Judging Freedom - Matt Hoh : The West vs Russia

Episode Date: June 4, 2024

Matt Hoh : The West vs RussiaSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This podcast is sponsored by Talkspace. You know when you're really stressed or not feeling so great about your life or about yourself? Talking to someone who understands can really help. But who is that person? How do you find them? Where do you even start? Talkspace.

Talkspace makes it easy to get the support you need. With Talkspace, you can go online, answer a few questions about your preferences, and be matched with a therapist. And because you'll meet your therapist online, you don't have to take time off work or arrange childcare. You'll meet on your schedule, wherever you feel most at ease. If you're depressed, stressed, struggling with a relationship,

or if you want some counseling for you and your partner, or just need a little extra one-on-one support, Talkspace is here for you. Plus, Talkspace works with most major insurers, and most insured members have a $0 copay. No insurance? No problem. Now get $80 off of your first month with promo code SPACE80 when you go to Talkspace.com. Match with a licensed therapist today at Talkspace.com.

Save $80 with code SPACE80 at Talkspace.com. Thanks for watching! Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, June 4th, 2024. Matt Ho is here with us on Russia versus Ukraine. Does anybody in the West really think Ukraine can win this war? Of course not. Well, why are they spending hundreds of billions? 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. 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 learjudsnap.com get your free gold report same experts who predicted the 23 percent rise that i've enjoyed have predicted this 3200 an ounce gold learn about how to transfer this to an ira protect your savings 800-511-4620 learjudjudgenap.com. Tell them the judge sent you.

Matt, welcome here, my dear friend. You once worked in the State Department of the United States. Have you ever heard of an incident perpetrated by the State Department as the one that was visited on our friend and colleague, Scott Ritter, where without giving a reason, without giving a receipt, without giving names, without giving an explanation, without showing a warrant, they took his passport from him as he was about to board an international flight to Istanbul, Turkey. Thanks, Judge. And yeah, I'm sorry for your experience not getting to go as well either. But I've never heard of such a thing, particularly when it was not connected to law enforcement or at least into some type of press release that would go alongside of it explaining why Customs and Border detained someone at the behest of the State Department. This smacks of just, you know, as you said before we were coming on, thuggery. There's no better word for it. These are brutes who are in power.

They are men and women who are concerned first and foremost and almost solely with their own power. They are men and women who are concerned first and foremost, and almost solely with their own power. And so any type of assault on that power, even if it is through, you know, the vehicle of free speech, opinions expressed by American citizens is in the front that needs to be dealt with. And so why I'm disappointed, I'm not surprised. You know, and particularly, we were talking before, other attacks we've seen from the American government against people who are dissenting from American policy, who are speaking against the war, who are speaking out and, you know, in the manner of truth-telling are being assaulted, attacked, and suppressed. And the American government will go through great lengths, of course, to continue doing that.

Does the State Department think that it has the authority to do something like this? No order from a judge, just steal the passport from somebody. Now, the guys that were there, I don't know if you can blame them. And they were dressed, according to Scott, they were dressed in SWAT gear, which is a bit overdoing it. Okay, I get it that sometimes they dress that way. Somebody told them to do it.

It's whoever told them to do it or whoever told that person to tell them to do it thinks that the State Department has the authority to do this. But clearly, there's no authority other than, as you said, for some law enforcement purpose. If they thought somehow he was in danger or he was in danger of harming others, in which case they should tell him and everybody else what happened. Now, there are cameras all over that place, so if there is litigation, you know how long litigation can

take and how expensive it can be. Scott will eventually find out who these guys were, and he can track back who sent them there, although there's not that many people at JFK who do what these guys do. It's a finite number of people. And if their bosses answer inquiries, honestly, Scott and his lawyers can find out who they were and ask them under oath who dispatched you to do this. But in your experience, have you ever heard in your years in the state department from which you resigned out of principle, have you ever heard in your years in the State Department, from which you resigned out of principle? Have you ever heard of this?

