it came to my head, that

means if I knew, there is no black swan. The black swan is unknowable. It's a lightning strike. It's, you know, Khrushchev walked out of the room. Who knew? So, I don't predict black swans. What I do say is I wouldn't be surprised if he had one. Big deal.

What does that mean? That doesn't mean much. What I said is, you know, the process won't begin, won't even begin until earliest next fall. Thank you, Jack. God love you. Come back again soon and we'll spend a half an hour on Israel and Gaza. Yeah, we will. Again, let me just on that. We're facing the same issue of wobbly knees on this side of the landing. So I'm going to leave with that. We can pick up the next time. All right. Even though I disagree with you, we will leave with that. Thank you, my dear friend. OK. Coming up later today, a decidedly different view of all of this from one of Jack's former colleagues in the CAA, Phil Giraldi, at three o'clock and at four o'clock today, the great intrepid Max Blumenthal, Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thanks for watching!