Judging Freedom - Kyle Anzalone : Ukraine on Life Support

Episode Date: March 28, 2024

Kyle Anzalone : Ukraine on Life SupportSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This new year, why not let Audible expand your life by listening? Audible CA contains over 890,000 total titles within its current library, including audiobooks, podcasts, and exclusive Audible Originals that'll inspire and motivate you. Tap into your well-being with advice and insight from leading professionals and experts on better health, relationships, career, finance, investing, and more. Maybe you want to kick a bad habit or start a good one. If you're looking to encourage positive change in your life one day and challenge at a time, look no further than Tabitha Brown's I Did a New Thing, 30 Days to Living Free. In the audiobook, Tab shares her own stories and those of others alongside

gentle guidance and encouragement to create these incredible changes for yourself and see what good can come from them. Trust me, listening on Audible can help you reach the goals you set for yourself. Start listening today when you sign up for a free 30-day trial at audible.com slash wonderyca. That's audible.com slash wonderyca. That's audible.com slash wonderyca. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, March 28th, 2024. Kyle Anzalone from antiwar.com joins us today. Kyle, my friend, it's a pleasure. Welcome back to the show. Let's start with the vote at the United Nations. Was it binding or wasn't it binding? Is it just symbolic or is it just based on Joe Biden's wish to pander to Arab American votes in Michigan?

Yeah, that's right. The Biden administration is just using the UN Security Council. They were put in a position where the entire UN Security Council, including our NATO allies, the UK and France, were prepared to vote for this ceasefire resolution. And so to veto it would have just looked too bad for Joe Biden, who has, you know, built his entire foreign policy, at least rhetorically, around the idea that we're involved with the international community and the world consensus and all that. So they decide to abstain from this vote, but then immediately afterwards change what this vote means. And they say, oh, it's a non-b this vote, but then immediately afterwards change what this vote means. And they

say, oh, it's a non-binding vote, which doesn't exist. It's not a thing, but they're just inventing it. And of course, in a sense, any UN Security Council vote is non-binding if nobody is going to enforce it. And it didn't seem like there was any enforcement mechanism or any country was going to take any particular steps against Israel because of this vote anyways. Do you think this enhances American credibility diplomatically or diminishes it if there's any room for any diminution? Well, it's hard to imagine it could get lower, but the Biden administration, particularly the State Department, just continue to drag the bar lower and lower and this is the latest performance in that. Especially, you know, you see the State Department

briefings with spokesperson Matthew Miller and reporters are bringing up incidents at the UN. We recently had the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights for Palestine conclude that Israel was committing a genocide in Gaza. And when Matthew Miller was asked about that report, he said, well, she's an anti-Semite to dismiss it. Well, that is reprehensible. I saw the piece that you posted on antiwar.com. You're talking about Francesca Albanese, who's an international expert on war crimes, and they're calling her, she's the UN rapporteur, and they're calling her an anti-Semite because she dares to criticize the Israeli government. I guess that makes all of us

that are critical of Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli government in their minds, in the State Department's minds, anti-Semites. That is just preposterous. They don't go to the facts, they don't go to the evidence. They just go to smearing. Yeah, that's a tactic that the State Department has used throughout this conflict. If anybody asks any question about, you know, Palestinians, war crimes committed against them, it's immediately dismissed as, well, we have to remember October 7th, Hamas started everything. And so if you don't say Hamas, Hamas, Hamas, when you talk about any Israeli war crimes, then you're anti-Semitic. And that's essentially been the position of the State Department throughout this conflict.

Blame everything you can on Hamas. And if you have to admit Israel did something bad, say, we'll bring it up with our partners and then hope it never comes up again. So what happens when Mike Johnson invites Bibi Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of Congress and some members of Congress don't stand up and applaud? Are they anti-Semites in some members of the House of Representatives like Ilhan Omar and Rashid Tlaib about what Israel is doing in Gaza and has been doing over the past few years. So this is a pretty common smear tactic and it's deployed a lot and with a lot of effective effect of see, at least in Washington, although it seems, you know, if you're on Twitter ads right now, you see day by day, this narrative is crumbling and more people who are being called anti-Semites laugh at it. And everybody agrees with the laughter and the mockery and not the false accusations. Here's a Congressman, uh, Roee Kahan, number three, Chris,

grilling Secretary of Defense Austin. He can't answer the questions. There's not a whiff of any kind of anti-Semitic prejudice in what he's saying. He's just trying to get the Secretary of Defense to acknowledge if Netanyahu is following international law. Secretary Austin, last week you spoke to Defense Minister Gallant, and you said clearly there needs to be a plan to ensure the safety and support of those sheltering in Rafah before any military operations proceed. National Security Advisor Sullivan has said he has not seen any plan yet. John Kirby said it would be a disaster to invade Rafah.