No, no, I haven't heard of such a thing. But it makes sense, right? One, there's a practical aspect of it. To suppress dissent, you do things like this. You do this type of harassment, intimidation. You do it to cause others or you think you're going to cause others to think twice about acting and behaving like Scott or like Larry Johnson or like yourself by going to a country that is our, quote, enemy, unquote, and speaking openly and honestly about the way the American government conducts itself, as well as just what's occurring in the world. So they think that somehow this will cause people to back away. You know, this is the chilling effect, right, that they want to have. The other aspect of the

practical aspect of this is to, as you mentioned, this is going to be a lengthy, or it will likely be a lengthy and time consuming process for Scott. So the idea is that you exhaust people. You tie Scott up with legal things. You tie him up with lawyers bills. And of course, because this is going to stretch out over such a period of time, when the court does come back and say, hey, look, the State Department grossly overstepped here. Cuffin's and Border Police, you violated this American citizens First Amendment rights and so forth. No one's going to be paying attention anymore. It's going to be a footnote. And by that point, you've already sullied Scott. You've already in the mainstream narrative is going to be that Scott Ritter was colluding with the enemy, and that's why they stopped him from going over there.

And by the truth, by the time the truth is out, well, everyone's forgotten about the whole incident to begin with, but that smearing of Scott has stuck or it has further exasperated his standing among anyone who might be open to listening to him for the first time. But, you know, you get back to why do they do this? Because they can. It's because of their arrogance. It's because they feel that it's not only as being with the State Department that they are beyond the law, they believe they are the law. And in an emergency situation, as they see it, as that we are at war with these nations overseas, that we are in this crisis of democracy, democracy, democracy, authoritarianism. They see themselves as the guardians of democracy.

They see themselves as American empire rather than seeing themselves correctly as corrupt agents of the American empire. And I meant to say American Republic before, but rather they see themselves rather than that. But unfortunately they don't recognize that they are corrupt agents of the American empire. Excuse me. Right. Well, they don't recognize that what was once a Republic has become an empire.

Right. And it's because of people like them, the mentality that sent them and the willingness of these three guys to do it. Scott told me one of the three was an ex Marine and they bonded they bonded they both trained in the uh in the same place but didn't get his passport back yeah i'm sure those guys uh judge were told going do this their boss told them to do it you know whoever their supervisor was got told by his supervisor or her supervisor going do this and they do it you know that's their job they are you, you know, and so they're at fault no more than, you know,

but, you know, you got to get back to in terms of the court proceedings on this, whatever Scott chooses to do legally, how much can be unraveled, which was the point you were making before about how much can be unraveled to determine who made this decision and, far out of bounds, how illegally both state and the customs and border patrol are acting in doing things like this, like preventing an American citizen from traveling. Right. Going to the latest in Ukraine, I've been discussing this all day because everybody agrees it's very hot and very volatile and very dangerous. The United States, Great Britain, Germany, France, and Sweden are authorizing Ukraine to use their offensive weaponry to fire inside Russia, and Russia's not going to take it. Is the Russia not going to take it something to be taken seriously? And how dangerous is this

for the countries that are doing it, including where you and I are, the east coast of the United States? Well, I mean, you're talking about the same people who feel that the Constitution doesn't apply to them and they can violate citizens' rights as they feel. You know, to add to that list, over the weekend, a list of nations who authorized Ukraine to use their weapons into Russia, the Dutch said that the F-16s they'll be providing Ukraine will be authorized to strike into Russia. You know, I mean, so the willingness of the West, of NATO, led by the Americans here, to cross this line in spite of what the Russians are clearly saying. Judge, when you see such a concerted and concentrated and coordinated effort, as we're seeing by the Russians right now, to warn the U.S. and NATO not to cross this line,

you say, how are we not taking this seriously? You've seen from the president down to yesterday, the deputy foreign minister, making these comments, making it very clear when President Putin says, you know, what is what is America going to do when they are up against and women who have led and orchestrated and supported and enabled and lied for war after war for all of my adult life, essentially. So it's no surprise that they are willing to disregard these very clear, stirred and stark warnings coming from the Russians. Because again, I think they believe they're above it. They believe that nothing can, can assault them. You know, I spoke at the house of Lords, you know, a bunch of months ago, judge, I brought up Francis Bacon's idols of the tribe. I don't remember that. And I went back and I reread all that and understood it. And what you're doing here is you're seeing this in Bacon's sense, it was that nothing could be on anything that insults the idea of humans at the top of the chain is something that cannot be accepted.

