Judging Freedom - Matt Hoh: How Weak Is NATO?

Episode Date: May 14, 2024

Matt Hoh: How Weak Is NATO?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Resolve to earn your degree in the new year in the Bay with WGU. WGU is an online accredited university that specializes in personalized learning. With courses available 24-7 and monthly start dates, you can earn your degree on your schedule. You may even be able to graduate sooner than you think by demonstrating mastery of the material you know. Make 2025 the year you focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu. Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, May 14th, 2024. Matt Ho will be with us in just a moment on how weak is NATO. What will NATO do when Ukraine collapses? But first this. You all know that I am a paid spokesperson for Lear Capital, but I'm also a customer,

a very satisfied customer. About a year ago, I bought gold and it's now increased in value 23%. So $100 invested in gold a year ago is now worth $123. If you have $100 in the bank, it still shows $100, but $100 in the bank is now worth 24% less. Inflation has reduced all of your savings, all of your buying power and mine by 24%. And gold is largely immune from that. If you want to learn how gold will soon hit $3,200 an ounce. Call Lear Capital. 800-511-4620 or go to learjudgenap.com. Get your free gold report. Same experts who predicted the 23% rise that I've enjoyed have predicted this $3,200 an ounce gold.

Learn about how to transfer this to an IRA. Protect your savings. 800-511-4620. Learjudgenap.com. Tell them the judge sent you. Matt, my friend, welcome to the show. Always a pleasure. How weak is Ukraine as a government? And well, let me restate it. How weak is the Zelensky government as we speak and how weak is the military as we speak? Thanks for having me back on judge. It's every week goes by, it becomes alarmingly more clear that this, this is a government and a military, a country that is teetering on collapse. It's this house of cards that we talk about all the time. And the conditions that this house of cards are set on,

whether it be the government, the economy, the military, are continuing to be undone and worsened by decisions made by those in power, both in the U.S. and NATO and in Ukraine. And it's a case in point. Over a period of many months, the Ukrainians were launching incursions into the Belgorod region of Russia. And it's in the northeast part of Ukraine, essentially northeast of Kharkiv. And the Russians warned them, if you continue this, we will have to act in response. And in particular, we'll have to push into Ukraine further and create a buffer zone. And that's exactly what we saw happen in the last week as Russia pushed its forces out of the Belgorod region across the Ukrainian border

into those parts northeast of Kharkiv where there had been no front line. So where Ukraine and Russia share about a 1,400 mile border, I think, the front line is only 600 miles. But through their stupidity, through their arrogance, maybe because they were trying to think two or three moves ahead and somehow that by launching these attacks into Russia, it would cause something else to happen. What they got in response though, was something that was very predictable and stated by the Russians actually, that we will basically escalate this war. We will now, the Ukrainians have to deal with a much greater, a much longer front line. They have to divert troops, materiel, munitions from the other parts of the front line to support this new part of the front line.

So, I mean, we see these decisions being made continuously by those in power, whether directly by the Ukrainians or pushed by those in the West, particularly the Americans, say, that are undoing at a very rapid and worsening pace, basically exponentially undoing Ukraine, whether it be in its government, whether it be its military, whether it be its economy, to the point where, you know, maybe a year ago, we would talk about the dangers of collapse. Now, it seems like we should be talking more about when will the collapse occur? How much longer can the Ukraine government stay afloat, basically? How much longer can it hold the front lines, where it is continuing to be overpowered, overmatched, you know,

and it's only going to worsen. Finish with this, with the Wall Street Journal the other day had a story where in the last six months, the Russians have increased missile and drone attacks by a factor of 45, but by 45 percent. All right. So in the last six months, you've seen 45% more missile and drone attacks by Russia against Ukraine. And that's only going to increase the Russian defense industrial output is only increasing. It's only bettering from the point

of view of the Russians, not from the point of view of the Ukrainians or NATO, of course. But I mean, so the situation is worsening because their adversary is smart, adaptive, prepares plans, doesn't make stupid mistakes, doesn't do things irrationally, doesn't do things without understanding the consequences. Meanwhile, the West and Ukraine continue to do these things that undo their position.

