Judging Freedom - Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski: Performative War

Episode Date: April 23, 2024

Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski: Performative WarSee 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 Tuesday, April 23rd, 2024. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski joins us now. Colonel Karen, thank you very much for your time. Thanks for coming back to the show. Much appreciated. How would you characterize the recent military back and forth between Israel and Iran? Well, I know I wrote about it using the word performative. I thought your performative piece was fascinating. And this is my entree into your very interesting observations about war being performative. So take it from there, but start with what we witnessed. We saw a very serious and fatal attack on the Iran embassy compound,

which murdered two generals and 15 civilians. We saw a very serious response from Iran, which the West wants us to think was fruitless, but which we know demonstrated Iran's ability to get through the Israeli, Jordanian, French, British, and American defenses. And then we saw a little nothing from Israel. Okay, take it from there. Yeah. Well, I guess the idea of performative warfare was not something I thought of. I was watching a number of commentators talking about both the Iran retaliation, which was it didn't kill, I don't think, anyone that we know of. But it it was a lot. It was a lot. It kind of was a good test of the various layers of air defense that Israel has.

And but it didn't kill anybody. And then Israel's kind of slapback, I guess, was muted, very muted, and the Iranians are laughing about it. But other commentators, not from Israel or Iran, but American and British commentators using the word performative to describe war fighting. And it got me thinking, and I don't really like that, but a lot of what we see is all show. I mean, what we watch in Washington, it's all for show. I mean, what's really happening is not being portrayed, and what's not happening is we're being told that that's the reality. So there's a danger to that. War is deadly, and it's a last resort, not a first resort, not a show, not entertainment.

It is a deadly last resort, and it should be preceded by complete and utter failure of wholly, honestly attempted diplomacy, which we haven't seen any diplomacy. I mean, you know, we're talking about we're at war with Russia, and there's no talking at all. We haven't spoken. I don't think Putin has spoken to an American, certainly not to Biden in two years, and I don't think that his people have spoken to Blinken or any of our other people. So we're not even trying diplomacy at all. We're looking at war as for the public entertainment so that we don't think about how much it's costing us. And then certainly, as we saw with this last big bill that was passed by the House, and I don't know what the Senate will do with it, but, you know, this massive aid publicly saying most of it stays in America. Don't worry, people,

it's all about jobs. It's all about putting money into the military industrial complex here. So it's all good. And that's, whether that's true or not, it is very misleading. It speaks to war as a game, killing people as a state's justification, you know, that the state, I'm the state and I can kill people. And so we do that. Anyway, I didn't like it. I don't like performative war. If we're going to do war, let's do real war and then let's hate it and despise it and stop it. Well, the attack on the Iranian embassy was a real attack that murdered people. The Iranians did not, they not only didn't target people, they took great pains not to injure anyone, but they terrified the Israelis because of the depth of their penetration into a highly secured

military base. Would you characterize what the Iranians did as performative? I would not consider it as performative. To me, what Iran did was a very carefully plotted out test of their systems against the Israeli defense systems. You know, lots of folks were watching how the Israelis tracked and responded, how the Americans, because the Americans were involved in this also, how the U.S. troops or air forces and other systems tracked and responded to this. This was an opportunity to coordinate with all the various Iranian allies or so-called proxies, those with similar interests, and they also kicked in their part of it. So to me, it was a very serious counterattack that did send a message, okay, but I did not see it as performative because to me, in my own definition of performative, I see it as entertainment that it's you know, I don't see it as I see when people describe it as performative.

I see it as they're downplaying it. Now, I don't downplay it at all because and I don't think the Israelis downplayed it either. Of course, they don't want to talk about this. But Iran can, as they said very honestly, we can bring a hundred times this. We can run this one night, $1.3 billion that it cost Israel to defend against that. Didn't cost the Iranians much at all. And they've got the capacity to do that for a hundred nights in a row. So Israel knows this, and Iran sent that message. So in some ways, you could say it's performative. I don't like that term because I think it's a slippery slope. I think

we should not become desensitized to the evils of war, and we are. I mean, look at Gaza, you know, the whole world. The United States should be, the rest of the world should be boycotting the United States to any extent that they can because of what we have done to support Israel's genocide. But we're not. We're desensitized. At the risk of flipping back and forth between Israel, Gaza, Iran, and Ukraine and Russia. I want to play this clip from Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov. This is set number one, Sonia, because this is somebody that takes war very seriously. Here he is.