And in this case, it's anything that insults the idea of the American empire at the top of the human pyramid is something that cannot be accepted. So whether it's out of ignorance or out of arrogance, this willingness to just outright dismiss these very clear, stern, stark warnings from the Russians is indicative of an empire that behaves as previous empires have done, whether it's the Spanish empire, the British empire, et cetera, that have through their own done, whether it's the Spanish empire, the British empire, et cetera, that have through their own actions, whether it's overextensions, whether it's recklessness, whether it's just stupidity, have led to their own demise. And you're seeing that happen at a very rapid pace. One thing I wanted to make sure I brought up, make sure people had heard

about was that yesterday in China, the Turkish foreign minister suggested that Turkey would join BRICS. And I saw rumblings this morning over email that there is talk in Turkey about leaving NATO. I mean, so the pace at which the American empire, the loss of this hegemony, and like the increased isolation of the United States and its vassal nations from the rest of the world, well, that is happening at a much more rapid pace than I think people expected. Does the collective West honestly hate Russia so much that they will expose their countries to the retaliation that's been threatened? Before you answer, before you answer, Sonia, cut number one. This is Foreign Minister Lavrov two days ago.

We have shown that we will not put up with this and that we will not allow Ukraine to be used as a direct threat to our security, as an instrument for the destruction of everything Russian on historical Russian lands. They did this for more than two decades, or even 30 years, immediately after the disappearance of the Soviet Union. Their goal was to destroy everything Russian, from the language to the government in this territory, which they wanted to take for themselves. And they were counting on it. But as always happens, if they wake up the Russian bear, then our people have united like never before.

These are not empty words. We saw this during the Russian presidential elections. The Nazi regime continues to use Western weapons to attack civilian targets, towns, and cities. I assure you that they will not be able to cross this line unnoticed. Wake up the Russian bear and you will not cross this line unnoticed. McGregor and Ritter, I suspect you agree, both point out that this military equipment is stored and repaired

in Poland and Romania and those are legitimate, moral and legal targets for the Russians. There are probably American service personnel counting, maintaining and repairing this stuff there. Their targets. Right. The the same arguments that were made by the United States to strike outside of Vietnam.

The same arguments I heard being made when I was Iraq and I was working on Iraq policy that we have to strike into Iran because the Iranians are the safe haven for the Shia militias in Iraq. And of course, all through Afghanistan that we have to strike into Pakistan because Pakistan is a safe haven for the Taliban. That's, you know, flip that on its head. That's essentially what you're looking at here with regards to, you know, I heard Scott say this, the safe haven of Central and East and Western Europe for Ukraine. I also, I think it was Scott, maybe it was you, Judge, noted how this is a buffer zone for Ukraine, but it's also a buffer zone for the United States. And I think what you're seeing with American politicians is why American politicians, and I think British as well, because I don't think the Brits really think this will extend to them, is that the political benefit, the domestic political benefit of poking the bear

is greater than any risks they can actually perceive. I don't think our men and women in power actually understand what the consequences mean in terms of a war with Russia, how quickly it can escalate and what that means in terms of nuclear war. I think what we had here was in the United States, if you go back to 2012, if I may, and when you had President Obama and his people announcing that the United States was, to put it in simple terms, getting out of the greater Middle East. We're ending the GWAT, the global war on terror, and we are doing the Asia pivot. Well, what also was occurring then was not this shift in American focus to China,

but also you had a very strong contingent in Washington, D.C. This is a split really between the neoconservatives and the liberal interventionists between whether you think we should fight China first or whether we should fight Russia first. But what you had more than 10 years ago with this shift of American policy, denoting Russia as a principal adversary, as an enemy. And then of course, domestically, in our politics, by 2016, Russia had become the enemy. This is the rallying cry for the Democratic Party's base is Russia as the great enemy that is undermining American democracy. So for more than a decade, you have had within Democratic Party politics, this narrative tied to Russia as an existential threat to the United States.