If Netanyahu defies the United States and invades Rafah, will you commit today that you will halt any future military sales to Israel? Obviously, sir, that's a presidential decision. But, you know, we expect that, and by the way, I spoke to Minister Gallant last night, and I expect that when we provide munitions to allies and partners, that they will use them in a responsible way. But would you make a commitment that they defy what we are saying and they violate international law?

By the way, which is opposed to National Security Memorandum 18 and National Security Memorandum 20, that if they don't do what we are saying, that we would halt those arm sales or transfers? Again, the decision to halt the provision of security assistance would not be mine. It would be---- What would you recommend? Well, I certainly, again, I really do expect that they utilize the weapons that we provide them in a responsible way. And then if they don't... I just want to, for time purposes, it seems to me if they're defying what you're telling him, what Kirby's telling him, what Sullivan's telling him, that wouldn't be responsible. How can he say under oath on national television with what he must see with his eyes and hear with

his ears that the IDF is using the weapons with which we're supplying them in a responsible and lawful way? It's inconceivable that he could have made that conclusion consistent with his obligation to be truthful. Absolutely, Judge. It's almost laughable. There's an article out, and I wrote about this at the Libertarian Institute in Jerez, and they interview an IDF officer who says that this war is completely unnecessary in terms of scale destruction. He said the Israeli objectives could have been achieved with 10% of the destruction that they have inflicted, and that it's been deliberate that they destroy every building before they enter it. And he says the idea behind this was, of course, to prevent casualties among Israeli soldiers.

But he said the actual objectives of the war could have been completed in under four months if they didn't go with this deliberately destructive tactic and what he just calls wasteful, right? Like his problem with it is it costs too much money. You're using too many munitions that you don't have to use. And it's drug this war out. And he said, so it's actually led to more Israeli casualties because the longer you're on the ground, the more casualties you take. And he adds that Israel's strategy is power and cruelty to minimize casualties. And so the Israelis are openly saying that they plan to ethnically cleanse the Gaza Strip, that they are openly committing unnecessary war crimes in Gaza.

And it's only within the halls of the White House and the Pentagon where apparently they're just sticking their fingers in their ear and refusing to hear the truth and sending Israel more weapons. You also have a piece this morning interviewing an Israeli soldier who admitted to implementing the Hannibal Doctrine, meaning he knowingly and intentionally killed Israeli soldiers that were, he thought, captured by Hamas and racing towards the Gaza-Israel border on October 7th. Is that accurate? Yes. And we keep getting little trickles of information about this as we go along, Judge. But really, from your great guests, especially Mads Blumenthal's reporting on this and all the journalism at the Gray Zone very early on documented how the Israelis rained down bombs and missiles and, you know, tank shells and fired rounds at buildings and cars where they knew there

were Israeli civilians believing there was also Hamas members in those cars and buildings holding them captive. So no surprise here, but more confirmation of what we've known all along, that Israel used the Hannibal Directive, and at least some of the deaths, and it seems now a significant number of the Israeli deaths that occurred on October 7th, were people that were killed by the Israeli forces. Do you think that the change in the views of the American public about the unbridled support for the genocide in Gaza will have an effect on it? Or do you think Netanyahu will just keep killing for as long as he stays in office? Well, I would hope it would have an effect. The problem is,

is we've seen time and time again where the American people turn against wars and our government remains involved in them. For a long time now, the American people have been against sending more weapons to Ukraine and the Biden administration is doing everything to make that possible. Well, right. Same thing with Israel. It's just consistent policy that they don't care what the American people say, whether it's Israel, whether it's Ukraine or any other situation. All they care about is continuing the policy, continuing the warfare. So what will get Netanyahu to stop short of the total ethnic cleansing of Gaza? Do you think any state actors will intervene? Because none has said anything since one of Erdogan's