President Zelensky's term expires a week from today on May 20th. He chose to cancel elections. Do you have any idea what will happen on the 21st? Who will be in charge of the government and whether military officials would listen to whoever is in charge? Would it be Zelensky staying on? Would it be the head of the military? Would it be the general that he fired, who was his political adversary? Right now, I mean, my understanding is that this is one of the reasons why Tony Blinken went to Ukraine this week was to shore up and to really promote American support, the American backing of the Zelensky government. This is one of those things I was just talking about, Judge, where their decision making is incredibly poor and

they don't plan out or think out what the consequences are going to be. Look, I took part in Iraq and Afghan wars. And in both in one of my times in Iraq and in my time in Afghanistan, we had elections there. You know, I mean, in the dangers and I was involved not so much in Iraq. Well, yes, I was in Iraq and both Iraq and Afghanistan. I was very much involved in the election process there. saw how corrupt it was and fraudulent it was. But at least it provided that veneer. Right. It supported a narrative that what the Americans were doing there was supporting or implementing or promoting democracy. I mean, that's all, you know, BS. But regardless, you know, what you've done here by not having the elections

in Ukraine, and you certainly could have the elections in Ukraine, of course, you're not going to have the elections in the Russian controlled territories. But you know what, since 2014, you haven't had elections in Russian controlled Crimea, or parts of eastern Ukraine that the Russians or their their their allies in eastern Ukraine were controlling. So I mean, so it's an argument without any merit that we can't do it because part of the country is occupied. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan and Iraq, there is much greater danger to the polling places if you're afraid the Russians are going to attack the polling places, which they're not going to do. But you know, certainly we did it in Afghanistan

and Iraq, where the insurgency, the resistance targeted the polling places, and we knew they were and they said they were going to. So I mean, all the arguments why you can't have an election come undone based upon not just experience in other wars the United States has participated in, but in Ukraine itself. But now without having these elections, you have an illegitimate government. And I don't think the Russians are going to do anything other than point out that fact over and over again. And now your narrative about democracies versus autocracies really starts to fall apart. Now, I want to ask you, and I will in a second, with whom the Russians would even negotiate. But before we do, since you mentioned this so crystal clear, cut 14, Chris.

Here is Secretary Blinken earlier today with President Zelensky in Kiev. The assistance is now on the way. Some of it's already arrived. More of it will be arriving. And that's going to make a real difference against the ongoing Russian aggression on the battlefield. And we're determined, along with many other partners for Ukraine, to make sure that you succeed on the battlefield. We're equally determined that over time Ukraine stands strongly on its own feet – militarily,

economically, democratically, a strong, successful, thriving, free Ukraine is the best possible rebuke to Putin and the best possible guarantor for your future. And for all of that, the United States is and will remain a committed partner. As I'm watching that, I thought of three things, one of which Chris, my executive producer, pointed out. That was a three-camera shot. That looked like Fox News had put it together. I'm not being critical of Fox, but it was that caliber of shot that was far more gracious and elegant with the moving of the camera than anything Tony Blinken gets when he speaks at the State Department. The second thing I thought of is Henry Kissinger. It is dangerous to be America's friend. It is dangerous to be America's enemy. It is fatal to

be America's friend. And here's Blinken, a successor to Kissinger, making these comments. The third thing I thought of is what I said before we ran this. I plan to ask you, with whom would Putin negotiate? Will the U.S., notwithstanding what Blinken just said, engage in regime change to facilitate negotiation? Would they overthrow Zelensky? Resolve to earn your degree in the new year in the Bay with WGU. With courses available online 24-7 and monthly start dates, WGU offers maximum flexibility so you can focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu. I think there's certainly the history in the United States to do so. Vietnam, of course, being the best example. Say in 1963, what happens there? As well as pushing in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we saw this, pushing the political process to try and bend to the internal domestic political process of those countries to bend towards the American will. In Iraq,

it wasn't ever really, they're never really able to do that to, you know, to a degree. But in Afghanistan, they were in terms of making sure Ghani was the one who replaced Karzai was there for that election. I saw how completely fraudulent it is. I mean, just a quick story on just how the United States will do whatever it takes to make sure these elections or whatever type of democratic process they'll determine to be necessary to make such a regime change palatable. You know, I ended up on an Afghan military base in 2009. And so I guess it was with Karzai's reelection.

