Judging Freedom - LtCOL. Karen Kwiatkowski : How Close is WWIII?

Episode Date: December 16, 2025

LtCOL. Karen Kwiatkowski : How Close is WWIII?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. I can't hear. There we go. Hi, everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here. Sorry, Colonel, and sorry, everyone, for judging freedom. Today is Tuesday, December 16th, 2025. We are here with Colonel Karen Kutkowski, along with the Internet Gremlin. that sometimes afflict us.

Colonel, always a pleasure. Welcome here. I want to ask you how close we are to World War III, but I need to build up to that ultimate question by sharing some videos with you. The first that I want you to look at is a video of Secretary of Defense. He calls himself the Secretary of War Pete Heggseth just about an hour ago in which he's saying,

that he cannot release the video of the killing of the shipwrecked guys from the boats, even though the video of the rest of the boat was released, because somehow, without explanation, the video of the shipwreck guys is classified. Cut number 17. Also going to tomorrow allow the Hask and Sask to see the unedited video of the September 2nd, alongside with Admiral Bradley, who has done a fantastic job, has made all the right calls and we're glad he'll be there to do it. But in keeping with longstanding Department of War Policy, Department of Defense Policy, of course we're not going to release a top secret, full unedited video of that to the general public. Hask and Saskin, appropriate committees will see it, but not the general.

He's not saying Hackensack. He's saying hack and hack. an acronym for something in the House and sack an acronym for something in the Senate. Armed Services Committee, I guess, in both. I think you're right, House Armed Services Committee and Senate Armed Services Committee. You're right, thank you. Shouldn't the rest of Congress,

shouldn't the American public be able to see what happened to these guys, how the United States government murdered shipwrecked victims? Oh, yeah. You know, that what comes to mind, of course, is, you know, we have many classifying authorities, many people who are given the privilege in the government of classifying documents or content. And it is illegal, maybe this doesn't matter anymore, but it is illegal to classify anything if it is to hide a crime or to not, or to prevent the embarrassing. of a person or a government agency. So I imagine the reason they're classifying it is because it was a crime and they want it hidden

and they're also embarrassed by it. And that is not legal, that is not a justification for classification. And I think people in the Congress know this very well because they are oftentimes asking for, you know, information that may or may not be classified. So he has really, if he thinks he can, can classify this. He needs to be extremely clear and upfront as to what, why it has to be

classified. Is this revealing a particular new technology that we have to murder people that are hanging off of wrecked boats? What is it that is being protected by the classification? Admiral Bradley's and his own war crimes are being protected. Yeah, I think so. That's what's being protected. He called it top secret, which is the highest classification. There is now. There's five versions of top secret. He may not even be familiar with them.

But top secret is, of course, the highest version. It's reprehensible. Senator Adam Schiff, with whom I don't agree on many things, but I do on this, apparently saw the tape also. I guess he's on one of the committees that has seen it already. You'll see him in a moment saying why it should be revealed. You'll also see the Secretary of Defense smirking over Senator Schiff's shoulder. I guess they were all in the same gaggle.

Maybe they had all come out of the committee meeting at which Senator Schiff was shown the tapes. I'm speculating there. But watch this. Cut number 18. public should see this, and I hope that we'll have support to make it public. I found the legal explanations and the strategic explanations incoherent, but I think American people should see this video, and all members of Congress should have that opportunity. I certainly want it for myself. He's 100% correct, isn't he? Yeah, and again, I'm sure that the rationale for classifying this

particular video was incoherent, okay? It was made up. It's being misclassified because you can't classify things to hide crimes or prevent embarrassment. So, you know, these congressmen, the senators don't do their job either. They should not just say, I find it incoherent. They should do something about it, okay? They have the ability to do that. There's, I mean, if nothing else, hold the guy in contempt of Congress for not, you know, for doing it, or bring forth charges, you know, I mean, There's ways you can deal with it. And our Congress is such, it's such a lamb of a Congress. You know, it's so gentle, so kind. You know, it's what a mess. Because, you know, we don't have to tolerate this. We don't have to live like this. They represent us. They are supposed to know the Constitution.

They're supposed to know the law. They have great power. And they refuse to use any of their power. because, oh, President Trump might send out a nasty little, you know, truth social post. It's just, I have no respect to it. You know, the Congress is really, really supine. There are some courageous people there, Senator Paul and the Senate, Congressman Massey, in the House, but they very rarely, Congressman Massey did this with the Epstein documents. I don't know if Senator Paul has ever done it, gotten the majority's necessary,

to do something against the president's wishes, something principled, something deriving from either the Constitution or the people's right to know. The IDF, on the other hand, will happily show videos of its murdering Hamas leaders in Gaza. In Gaza, I thought there was a ceasefire in goes, Colonel. Yeah. Well, you know, Israel has what should be a very unique way of going about war. We should have, we as Americans, based on our constitution and our traditions, should have nothing to do with the way Israel and the IDF conducts itself in any way.