toothless speeches a couple of months ago. It doesn't appear that any country is going to, for the most part, it seems like everybody feels they have too much to lose because picking a fight with Israel also means picking a fight with the U.S. Now, it does seem there is increasing pressure in Jordan and Egypt for those governments to do something, but they don't have the military capability to really do anything meaningful anyway. So it's unclear what country could even intervene at this point that would make a difference. Switching gears to the attack on the Moscow concert hall, why is it that the EU and the US are so adamant in their determination that Ukraine was not involved, that they even made a statement to

that effect in less than an hour after the attack occurred? Well, that is certainly suspicious that they were able to know so quickly exactly who was behind the attack and that it wasn't the Ukrainians or they had any role in it whatsoever, especially since the Russians apprehended the terrorists as they were at least moving in the general direction of the Ukrainian border. So there are some questions raised there, but the White House apparently knows for sure. And to me, it sounds almost like something of a guilty conscience. or surprises coming on the battlefield for President Putin and the American so-called warning that something might happen on March 9th. Nothing happened. It happened two weeks later. I want you to listen to Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, one of the world's authorities on modern day Russia. He's an American PhD and professor who lives and works in Brussels. Chris, play both clips, please, both number 15 and number 16. We note that several related facts, Madame Nuland, Victoria Nuland, was fired

on the 5th of March. It's highly interesting that this coincidence. I and others have spoken of her connection with the German generals plotting a strike on the Kerch Bridge using their cruise missiles. because the mission that she had supervised to attack Russia, the terrorist attack using Islamic extremists, on the 8th of March was no longer operable. They are working on expanding further the information leads they have now on the connections with ISIS in Istanbul, on the timing of the American warning to Russia that a terrorist attack could take place. Let's remember that was on the 7th of March. That's to say two days after Victoria Nuland was fired and one day before the planned execution of the terrorist attack in Moscow.

So the bits and pieces, the dots are falling into place. I repeat that Mr. Bortnikov would never dare to say what he said yesterday without the blessing of Mr. Putin, and Mr. Putin has always been a very cautious player. The Mr. Bortnikov to whom he's referring is the head of the FSB, the head of the Russian Intelligence Services, who, unlike the director of the FBI or opinion, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine had something to do with this. So what is your view about whether the U.S. had something to do with this? Well, certainly there's not enough evidence public yet to say for sure one way or the other what happened here. You know, certainly they do seem to have apprehended the actual terrorists involved in the attack.

The video evidence looks pretty good. Unfortunately, the Russians seem to have beat and tortured those suspects pretty brutally. And so it's probably unlikely that any information we get from them could be, you know, very well trusted because I'm sure they will say just about anything the Russians are asking them to say under that torture. However, there could be electronic communications, other evidence that could emerge here. I've seen reports that these men were in Turkey before. So, you know, there could be a way for international investigation here to establish exactly what happened and the world could actually know.

I think, unfortunately, whatever did happen here will largely remain unknown to the public and a lot of people will just be left to speculate. So, you know, this could really heighten tensions between the U.S. and Russia on that case. And unfortunately, you know, it does seem that the U.S. may have had an opportunity to circumvent all this and not leave any ambiguity because the U.S. did put out that statement earlier this month saying that there was going to be attack on a Russian concert venue. And so if the U.S. had better relations with the

Russia or had just chosen to reach out to Moscow and let them know all the details they know about the terror attack, then there would be absolutely no question whether the U.S. was involved or not. Do you think the West recognizes that the efforts by the United States and by NATO to use Ukraine as a battering ram with which to drive President Putin from office have failed. And now it's time for some sort of asymmetric war like attacking Russian civilians, non-military targets. Well, we've certainly seen that to some extent. Ukraine is shelling the Russia all the time. I think you've done reports with Patrick Lancaster on this, that the Ukrainians are shelling civilian targets and the West keeps sending them weapons. So

obviously, to some extent, they've signed off on this. At the end of last year, NBC News spoke with Western officials who said as Ukraine started to lose in the coming year, they would attack Russian targets more and more frequently. It seems the only targets the West has really objected to Ukraine attacking our Russian energy infrastructure because they're afraid in a spike in global gas prices in an election year, that would be bad for the president. But they don't seem to have any issues with Ukrainians attacking Russian civilian infrastructure. Now, an attack on a concert hall using terrorists like this would be, you know, a pretty far step beyond whatever we know the Ukrainians and the Americans have done, including attacking the Nord Stream pipeline. However, you know, even in attacking and destroying the Nord Stream pipelines, the West has gone far further than I ever thought they would have.