But, you know, and watching Afghan soldiers stuff ballot boxes. Right. And when I reported that to the embassy, it was basically we're just going to make pretend you never told us this. You know, that was that was the way it works. And so the willingness of the United States to do whatever is necessary should not be doubted. I'll also say with Tony Blinken's statements there, that is literally a find and replace job on any of the speeches that his predecessors were given in Iraq and Afghanistan. How we stand firm, we're looking forward to seeing an independent, successful, vibrant Iraq, an independent, successful, prosperous Afghanistan. This is the best rebuke to illiberal jihadism, to Al-Qaeda, to bin Laden, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So we've seen this over and over again. They are pulling from the playbook they've used before. And I think sometimes just literally pulling the same speeches and just find and replace key words, Iraq for Ukraine. But who would the Russians negotiate with?

And the Russians know this. The Russians would negotiate with the US, regardless of whoever's sitting in that chair there. And I think that's what the American presence is saying right now, particularly with Blinken showing up, is that anyone who wants to remove Zelensky from power will have to do it in spite of us. So Americans, I think, are showing clearly that as bruised, as battered, as much as Zelensky does need to go, he is our man here. And until we say otherwise,

he is the person, regardless of whether he's legitimate or not. And I can't stress enough how much this decision not to hold elections in Ukraine has very much undermined whatever little narrative that anyone actually believed in this war, which there are some circles that do, that any narrative has been completely undermined now, as you say, Judge, after next Monday, when he's no longer the legitimate president or leader of Ukraine. Here is our man in Kiev, seated right across from Secretary of State Blinken. The same comments, the same room, the same press conference at which the three cameras were picking up the Secretary of State earlier today, cut number 13. Thank you so much. Thanks

for coming to Ukraine, especially these days. Not simple period for Ukraine and tough period for the east of our country, for our warriors. Thank you that you came, especially these days, to support Ukraine. We need, really we need today two patriots for Kharkiv, for Kharkiv region, because the people are under attack, civilians and warriors, everybody there under Russian missiles. You know, Judge, real quick on the cameras. Again, I'll go back to my Iraq and Afghan experience where I had a lot of political and development work

that I did there. And what you're seeing there is the fruit of tens of millions of dollars that have been put through USAID into some type of media contract, media development program. So what you're seeing there is a showing off of what likely tens of millions of dollars of American taxpayer dollars have gone for. Right. I mean, that is a higher quality production than the president of the United States gets when he's in the East Room.

I'm exaggerating a little bit, but you're right. They outsourced that to some entity, probably Ukrainian, paid them twice or three times what they're worth because it's not their money. It's other people's money. It's the money that we printed or borrowed and sent over there. Let me ask you, who or what succeeds President Zelensky? Do you know? Oh, gosh, Judge. You know, you quoted Kissinger. I'll quote Yogi Berra in terms, you know, predictions are hard, especially when they're about the future. Right. You know, and I don't know.

I mean, it certainly would if this precedes a pace and it precedes a pace of two ways, whether there's if there's a collapse, God knows what happens. If there's a collapse like we are all fearing. And I don't think anyone here is rooting for a collapse because we know what those consequences mean, the flood of refugees into the rest of Europe, the potential for further conflict, the fact that you would have a breakup of Ukraine potentially, and all those billions and billions of dollars of weapons going to where, you know, let alone the potential of Poland going into Ukraine, Romania going into Ukraine, coming into contact with Russian forces. I mean, the idea of a collapse is a nightmare. And so what would come out of that? Who knows? But in terms of the other possibility, which is

minimal, but it's a possibility I think we're all cheering for and hoping for and advocating for or working for, that of a negotiated political settlement, would the Russians be okay with the Zelensky government staying in place? I don't think so. I just don't, I mean, I think most people would say that's, you know, preposterous, this idea that Russians would allow him to stay. Also, too, I don't know if Zelensky has that political capital to do so. And so I think what you'd have to see is you'd see some type of transition.