Currently, the United States and its NATO allies persist in their fixation on dealing a decisive blow to Russia. They seem prepared to keep opposing our nation, using Ukraine as their last stand, so to speak. Simultaneously, Western nations are precariously teetering towards a direct military confrontation involving nuclear powers, carrying potential catastrophic outcomes. He's right, isn't he? Are we crazy? Is Macron crazy to say I'm going to send a thousand troops to Odessa? The Russians will demolish them before they even land there.

I know. I know. And see, we wouldn't have to listen to Lavrov ourselves and wonder why our country doesn't, you know, does the crazy things that it does if our country's designated negotiators, the State Department and the president, if they would talk to Lavrov themselves. Because, you know, it's really not our business, frankly, to, you know, warn against Armageddon. Those guys should be talking to each other. But Lavrov seeks a wider audience because no one in Washington is listening to him. Very interesting observation. Secretary Blinken, we're still going back and forth now, was asked about U.S. arms in war crimes, and he has his own comparison between Israel and Ukraine. I mean, here he is with it at his hand-wringing worst, dressed like an undertaker like he almost always does.

I don't want to get into that. That's kind of personal. But cut number three, Sonia. We are looking into reports, incidents that are brought to our attention. And we have a process to do that, particularly if there are questions about whether U.S. arms have been involved. And that is ongoing, and we are – continue to be focused on that. Every situation, every country is different.

For example, the case of Ukraine, where we have made certain determinations – totally different situation than in Gaza. The Ukrainians, first of all, themselves, were not in any way a legitimate target the way, of course, Hamas than in Gaza. The Ukrainians, first of all, themselves were not in any way a legitimate target the way, of course, Hamas is in Gaza. They were also not embedding themselves with civilians, hiding in and under apartment buildings, mosques, hospitals, you name it. And in addition, in the case of Ukraine, when Russian forces forces for example withdrew from bucha we were able to see the world was able to see very plainly uh what had happened and we were able to get uh the evidence so

each of these situations is different and we have to do our best to collect the facts and follow the facts and that's what we're doing. Nonsense. What is he talking about, particularly if there are questions about whether U.S. arms have been involved? What he should have finished saying was involved in the genocide. Of course, U.S. arms are being involved. I'll let you take it from there. No, I mean, absolutely. Literally billions of dollars of U.S. weapons passed and then accelerated after October 7th to Israel are all being used to slaughter civilians, and not just slaughter civilians, but to destroy every bit of infrastructure in Gaza. Churches, mosques, obviously, schools, hospitals, homes, houses, and factories, to the extent that there was any

productive factories there, all completely destroyed, as well as the people that were in those buildings and the people that have been shot and attacked in this idea that they're that they're chasing after Hamas. And I know that, yes, Hamas is hiding in civilian, but it makes no sense what he's talking about. He is very evasive, and he is evasive in terms of even taking the slightest bit of responsibility. And I don't know what he really, I don't know what Blinken really thinks. It's hard to say, but he comes across as a person who is apologizing for what he's doing, even though he's trying to defend it. He's just saying basically nothing's going to change. I really don't want to be here answering your questions because you are all irrelevant to what this government that I represent is doing. And we're going to keep doing it. That's what I heard. Right. We're going to take a break for a commercial announcement. When we come back,

we'll get back to Ukraine and what the heck the House of Representatives really thought they were accomplishing with that vote on Saturday morning. But first this. How do you really feel about your financial future right now today? Stable or uncertain? Despite all the happy talk that the Fed and the banks want you to buy into, I believe that 2024 is going to be a very unstable year politically and financially. That's one of the reasons I decided to buy physical gold and silver. And I suggest you should do the same and do it now. Why? Because throughout times of economic uncertainty, gold and silver have rightly earned a reputation for stability. Owning precious metals has made me feel more stable and it can do the same for you. Reach out to my friends at Lear Capital and get their free wealth protection guides. You can reach

them at 800-511-4620. Lear has earned an excellent reputation by helping thousands of customers just like you move portions of their retirement savings into Lear gold and silver IRAs. It's easy to do, and it's tax and penalty free. Don't be caught off guard. Experts predict the markets may tank again. You'll be happy if you have protection in place. So call Lear at 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620, or go to learjudgenap.com and tell them your friend the judge sent you.

I mean, to be asked, just to tie a bow on the last thing we were talking about, if U.S. arms were used to commit war crimes and to give that sort of hand-wringing, we're still looking at it, answer just undermines whatever credibility he may have had. Is it any wonder the American public is so cynical about the government? But that's just my editorial there, Karen. Do you think that Washington has ever considered removing to Ukraine now? that Ukraine could lose and what the consequences will be? Or does Washington not care as long as this thing doesn't explode before November, the elections in November?