So for Democratic Party politicians, who are the ones who make up this administration, which is what we are dealing with for at least another year or so, or I guess 10 months or so, the idea that you would somehow shirk away from your primary enemy, from what you have been labeled as the great boogeyman for the last decade is something that's just not politically possible to do. So and I think as well, too, there's this very cynical and callous calculation on the part of the Americans that whatever happens, just like it's happening now, these are Ukrainians who are being chewed up in this meat grinder. If anything

further happened, well, it's going to be on the polls, it's going to be on the Poles. It's going to be on the Baltics. It's going to be on the Romanians. And, you know, we're not going to have any real cost to us. And of course, then you have those who think this will only further our crusade. I know of other commentators who call this the Ukraine project, right? So this will only further the Ukraine project, you know, as other folks call it. You know, you could see how this becomes then a rallying cry, not just for a political base, but also for the military industrial complex, as well as for the Pentagon and NATO headquarters in Brussels. And so they almost see this type of escalation as something that is something they can anticipate the benefits from, regardless of the risk. Because, again, just as we were talking about before with whoever ordered the detainment of Scott and the seizure of his passport and the violation of his rights,

these are people who think that normal consequences don't apply to them, that they are above the Constitution, they're above the law. And that law, whether it be man-made law or natural law, and we all have to remember that war is a superhuman force that doesn't care about our agency. It doesn't care about our expectations. It doesn't care about our reasoning. And these are people who don't get that. And so I think that this willingness to poke the bear comes from a variety of places. But we can't be overstating how dangerous of a situation we're in right now. And we all have to be sounding the alarm about this.

What happens if an American reconnaissance plane with a pilot and other colleagues up there is shot down by the Russians. That's a great question, right, Judge? And something we've said before, we're like, this is the point you don't want to get to because what do you think our leaders are going to do? Well, we know what Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton and others are going to say about this. We know what Donald Trump is going to say about this. He's going to say he would have ended this war two years ago and that this is all because Joe Biden is weak. And Joe Biden, who's trailing in the polls, has to then show that he's not weak. And again, going back to what we just talked about, how Russia has been designated the principal boogeyman by the Democratic Party and by the national security establishment in the United States and the major corporate media for the better part of a decade or longer than a decade now, what do you think Joe Biden's options look like? And so at best then, at best, you then get what we had happen with Iran last winter, just a few months ago, where there was three American soldiers killed in Jordan by Iraqi resistance groups using weaponry supplied by Iran.

The United States response was limited and it occurred, you know, strictly in Syria and Iraq, not on Iran. But that was something that was kind of all negotiated between the U.S. and Iran to allow each other to save face. OK, you killed some of our guys. You have to let us kill some of your guys now. We don't have, I mean, this is insane to say, Judge, but we don't have the same relationship with the Russians that we have with the Iranians. The U.S. and Iran have been talking in Oman now for a period of months, if not years, it seems. We don't have that as far as we know with the Russians. So it's very possible that we have This is why we don't want to get to this point. Don't have to consider what are our react, what our response is going to be.

And I'm afraid it won't be a response. It'll be more of a knee jerk reaction. But we can imagine what the pressure will be like on Joe Biden, both from within his own party, as well as from the outside, to do something to stand up to this Russian bear that we had, you know, not just recently poked, but have been poking for quite some time now. What became of the Minsk Accords, which would have had Crimea and Russia and the rest of Ukraine neutral? Who busted that up?