I don't care about their tactics, their strategies. None of it applies to the United States. And we should not be receiving any training or advice or emulating in any way. what they do. Now, having said that, of course, what I'm saying is, of course, we do copy them. But yeah, in terms of the ceasefire, it was never a ceasefire. It was never a ceasefire that Israel agreed to. They agreed to appease President Trump and quickly divided Gaza vertically in half and took over the eastern part and put, what, yellow concrete blocks up and down, shooting people, moving the blocks on a daily basis in shooting anyone who inadvertently didn't see the yellow concrete blocks that were spaced about, what, 200 or 300 feet apart, the entire length, basically, of Gaza.

So these guys in the IDF, Israel's leadership, they didn't sign. If you ask them honestly and truthfully in a room where no Americans were there, they would say, no, we didn't sign anything. We agreed to nothing, and they didn't. They are acting as they always do when they signed agreement, which is why all their neighbors are afraid, you know, are reluctant to agree to anything either verbally, handshake in writing. It doesn't matter because Israel has no respect for its counterparts.

And if you don't have respect for your counterpart, you can't be trusted. And they can't trust it. History has shown this. So, yeah, there's no ceasefire. Again, Trump in his insanity, imagines that he is making peace in all these places. And so many of the examples that he uses up to and including the Gaza peace agreement, the 20-point agreement or whatever, meaningless, meaningless.

In fact, specifically, Trump is being played by Netanyahu and his crowd. Here's Trump being asked, why are we in Syria? He gives a neocon, but coherent answer. And then he goes off to say, well, I brought peace to the Middle East for the first time in 3,000 years. My God. I mean, if this weren't so sad and so tragic, it would be laughable. Cut number 12, Chris. I'm Syria, Mr. President.

On the U.S. troops killed in Syria over the weekend, why do we have troops in Syria? Because we're trying to make sure that there's going to be and remain peace in the Middle East. And Syria is a big part of it. The new leader is a strong person. and that's what you need. This is a rough part of the world. And we've, it's been amazing what's taken place in Syria. We got rid of Assad.

We got rid of other people that were really bad people and that we're in the way of peace in the Middle East. You know, we have legitimate peace in the Middle East, first time in 3,000 years. And we have 59 countries backing it. And we'll see what happens with Hamas. We'll see what happens with Hezbollah. But regardless, I mean, we have countries that want to go in and clean that out if we want them to do it.

Does he think anybody believes in when he says peace in the Middle East for the first time of 3,000 years? I don't know who he's talking to. It is possible some people, some people that may be buying that message, but it makes no historical sense whatsoever. It makes no political sense. It's not true. It's really, it's false. what he's saying. And particularly what's false is his role. You know, he is, he's saying, I did this. Well, what he, if he would actually own what he actually did, that would be one thing. But I think

he reveals himself when he says, well, I've got these countries that want to come in and help clean it out. That's, that's Israeli language. You know, that is genocidal language. And Trump doesn't maybe recognize this. But, you know, he is, a man's living in a bubble. And unfortunately, most of his foreign policy advice seems to be, certainly in the Middle East, is coming from Israel. So Israel is the problem, okay? And so the problem is going to help you solve itself. I don't think so. You know, Israel has its own interests. You can respect those if you want. But we, United States, this country, our government, our taxpayers, shouldn't be involved in this, because it is costing us so much, and not just in dollars. The dollars are actually

tiny. The billions and billions we send to Israel is a tiny cost compared to what we are losing as a nation. We're losing our soul, our reputation, the trust that we have as a country have earned in past decades. We're losing all of that because of our friendship with Israel. And it's not our friendship. Nobody's friends with Israel. The Trump administration is beholden to Israel. And maybe they're a little friendly, okay? But as a nation, this is an entanglement of the worst kind. And we're going to pay the price.

We're paying the price already for that. Here's Vladimir Zelensky telling his European buddies he wants them the steel funds that are deposited by the Russians and the European banks. Number 15, Chris. And it will only work if there is true accountability, if the punishment of the aggressor becomes inevitable. Yes, it's not easy, but it's not as difficult as some may try to portray it. Right now, European leaders have the decision on the table regarding frozen Russian assets.

Most of these assets allocated in Europe, and these Russian assets can and must be fully used to defend against Russia's own aggression. The aggressor must pay. Imagine what would happen if they get away with or if they attempt to steal these funds. Yeah, well, I mean, everybody else who has funds being held through that exchange or in Brussels under a similar arrangement will quickly figure out ways to reduce the amount of risk that they're exposed to because the risk will have proven to be 100%. If the EU or NATO or United States turns against you, that money can be instantly stolen, evaporated, taken, never to be returned. Yeah, I mean, this is why Brussels itself, this is why the banks are very concerned about this, because it can, it'll be a stampede. It could start a stampede that will be, you know, extremely costly, especially now when the European economy in general is strong. struggling and trying to, you know, they want capital.