Now, the problem being is that those who are strongest in Ukraine right now politically are those to Zelensky's right. politicians within Ukraine who I think the United States, the Brits, NATO would be able to massage into power. That is in spite of what we know about where the Ukrainian people are on this war. I think we brought it up last time or two weeks ago, where there was a poll at the end of March in Ukraine that showed more Ukrainians by a minimal factor, 45 to 44 percent, but more Ukrainians support negotiations than fighting on to victory, whatever victory means. Aren't the people to his right, the Nazis, that the Russians absolutely loathe? They're no more going to negotiate with that crowd than they will with Zelensky himself. Am I right? That's exactly right. And that's one of the, when you start getting into negotiations, why potentially the Russians could allow for Zelensky to stay is because who else is there?

You know, so because they, that certainly that far right, ultra nationalist Nazi power base in Ukraine, which dominated Ukrainian politics following the 2014 coup, which heavily, you know, heavy relationship, tight relationship with the Americans and the British. Well, that is, of course, anathema that that's, you know, one of the points of the Russian invasion, right? One of their goals was denazification. So this idea of who would replace Zelensky, one, I mean, those on the right aren't in favor of negotiations anyway. Some of them might take something to have power, but the overall idea of negotiations is anathema to them just as much as

having them in power is anathema to the Russians. So this idea of, okay, who then takes power? I mean, there are those there. I shouldn't be saying there's nobody because there's Klitschko, there's others that could go into a position like that. And I'm certain the Americans have a list or I shouldn't say that you would imagine the Americans would have a list, but that was also, that's imagining even that that's even, even a greater degree of imagination that the Americans have the competency, the wisdom and humility to be preparing for such a thing. You know, my experience would be something like that would be, you don't talk about that because that goes counter to what our narrative is. So don't even

bring it up because if Blinken or Sullivan, you know, hear about this, they're going to be really upset. So maybe the state department calls Columbia University and brings Mrs. Nuland back for a few weeks. I mean, she's very experienced at overthrowing Ukrainian governments. We know that. Certainly there are, you know, and oftentimes it's, you know, people you never hear of who come into power. So it's those who are very good behind the scenes. So, you know, but certainly this idea is an intriguing one.

If you got to this point of negotiations, you know, Russia has made it clear before they weren't interested in decapitating the Ukrainian government. And they could have at any point in the last 26, 27 months. I think it's pretty clear they could have put a Kinzhal missile onto Zelensky's bedroom. And they've not done that. And Vladimir Putin said early on in this war, he was not going to kill Zelensky. He was not going to assassinate him. That's not what they were going to do. I think the Russians are clear about that. Also, too, you had this reality that the Russians and Ukrainians came so very close to a negotiated settlement,

a negotiated deal in April 2022 that would have kept, as far as we know, the Zelensky government in power. So this also has to be a conversation the Russians have as well, right? OK, who takes over? If we do get to this point of a negotiated settlement, what do we do? Is it politically acceptable to us in terms of our domestic audience, I'm speaking for the Russians here, to turn around and say, this is part of what victory looks like for us in Ukraine, is Zelensky staying in power? Can Putin sell that to his domestic audience? Because remember, a lot of people to what we would call Putin's right are in favor of a stronger hand in Ukraine. I mean, that's where most of

the pressure comes from on Vladimir Putin is this degree of you're not fighting hard enough in Ukraine. This was the Wagner Group, the dead leader of the Wagner Group, Prokosin, his chief complaint. You're not fighting hard enough. The man that Sergei Shoigu is taking over for as the secretary of the Security Council, Petrushka, he was, I believe, one of those who was also saying you're not doing it hard enough. So, I mean, would that be something that they could accept? You know, I mean, so it is this is a fascinating thought of, OK, you get to this point, you have these negotiations, who then is acceptable, not just to the Russians, but of course, the Americans and the British and the rest of NATO, but then as well, who's acceptable to the Ukrainians? Who's going to have the validity that the Ukrainians are going to accept this person, this man or woman who was put into power as part of what everyone will understand a defeat, who is going to be

