Judging Freedom - Matt Hoh: Assassination in Moscow

Episode Date: December 18, 2024

Matt Hoh: Assassination in MoscowSee 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 Wednesday, December 18th, 2024, a week until Christmas. Matt Ho joins us now. Matt, a pleasure, my dear friend. Welcome here. Thank you for making time for us. In the new Syria, and I got to use that phrase so loosely because so much of it has been taken by the Israelis and so much of it has been taken by the Turks, but in the parts of Syria that al-Jolani and his crew, over which al-Jolani and his crew have jurisdiction, whether it's lawful jurisdiction or just brutal jurisdiction. Are Christians safe? Thanks for having me on, Judge. And that's a very big concern. That's a very big concern. We've seen this rebranding effort of HTS,

of this Al-Qaeda associated or linked group. You can say all you want about, oh, they disavowed them, but they share the same ideology, the same worldview, the same purpose, and the same view towards others who are dissimilar towards them. So this idea that Christians, other ethnic or religious minorities in Syria are at a danger within the territory that HTS is controlling now is absolutely something that's, I think, a certainty. We've seen it in the past. And just because Jelani has changed his name back to Al-Sharar and that he now is wearing a suit rather than combat fatigues. And they're writing glowing profiles of him in the New York Times and he's being interviewed on cable television. It doesn't mean that they still want to cut the heads off of those people who they disagree with.

It's interesting to see how quickly the West is adopting this. I shouldn't say interesting. It's no to see how quickly the West is adopting this. I shouldn't say interesting. It's no surprise to see it. The French judge have said they're going to reopen their embassy in Damascus. The Germans are saying they might open theirs up again. I mean, so the embrasure of this terrorist organization, something that was clearly defined and spelled out as a terrorist organization by the UN, by American law, just by their own actions. It just really shows the imperial great game at play here, the Machiavellian chessboard type maneuvers, the seance, you know, calling down Kissinger and Brzezinski to deliver Syria into a new age, using all these types of characters and organizations that have these pasts that no one in their right mind

should think is behind them. Are you, as a former Marine, I know you're a Marine forever, military intelligence and former State Department officials stunned that the same government which called Al-Jalani's group a terrorist organization, and it's more than calling it, because if you provide material aid to something that the State Department or the Treasury Department calls a terrorist organization, you can be prosecuted. People are in jail for this. Are you surprised that the same government that did this, that put a bounty on his head of $10 million, also through the CIA, gave him cash and funded his fighters? No, no, not at all, Judge. Not surprised in the least. This is what they do. This is what

they've done for decades. I mean, the example of aligning with the worst elements out there because they're useful for you, because they're brutal, they can be very effective, and you understand this type of imperial mindset that we can control them, you know, and that they will, their agency won't be theirs, it'll be ours, is something that you see continuing to happen over and over again in American foreign policy, whether it's with religious extremists, whether it's with, say, criminal organizations, you know, whether it's with just corrupt governments. So look at South America, Central America, look at Southeast Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East, Africa, there's examples we could spend the whole half hour just going through a list of all the different examples of this type of blowback. And, you know, so the idea that tapping again, shouldn't startle any of us, shouldn't surprise any of us. And, you know, their effectiveness at using it to achieve their goals, but then not understanding that where how it might blow up again, the blowback aspect

is something I think does surprise us because it keeps happening over and over again. So their willingness to do the same thing, expecting it to turn out differently, but it shows. That goes back to their arrogance, their entitlement, their belief in their superiority. They believe that they're the heroes of history. They're the men and women who make reality. Again, it's an imperial mindset. And they call this a rules-based order. They don't even follow their own rules. That's correct.

I mean, the rules are what the empire says they are. The rules are what is the empire's direct interests of the moment. You can't even claim that they have long-term strategic thinking because there's not, because what we see is a continual degradation of the empire, right? We see a continual degradation of our economic power, of our political power, of our soft power, of our ability to get things done around the world without just meandering around it, smashing things like an angry, stupid giant, you know, along with its minions. So the willingness to do this, again,

shouldn't be a surprise. I wasn't going to go there yet, but your answer is so intriguing about the rules are whatever they say they are. Here is a very prominent person mocking very effectively, in my view, the American rules-based order. Cut number 12. Today, the military and political situation in the world remains difficult and unstable. Bloodshed in the Middle East and high conflict potential remains in a number of other regions of the world. We see that the current U.S. administration, almost the entire collective West, does not give up trying to maintain its global dominance, and continues to impose its so-called rules, for those who consider themselves at the head of the