That's a good question because I would think, in fact, I'm pretty sure that in the intelligence communities and in the, well, we see it with some of the senators and some of our representatives. They have a strong awareness of the reality of Ukraine and its chances and it's really its future. To the extent that it has one, it's very limited. It's going to be a shrunken territory, certainly a corrupt government, lost most of its people, not to death necessarily, but the people have left. They're not coming back to rebuild. People see this in Washington. Now, I think for the Biden administration, I don't know what Biden understands. I'm not sure. But I think they hope that they can just keep the lid on this and not admit it until the election to somehow, you know, send this money and then say, well, it's all going well and manage as they did in 2020 and other times.

I mean, we have a lot of voters that will be first time voters, and I don't mean young people. There's a lot of ways for the Biden team to call this a success if Biden is still standing on November 7th or whatever the election day is. So I think they want to put it on the back burner. You know, here's your $61 billion, which really, wink, wink, nod, nod, goes to the military industrial complex here in America. And they don't want people to talk about it. They don't want people to report on it. But in reality, one level below the talking heads of our government, I think they are aware of the situation. And I think our allies, if you want to call them allies, Poland, Germany,

Lithuania, these NATO allies and NATO itself is planning for the reality because they are closer to it and they see it and they know that they have to live with what they have wrought. By not talking to Russia sooner, by not negotiating a settlement, they now lose. They have less to work with. And I know they're planning around that reality, but they're not talking about it because that is defeat. It looks like defeat, and it is defeat. And it also proves the stupidity of NATO and the stupidity of the United States government. Here's what the head of their vassal state said on Meet the Press on Sunday. This is President Zelensky on Meet the Press, cut number seven. This is the argument that Joe Biden, when he was a little bit more lucid than he is now, was making over and over again that after Putin takes Ukraine, he'll move into NATO nations.

Number seven. Germany's top military official has warned that Putin could be ready to attack NATO countries in as soon as five years. Following up on what you are saying, how big of a threat do you see Putin to the West? I think he does want to go further. As I said, he wants to reinstate Soviet Union and the Soviet and Soviet bloc. And they do that in terms of information, misinformation. uh information misinformation they just drive different political groups and democracies not only in europe in latin america in africa they have the influence everywhere and they do this to split the world so the risk is high and the i think this German diplomat said that it's not even about the wish of Putin, but it is that if Putin is not stopped, then Putin is ready to attack NATO.

Does this remind you of the South Vietnam Falls? The world will fall. The domino argument from that era. I'm dating myself by remembering that. But this is what the memory that it brings back. Go ahead. That's right. That's right.

This is a domino theory. And we went through this already. And he's echoing back what his American friends in Congress have told him and what they want to hear. That's for sure. But yeah, he's portraying a domino effect. characterizing the whole special military operation and now war in Ukraine. You know, he doesn't talk about the war he was conducting, not himself personally since 2014, but certainly after his election continued this, you know, the bombing of the Donbass and attacking Russian speakers in the eastern part of Ukraine from 2014 to 2022. So that's eight years of warfare, internal war, civil war, perhaps. He doesn't talk about that. And it's funny because Putin, you don't have to like him, but he has been very clear from the beginning with what he's doing, what he's trying to do. And the weird thing is, when he

says he's going to do something, and he explains why, and then he does it, it's like, if you listen to what he said, you would not be surprised. And one of the things that he does say is that he is not interested in an expansive war or any other type of expansion into Europe. He simply wants good neighbors that he doesn't have to constantly worry about. He doesn't want NATO members on his border if he can help it. And he wants to trade. Russia and all countries in the world that have raw materials and manufactured goods and all kinds of things, they thrive on trade. And Russia has been very open about wanting to do that. And what have we done? We said, oh, no, you're lying. You want to do this. And turns out, guess what? He's trading with those who will trade

with him. And the whole world then turns away from the West and the United States. And if we don't see that, well, I think many of us do see that. And I think some in Congress see that. But if our administration does not see that and NATO leadership does not see that, then they they're not worthy. OK, they're not worthy for the leadership positions that they are in and they are sinking their countries. Well, do you think that you think that these people in the Congress that voted overwhelmingly for the ninety five billion? I'm including the monies for Israel and Taiwan, but the lion's share is Ukraine. Do you think that they think that Washington's resources are without limitation? Yeah, they actually believe, many of them are modern monetary theorists, which is to say idiots.