So it's impossible to rule out that they didn't at least have, you know, some hand in this or maybe had the intelligence to stop it and chose to withhold that. That could be their role here too. Very interesting observation you make. Here's Dr. Doktoroff on the same thing with respect to the Nord Stream pipeline. And again, he references Mr. Bordikoff, who's the head of the FSB. Chris, this is number 13. But Mr. Bortnikoff is a close associate of Mr. Putin. He has been in that position as head of the FSB for 15 years. And it is unthinkable that he would say what he said yesterday without the approval of his boss. Now, what does this mean and why is this remarkable? Because going back two years to the bombing of the Nord Stream pipelines,

which was the most spectacular act of terrorism against civilian global infrastructure in 50 years, the Russians said nothing about it. They didn't point a finger at anyone. There was innuendo. The United States was involved. Britain was involved, other countries, but never a direct accusation. What we had yesterday was a direct accusation. At the same time, Mr. Bortnikov explained, he was very, very calm. He had great poise, and he chose his words carefully. He said that he is not speaking out of emotion.

He's speaking on the basis of preliminary findings, and that when all the findings are ready, when he has solid facts, he will present them. Well, he also said that he expects those facts to lead to the United States, Great Britain, and Ukraine. We know that the Ukrainian intelligence services are a wholly owned necessarily funded it or trained them, but knew about it, that surely their masters in MI6 and CIA knew about it. Do you agree with that? Certainly at least one of them. I guess this could have mainly been the Brits or something like that, and the Americans were left out to some extent. But it does seem likely that given

the CIA's involvement and control over Ukrainian intelligence, if the Ukrainians knew, then the Americans knew. Chris, I can't seem to find it, but we have a clip of President Putin, a pretty recent one, expressing his views and his determination to get to the bottom of this. We know that the crimes were committed by radical Islamists, whose ideology the Islamic world itself has been fighting for centuries. We also see that the U.S., through various channels, is trying to convince its satellites and other parts of the world that, according to their intelligence,

there is no trace of Kiev in the Moscow terrorist attack, that the bloody terrorist attack was committed by followers of Islam, members of the ISIS organization banned in Russia. We know by whose hands this atrocity against Russia and its people was committed. We are interested in who ordered it. The joint work of our special services and law enforcement agencies should provide answers to a number of questions. For example, whether radical and even terrorist Islamic organizations are really interested in striking at Russia,

which today advocates a just solution to the escalating Middle East conflict. And how do radical Islamists, who position themselves, by the way, faithful Muslims practicing so-called pure Islam, go to the lengths of committing grave atrocities and crimes during the holy month of Ramadan. These as well as other more specific professional questions remain to be answered for an objective investigation of the crime committed in Moscow.

Seems to me like he's got a good handle on what needs to be ascertained. Suppose it turns out that Victoria Nuland ordered the attack before, well, after she was, before she was fired. Yeah, I mean, it's certainly possible that she was involved. She seemed to have been very involved in the Nord Stream planning. Although that does give me a little bit of suspicion that maybe if the CIA was planning something like this, they would have let Victoria Nuland out of the discussions entirely because she's proven herself to have a big mouth. That was an issue, I believe, in Seymour Hersh's reporting on this, that they were upset that, you know, her and Biden were out blabbing beforehand that they could potentially blow up the Nord Stream pipelines. And so I do kind of suspect that Victoria Nuland was mostly talking

about the storm shadow missiles in Ukraine, just because I don't think she was trusted with this kind of information at this point in time. However, the timing of her departure and all this, the statement from the State Department on the potential attack in Moscow are all highly, highly suspicious. Kyle, thank you very much, my dear friend. Appreciate your time, changing the time to accommodate our schedule. Happy Easter to you and your family. Same to you, Judge. Thank you. Thank you, my friend. Coming up at four o'clock Eastern, the end of this long day and this short week, the intelligence community boys, McGovern and Johnson on Judging Freedom. 🎵 We'll see you next time.