whole world, those who are representatives of the Lord on earth, although they themselves do not believe in the Lord and wage hybrid wars against undesirable states and implement a policy of containment, including in relation to Russia, the desire to weaken our country to cause a defeat for us. The United States is send advisors and thereby signaling a future their escalation of the conflict. The audio that, of course, was President Vladimir Putin two days ago, before the assassination, about which we'll speak in a minute, of one of the senior generals speaking to his senior defense staff. Matt, I think he was 100% correct. Yeah, I don't know what anyone could

argue with that. Anyone who's being fair and honest and has a bit of integrity to themselves. The rule-based order essentially is just a euphemism for the empire applying power to maintain its power or gain greater power as it needs. I mean, so whether that's economic power, whether it's diplomatic or political power, it's military power. And you see this across the board, Judge, in the sense of how much we spend on our military. Right. I mean, so, you know, whether it's how we act diplomatically, we just were one of seven nations this week in the UN to vote against Palestinian self-determination. And so we use, right, I mean, what type of rules-based order is that? I mean, the whole aspect of, say, Israel, you know, you just had Israel Katz, the Israeli foreign minister,

say we're going to stay in Gaza indefinitely. Netanyahu said we're staying in Syria indefinitely. You had Israeli settlers show up in Lebanon yesterday or the day before. All right. I mean, so like these just massive mass violations of the rules based order. But, you know, we're going to use our power as needed to maintain our power, protect our power, grow our power. And that's essentially what they're talking about, because the only thing that matters is that we make the rules and that we will change and adjust and utilize those rules as necessary. And as a subset to that, of course, within the empire are the personal and institutional ambitions and desires and interests of those who are the officers or the institutions of the empire. So when you hear, you know, when you see decisions being made by the Biden

administration or by the incoming Trump administration or by various agencies that further their own domestic needs or their own personal or institutional interests, you see that play out well because that imperial mindset goes down to, you know, within those who actually inhibit and operate the empire. And of course, those who are on the outside of it, you have two choices, essentially, either go along with it and either try and prosper and benefit, as Israel certainly does, or suffer as nations like Palestine and Syria and Lebanon do? Russia announced this morning that it is moving its, this morning at U.S. time, that it is moving its air defense systems out of Syria and into Libya. What does that tell you? Yeah, I had not seen that, Judge, but that is certainly a big deal. There's been a lot of question in the last couple of weeks what will become of Russia in Syria. And certainly this alliance that we see between the West and HTS, you know, some some clear such as the French going right back into Damascus with their embassy, some a little more subtle, you know.

But certainly part of that alliance was going to be, one, be cool with Israel, all right? Don't allow Israel to do what Israel is going to do. But then the other thing, too, is kick the Russians out. That HTS, you can have your share of Syria. And Judge, I like the way you phrased that, new Syria, because it really has been partitioned up. It's, you know, like a 21st century Sykes-Picot agreement going on here. And Sykes-Picot, for people who aren't familiar, that was the agreement that drew up the modern boundaries of the Middle East following the First World War. And, you know, I mean, so that seems to probably was some of the arrangements with the Turks and which HTS, uh, over what was going to be the outcome of this, uh, uh, overthrow of the Syrian government. And certainly it was, yeah, uh, maintain some type of neutrality at least with Israel,

allow Israel to do what Israel is going to do. Of course, you're going to be a block, uh, to Iran, a hedge to Iran, an obstacle to Iran, but then also too, you can't allow the Russians to stay. And so if the Russians are pulling their air defenses out, if that's an accurate report, certainly they won't keep anything in Syria that's not defended by air defenses. So that means their major airfield and their port will be moving as well. Certainly, I guess that means the Russians will then move their strategic interests out of Syria and into Libya. But I'm not as up on Libya as probably I should be. Libya is not the stable nation or the stable government that Syria might have seemed to have been in Syria, certainly wasn't a stable government. So certainly the, the, the

champagne that is being passed around and, and, and uncorked over the success in Syria, you know, another bottle's being opened in Washington, if this report of the Russians going to Libya is true. Back when President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decided they wanted to undermine Assad, I guess we're circa 2011 to 2013, right around the time that they made the same decision about Libya. What reason did they give? Well, I mean, if they gave the reason that it's a terrorist regime, they replaced it with a regime that was replaced with a regime notorious for terrorism. And the fact that the United States supplies three quarters of the world's despots and military regimes and dictators and monarchs with weapons. So we all know the