able to take that and then have the political capital, the political space, the ability to manage and move Ukraine forward through that settlement and through post-year reconciliation for the country, as well as reconstruction. Just to move to a little lighter note, the subject is dreadfully serious, but the statements by the chief spokesperson for the government of the United States of America are absurd. Cut number one. There's been threats from Moscow in the last couple of days of striking British military facilities because of the – and also simulating nuclear drills as it sharply rises tensions because of weapons manufactured in the U.K. being used in the conflict that says it could

potentially apply to other allied countries as well, theoretically the United States. Do you have a response to that? Well, what I'd say, number one, is it's just reckless and irresponsible for the leader of a major nuclear-armed power to be saber-rattling the way that he is with respect to potential use for nuclear weapons. Obviously, we monitor this and have continued to monitor this very closely. I can tell you we've seen nothing, even despite the reckless rhetoric that would cause us to change our strategic deterrent posture. And look, lastly, if Mr. Putin and Russian officials are worried about their troops in Ukraine getting hit with weapons from other countries, then the easiest thing to do is just take your troops and leave.

Well, that is just absurd for him to say that, to take your troops and leave. How about the natural, political, and legal right of the Russians to strike back at the British who are striking at them? It's just such an infantile, childish thing to say that, can you imagine being someone who's not familiar with this this war not familiar with this conversation not familiar with john kirby uh to come across this right i mean like you would just be so struck at the right i mean who this person is a spokesperson for the national security council for the united states of america and he makes these kinds of comments and just as we talked about so many times before, the problem being is that when he turns around and goes back in the conference room and they talk policy and the

policy then is developed to support the previous narrative, not the current reality, this dominates that type of policymaking. It's kind of like what I said before about don't let Blinken or Sullivan know you're making a list of who would take over or who would be a good person that would be acceptable to the Russians to take over in Kiev in the event of a negotiated settlement. Don't let them know you're doing that. I mean, in this case, you know, you have Kirby saying things such as this idea that, well, our position is they should just, you know, if they don't like getting bombed, they should just go home. You know, how much of that actually infuses their decision making, right?

Where you may have people at the NSC, at Pentagon, at CIA, state, wherever, who are trying to do their best to inform and educate and counsel their bosses. And they run into this type of attitude from Kirby of like, I don't want to hear it. They can just leave if they don't like it, you know, as opposed to, hey, you know, this is pretty serious. The Russians are saying they'll strike British targets if the Brits, right? And why do we not believe the Russians? They keep saying these people in power and their apologists on television keep saying that, well, we've shown that the Russians don't really have red lines. The Russians have said these things before. They haven't enforced it. And it's as if they've

completely forgotten about what the Russians did in Chechnya, what the Russians did in Syria, what the Russians did in Georgia. The fact, the fact that, you know, basically this invasion that occurs in February 2022 comes after almost a decade of the Russians trying to negotiate and saying, look, if you don't talk to us, we're going to have to do something. And of course, fine, you know, December of 21, they make one last ditch effort, you know, and you may scoff at what they put forward, but that's negotiations. You know, I mean? You might look at what the Russians put forward in December of 2021 and say, this is ridiculous. But you know, as many say, including say Bernie Sanders, you don't go to the negotiating table asking for half a loaf of bread. You know what I mean? So this is what negotiations look like. It looks preposterous to you because you're on the other side and what you look forward is preposterous then. But when

you completely refuse negotiations, when you give your adversary no alternative, and when you then go forward with this mindset backed by this rhetoric, and your policy is determined by your narrative, as opposed to the other way around, well, what can your adversary do? You know? And so the Russians at some point, God help us if this ever goes to this, this far may well say, look, we told you, we told you we were going to strike these British targets if you used these British weapons against us. Thank you, Matt. A pleasure. My dear friend, much appreciated. And we'll look forward to seeing you next week. right thanks judge of course hit the thumbs up for matt hit the like and subscribe such a a decent charming intelligent

person and i'm so happy as a part of our team coming up at three o'clock lieutenant colonel karen kwatkowski and at 4 30 this afternoon sc, Scott Ritter. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thanks for watching!