So they want capital flows in. Conviscating these Russian funds will cause a very predictable capital flight out. Not good for Europe. Zelensky could care less. He's skibbing off the top. You know, if I was him, I mean, come on, it's very profitable for him to advocate this. And he has no idea what he's talking about. You know, he, contrary to his elective promises to the people of Ukraine, which

overwhelmingly voted for him many, many years ago. He promised peace and he promised to stop bombing the Dunbass, and he promised to uphold the Minsk Accords and the Minsk Treaty. He did the things that would have prevented war. He said the things. He said he would do those things. And then did the complete opposite at the urging of the United States in Great Britain. So who's the aggressor here. This war, the civil war in Dunbass had gone on since before 2014. Let me jump over to a comment made not too long ago by NATO Secretary General Ruta. This is really terrifying, predicting war in Europe of the level that the Europeans endured during World War II. Chris, cut number nine. Just imagine if Putin got his way. Ukraine under the boot of Russian

occupation. His forces pressing against the longer border with NATO and a significantly increased risk of an armed attack against us. In such a scenario, we would long for the days when 3.5% of GDP on core defense was enough. We need to be ready because at the end of this first quarter of the 21st century, conflicts are no longer fall at arm's length. Conflict is at our door. Russia has brought war back into Europe, and we must be prepared for the scale of war our grandparents and great-grandparents endured. Imagine it. A conflict reaching every home, every workplace. Destruction, mass mobilization, millions displaced. Widespread suffering.

and extreme losses. It is a terrible thought. But if we deliver on our commitments, this is a tragedy we can prevent. Well, this is the most severe form of Russia phobia I've heard from any European leader. Yeah, it's, you know, I think many of these leaders, Root is one of them,

a lot of these others, they are not popular, they're not connected to the political directions of the countries, the various countries in Europe, which all have nationalist, populist, isolationist, to some extent, popular sentiment, and they're going to elect those kind of people into the capitals. This threatens politicians like Rudy and others, and what they imagine that will allow them to remain on top and empower is really what he's described.

It's a wet dream of disaster, and they are celebrating it and pushing it. And I honestly, I do not know many, you know, I'm not, Have it been to Europe in ages? Do the people in Europe buy this, or is he speaking this simply to? Well, according to the Europeans to whom we speak, Gilbert Doctor, who's American but lives in Brussels, Professor Glenn Dieson, former ambassador Craig Murray, the Europeans don't buy it. The elites do. The military industrial complex does.

The military does. The intelligence community does. the people in government do, but the average folks do not. Do you think we're moving closer to a worldwide conflagration, which could be characterized as World War III? You know, I don't see it as a conventional World War III. I think we're not unified enough. There's too much counter evidence, and it's not popular. It's almost impossible to make fighting Russians or fighting anybody and having your kids go die, it's very impossible, really, these days, to make that popular. It's just hard. So I don't think we're going to see a conventional

global war in the mode that Rudy is talking about, you know, with World War II. But what worries me and what should worry, I think worries a lot of people maybe, false flags that cause hot spots, and false flags that are possibly nuclear. And that's not just a dirty bomb. It could be, you know, a number of things. I mean, I think the Ukrainian drones hit a docked Russian submarine. And, you know, if you attack something that has nuclear content, or, you know, like a nuclear plant, like Zaporizia,

which the Ukrainians have been trying to blow up for, I don't know how long, So something that is nuclear-based that is an accident or a false flag or something that can be sold as an attack, I think that that's very dangerous because our systems, our nuclear systems are not, our nuclear warning systems, our response systems are not top-notch, okay? I don't trust them. I think that it's a backwater for most of the militaries. They all want to have nuclear weapons, but that's not where the glory is because we're never going to use them. That's kind of the thinking.

And so they're not ready to be used. We're not ready to use them. Our leaders, our political leaders, are incompetent across the board. So that worries me. Yeah, we have the capability. United States alone, but many countries have the capability to pretty much destroy the planet. and the politicians in charge of reacting or doing it are largely evil and incompetent. So we're in dangerous ground.

We need a revolution in security affairs that deals with reality. And when you show me this speech by the NATO guy, that's fantasy. That is fear-mongering fantasy. And if he believes what he's saying, he needs to be. be fired immediately. So the question is, does he believe what he's saying? Okay? Or is this just another game they're playing to stay in power and to manipulate power? But yeah, very dangerous times. Very dangerous times. The British head of MI6, who is you was born in Hong Kong, but her grandparents are Ukrainian, just gave a terrifying speech to the British public, a warning

them of the dangers of Russia. The same day, the head of the British military, the rough equivalent of our chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave a similar speech. So these neocons in Europe, these globalists in Europe, are grouping together in an effort to terrify people of the Russians. Where this goes, I don't know, but we'll keep an eye on. Karen, thank you very much. Great chatting with you. Absolutely. I'm going to see you next week, my dear friend.

Absolutely. Thank you, all the best. Tomorrow Wednesday, 8 o'clock in the morning, Dr. Gilbert Doctor O. 10 o'clock in the morning, Max Blumenthal, 11 o'clock in the morning, a special one-hour edition of judging freedom with my former Fox colleague and longtime friend, the best known media personality in the Western world, Tucker Carlson. At 1 o'clock tomorrow afternoon, Colonel Douglas McGregor at 3 o'clock, Phil Giraldi.

Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.