hypocrisy and double standard in that. But again, rules-based order, the empire doesn't care about that. We shouldn't even come up with these types of standards because nothing applies to those who are in power. I think when you go back to 2011, I think there was some element, and this is what I take from having been a part of that State Department, being around it, being around the American government during that time, being a part of it, I think really was people may find this funny or odd, but some of it was, I think they felt like they were being left out of the Arab Spring, that the Arab Spring was happening around and that their friend, Haji Barak, had just been thrown out of power. Things had happened in Tunisia they hadn't seen.

There was uncertainty and instability throughout. There was unrest in Iraq. And we look like we're really bad. I mean, in our major naval base in Bahrain, there's all types of crackdowns going on. People want to be free. We have to do something to show that we have some type of input in this. That's just one little part. But I always like talking about it because it shows the mindset, the ego of those who are in power. Right. They don't want to be left out and they feel like they're being embarrassed. We've got to make up for losing Mubarak.

The other thing that the major part, though, judge, and I'm sure this is is familiar with most people, is that this was an opportunity. So what you have was an opportunity to get rid of one of Iran's major allies. And this is something that has gone on for decades in American foreign policy thinking. This goes back to the 1990s. This goes back to the neoconservatives following the Cold War, the Center for the Project for a New American Century, excuse me, the people who inhabited the first George W. Bush administration. This was their brainchild to remake the Middle East in order to weaken Iran, eventually cause regime change around, but primarily to protect and ensure Israel's dominance in the region. The idea being that if Israel has no, of course, if Israel has no enemies in the region, then they, of course, will be at the top. They won't be threatened and all things will be good. So that's essentially a

lot of it. It was never about the Syrian people. It was never about supporting whatever type of legitimate grassroots revolution that may have existed in 2011. I'm certainly the desire, you know, Judge, I don't know, you're probably in somewhat agreement with me. I'm sure many of your viewers are as well. I don't know how many governments out there are out there that I don't think should not be overthrown, right? You know what I mean? So there was probably, I mean, like, so the resistance to Assad in 2011 in this government, there was legitimate resistance there. There was a legitimate desire to get rid of this guy and this system that we are under for decades now. And then that got co-opted by foreign interests that got then utilized

by jihadist interests. And that turns into that awful, awful, terrible Syrian civil war that killed a half million, made what, 10 million refugees, devastated the country, and now has eventually, after all this time, put a terrorist group in charge of Damascus. But the point being is that for the Americans, it's a win. You know, it's this idea of the world as a chessboard. You know, there's a television show on Netflix. I know you don't watch TV, but there's a show called The Diplomat. And it's for an American made corporate production, Hollywood production. It's pretty anti-empire.

It's got a pretty good take on the imperial mindset. But at the very end of the last episode, the American vice president stands in front of a map of the world, women who populate Washington, D.C., the writers on that show really demonstrated it quite clearly and effectively for their audience. So I think people get this concept that what's going on here is about the higher powers, those who are the elites who control the governments, maneuvering against one another in ways that they see as somehow enhancing their position on the chessboard. And there's no consideration whatsoever for the people who are being crushed, who are being brutalized, who are being destroyed by those machinations. And that's essentially what you have with the Obama administration. They had no interest in the Syrian people. They had no interest in the Libyan people.

That's another war that the United States entered into. Again, legitimate resistance, legitimate uprising against Muammar Gaddafi and his government, but probably wouldn't have gone anywhere if not for the intervention of the Americans in NATO for what purposes? Because the French wanted to show their dominance in North Africa and because Hillary Clinton wanted to show her magistrate at foreign affairs, wanted to show her, make her bona fides relevant for becoming the next commander in chief. So she had to have a war she could win in Libya, particularly after the war in Afghanistan wasn't going so well. I mean, this is the way these people think. So again, it's the empire, but then those underneath it

with their mindset, with their own individual institutional interests, who are, they're interlocked and they see themselves one the same. Hillary Clinton's colleague, I think you agree, Judge, at Columbia University, God help us, also Jeff Sachs' colleague at Columbia University, Victoria Nuland. You know, you could see that type of interlinkage, of that connection, of that intertwining of the personal, right, the personal ambition, the personal interest with those of the empire. So that imperial mindset, I know I keep coming back to this on this episode, but it's very clear when you look at what's occurring here, um, how the United States views the world and how those who run the United States, uh, see themselves as necessarily having the function in order to do their jobs personally, but also to advance themselves and their own personal and institutional