And they believe that the money can be printed. You can print the money. And it's just like, we used to joke when people learned how to use a checkbook, and nobody uses a checkbook, I guess, anymore. But we used to joke that as long as you had checks, you could write checks, right? And I think that's their mentality. They believe that the Federal Reserve will make available money and international community and domestic citizens will be forced to, well, the domestic citizens will be forced to pay it back. And they'll get lenders from everywhere, their friends. And this is free money. It's free money. It's a money tree. They do believe this because $34 trillion in current debt and the trend lines going up,

you know, our interest on the debt is going to be equal, if you can believe it, almost a trillion dollars a year equal to our defense budget. And defense is the one that it's a very effective lobby. This defense industrial sector is very effective. So what's going to be left? You know, how are they going to pay all the other commitments that this government has made? I think at some point, I've said this before, I'll say it again. It's off the beaten path of our conversation, but I think at some point the federal government will collapse from its own weight. No one will trust its cash or even its digital currency, whatever it's using

at the time. It won't be able to pay its bills, just like the old Soviet Union collapsed. What happens to the United States? Who knows? It'll probably break apart into a dozen or a half dozen smaller republics based on regional alliances. The southeast where I live would be terrible. The northeast, that'll be as liberal as California. Yeah, no, I totally agree. I think the signs are there. And if we in this country, whether it's regular people or academics or anybody interested in this, would study how the Soviet Union fell apart. And of course, the terrible ramifications of that for

the people that lived there initially, as they broke apart and became the Russian Federation and became much smaller and became much poorer initially. Of course, they were already poor, but in real terms, that was recognized after the Soviet Union fell apart. And I thought it was funny, too, that Zelensky says, oh, he wants to bring back the Soviet Union. Let me tell you, the folks that run Russia, they remember the Soviet Union. OK, they remember it very clearly and they know more about it than Zelensky does. He wasn't even born. So, yeah. All right. Here's one more of Zelensky making the same argument using fewer words, but it's just as absurd. Cut number six, Sonia. I know for sure if Ukraine fails, then Putin definitely will invade the Balttic countries why not because there's some interesting idea strategy but because putin

wants to return the influence of the soviet union and he really wants to retake through force through war he wants to retake all former Soviet republics and now independent states. Whether they are in the NATO or not, he doesn't care. That is why this is his strategy. You know, to you and I, Karen, and to nearly everyone watching us,

this is an absurd argument. but it resonates with the people that impose our taxes and write our laws called the Congress of the United States. This is basically the arguments that were made all last weekend on Saturday morning on the floor of the House of Representatives. Well, it's true. Well, war is the health of the state. And having a big, consolidated, deadly, scary, hated enemy, and if we can make Russia into that, that would be great. They'd like to put China in that category, too, but we you know what war does, it silences dissent, it causes us to self-censor, it gives the government new and sweeping powers, it justifies incredible debt spending, you know, incredible borrowing, because it's a life and death situation. So that language works very well for what they want. And honestly, our enemies aren't in Russia. And they're not in Europe.

Our enemies are in Washington. These guys are killing our country. And they know that their days are numbered. I think not so much in days, but they see that what they are doing can't be continued forever. It's not sustainable. And when the debt comes due, and when people, the BRICS, have their own currency, and the dollar is no longer the global reserve currency, that kind of thing, this country will fall apart. And those guys in Washington will really, if they don't fly out of here on a private jet, they may find their heads on pikes, you know, all around the Beltway. This conceivably could happen. And that's why I

think it's important to really look at the collapse of major indebted, non-workable bureaucratic systems like the Soviet Union, because that's coming, okay? That's coming to a town near you, certainly near me, two hours away, Washington, it's definitely coming, okay? That's coming to a town near you, certainly near me, two hours away, Washington, it's definitely coming there. So we should think about how to get through this collapse of our great unaffordable government, because it is unaffordable and it is massive. And we're losing our don't have, we're losing our freedom. I mean, on a day-to-day basis, our freedom is being reduced and constrained and that's not by accident. So we need to get ready for a major change and we should be a part of it. We should be a part

of that change. Thank you, Karen. Colonel Kwiatkowski, eloquently put. Thank you very much, my dear friend. Much appreciated. We'll see you again next week. Okay. See you next week, Judge. Of course. All the best to you. Okay. Coming up at four o'clock from antiwar.com, Kyle Anzalone. We'll see you then. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. I'm out.