Or is the answer Victoria Nuland? You want to move over, Judge, if you want to move over to the next question, we can just leave it at that, I think. You know, I mean, we have demonized her. She's demonized herself. We're just outing her. Yeah. I mean, I think, I mean, look, I'm not going to claim that Russia is the angel in this situation or anything like that. People who know my commentary on this know I've been critical of Russia for quite a while, regarding all this. But when you weigh

these factors and you see what our side is doing, that is where you have to concentrate. And of course, the Minsk Two Accords, I remember working on, I was tangentially working on issues on arms control when the Minsk Two Accords were occurring in Washington, D.C. And the pushback that President Obama was getting to not go along with Minsk, but to provide weapons to Ukraine rather than to do peace through the Minsk Two Accords. And we know, because it's been stated outright by Petro Poroshenko, the former leader of Ukraine, by François Hollande, the former leader of France, and Angela Merkel, the former leader of Germany, that the Minsk Two Accords from the West perspective was just merely a way to buy time

in order to arm Ukraine. So the Minsk Two Accords from the European and American, Americans had to be dragged into it. It was a fraud. It was a fraud. It was. Bad faith is probably the most polite way you could describe what occurred there. And the Russians endured that. Minsk II, essentially, what Minsk II says is something incredibly reasonable. to American Western commentators who might not know any better and said, whatever you think about this as a settlement for the Ukraine war, I guarantee you 99 out of 100 would say, yes, that sounds great because it was so common sense. It was so straightforward, right? Demilitarize, well, first of all, ceasefire, demilitarize, and then allow for referendums to occur to allow the people of the Donbass to establish their own decisions, right? To make their own, to determine their own sovereignty, which, what does that sound a lot like? That sounds a lot like American policy to Taiwan,

right? I mean, so now you're getting this whole, we can go down this whole path, about how hypocritical and how much in conflict American policy is with itself, which is maybe a good explanation as to why American policy is so failed and so ruinous and so counterproductive. But, you know, I mean, with Minsk, too, you had this opportunity to have peace in eastern Ukraine, but that's not what was wanted, as we've talked about before. This is a war that was long wanted by those in London, Washington, Brussels. And also, too, you have to say there were those in Moscow who wanted this war. I don't believe Vladimir Putin was one of them. But certainly there are a large cadre of those in Russia who wanted Russia to have a more forceful role in Ukraine since 2014, following the coup, which we always have to bring up. I oftentimes forget to bring it up because I

think sometimes that people know of it or people are familiar with it, or that's just, you don't need to state that because it's so well-established,'s not, you know, so what happens in early 2014 is the Americans stage a coup in Kyiv. And in response, the Russians take Crimea, and then this civil war breaks out in Adanbas, you know, but that in itself should be all the reason to show that we should take the Russians at their word, right? But we've seen this over and over again, right? So we stage a coup, how do the Russians respond? They take Crimea. We blow up the Nord Stream pipelines. We attack the Kerch Bridge. How do the Russians respond? They've lost a massive missile campaign against the Ukrainians, destroying a ton of energy infrastructure.

You know, I mean, like you see the Russian response to these things is clear and it's consistent. And just because the Russians haven't reacted to red lines that we are putting on them before, you know, just because they didn't drop an atomic bomb on Berlin because we sent Abrams tanks there doesn't mean that what we're seeing right now from them, this consistent messaging that is coming from all levels of the Russian government and is urgent. I think if you look at whether it's Putin, Lavrov, whether it's a spokesperson for the foreign ministry, whether it's Medvedev, whether it's the deputy foreign minister. I'm forgetting the others I've read in the last week, but it's been, there's a sense of urgency to it, Judge, that we cannot deny because they see it themselves as this being something that is becoming inescapable and inevitable. And that is terrifying. I mean, that is a theme that all of our guests agree on.

McGregor, Sachs, Ritter, you, a sense of urgency. Matt, thank you very much. We could talk about this all afternoon, but much appreciated. McGovern can't wait to come on and talk about his buddy Ritter and how courageous he is. We're all looking forward to that

as much as we've been looking forward to you. Thank you, Matt. All the best. We'll see you next week. Thanks, Judge. Sure. At three o'clock, Colonel Kwiatkowski, and at four o'clock, the aforementioned and looked for Ray McGovern. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. I'm out.