interests. Switching gears, the murder, the assassination of General Kirillov, is this a legitimate, was he a legitimate military target? Is there a legitimate military purpose to this? No, this is simple terrorism. I feel, Judge, as if the Ukrainians hadn't done something like this in a while, for a bit during the last almost three years. They had conducted a number of bombings and assassinations in Ukraine. What's interesting, of course, is today the Russians announced that they captured the man who did it, a young man, 28, 29 years old, something like that, Uzbek. And you see this linkage then between the Ukrainian intelligence services and Central Asian

nations, as well then too, would bring it back to Syria. Because we know that the Ukrainians have been involved in Syria, first with the Kurds to a degree, but then also more recently in the last year with HTS, with these jihadist groups that were based in Idlib. And Turkish reporting was telling us, as well as Russian reporting, but the Turks were telling us that a few months ago, the Ukrainians started sending drones as well as trainers to Idlib to train HTS how to use these drones as well as how to do what else. What's interesting, Judge, is that the Turks also reported just a week ago or so that the condition for this transfer of drones to HTS was that HTS release Islamic fighters from Chechnya and Georgia. So those who would be predisposed or maybe had been fighting against the Russians, that this was the trade. We'll give you

drones. You release these jihadist fighters from Chechn and georgia uh so obviously so the ukrainians could use them against uh the russians so you see this continual tie between the ukrainian intelligence services uh terror attacks uh assassinations bombings let's not forget about the moscow concert hall attack back in march that brutal murder of what, hundreds of people, over 100 people in Moscow at a concert. That was the corner of the Russians and no reason not to believe them linked to Ukrainians and the Islamic State claimed credibility for that. So you see this continued relationship between the Ukrainians, between these Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, jihadist types groups to use against Russia. Now, where would they have learned this from, Judge? Who would they have gotten this idea from to use these types of people against their enemy, thinking they can control-

CIA or MI6. Absolutely, Judge. And who do we know based upon because people tell us like David Ignatius, the opinion writer for the CIA at The Washington Post. He said these types of things. And of course, remember, it was about a year and a half ago. The New York Times or the Post had that huge expose on the relationship between the CIA and Ukraine's intelligence services and how we have 15 CIA bases there and on and on. But you've seen this clear relationship. And so it gets back to that question originally about should we be surprised? No, we shouldn't be surprised. And we see also too then this imperial mindset, again, how it's just not the Israelis. Again, Katz is saying we're staying in Gaza forever. Netanyahu is saying we're staying in Syria forever.

Settlers are showing up in Lebanon. But also the Ukrainians saying, you know what, we're going to do what the Americans did, and we're going to use these religious extremist jihadist types for our own goals because that's how you make war against your enemies. There are no rules. When you are part of the empire, you do whatever is necessary to maintain your power or grow your power. And that includes weakening others. So the Ukrainian mindset, Judge, this is what I think maybe I should finish up on. The mania in here,

right? The madness. So you have those who I guarantee you in Kiev, because we have these types in Washington, D.C. You have them in London, you have them in Brussels, you have them in Tel Aviv, who are looking at this as we may be losing Ukraine. We may be shoveling thousands and thousands and thousands of our young men into a furnace every week, having them die for nothing other than the destruction of our country for the sake of our nationalist goals. But you know what? We hurt the Russians in Syria, and that's all that matters today, right? I mean, so the Ukrainians take on the same mindset as the Americans they serve under. Matt, what a terrific, terrific series of analyses you've just, you've just given us. So I'll miss you while we're on our Christmas break, but look forward to seeing you after the first of the year. Thank you, my dear friend. It's such a pleasure to work with you. Absolutely, Judge.

Merry Christmas to you, your family. Merry Christmas to Chris and Sonia, and happy holidays. Merry Christmas, New Year's. Happy New Year's to everyone who's watching. Judge, it's been a real pleasure to be a part of your team this last year, and I look forward to doing it next year with you. As do we. Thank you, Matt. All the best. Thanks, Judge. Coming up later today at one o'clock this afternoon, Colonel Douglas McGregor at two o'clock, Aaron Mate at three thirty. Phil Giraldi, Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.