Judging Freedom - [NEW GUEST] - Ian Proud - Former British Diplomat to Russia: Stealing From Russia to Fund Ukraine.

Episode Date: December 12, 2024

[NEW GUEST] - Ian Proud - Former British Diplomat to Russia: Stealing From Russia to Fund Ukraine.See 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 Thursday, December 12th, 2024. We welcome to our cameras and microphones a new guest, whom we hope will become a regular, Ian Proud. Mr. Proud is a former British diplomat who was counselor to the British Embassy in Moscow from 2014 to 2019. And he's here to talk to us about relations between Moscow and the West from a British perspective. Ian, always a pleasure. I assume it'll be a pleasure. You're new to us. We're new to you, although I know your work. Welcome here. Many thanks. The pleasure is all mine, Judge.

Thank you for inviting me on your show. Let me start by asking you just some big picture background, if I could. Why do the British and American governments hate the Russians? You know, I think for the British in particular, not necessarily for the Americans, for the British it goes right back to the 18th century. You know, from our imperial redoubt in India, you know, we battled imperial Russia in Central Asia,

you know, in the great game as people called it and right through to the you know the first crimean war and the charge of the light brigade and all that sort of malarkey and i think that legacy has never kind of really left the psyche of the upper upper classes in particular in the uk those people who occupy the critical elites fast forward that to the 20th century of course you know we are reluctant allies with soviet russia you know communist russia during world war ii against you know the tyranny of of nazi nazi germany and once we've you know freed ourselves of hitler we then descend into a cold war. So that, you know, for us, a historical kind of enmity is

joined by the Americans who joined with us in our kind of loathing of the Soviet Union. From your understanding of the interaction, the geopolitical interaction of Moscow, London, and Washington, why do you believe, or what informs your understanding, Ian, of American hatred for all things Russian? Well, I think that goes back to the collapse of the Soviet Union and this sense that Russia had become a weakened state, which, of course, it was. Russia genuinely was a weakened state, but in one key respect, it wasn't weakened in terms of its possession of 6 000 nuclear nuclear missiles um but nevertheless you know the us in particular but also i think the uk sort of you know looked on russia as in a different light it was no longer a peer competitor it was now a much reduced state that still had echoes of the communist system that encouraged people to believe that we could peel away countries on the periphery of Russia in the

kind of former Soviet in the Warsaw Pact countries to make them more like us. And we see the legacy of that today with you know the attempts to bring Ukraine into NATO, what's happening in Georgia right now, what happened recently in Moldova with the elections. The sense that you know the attempts to bring ukraine into nato what's happening in georgia right now what happened recently in moldova with the with the elections the sense that you know the russians are different from us but actually people on the periphery of russia want to be like us so let's you know in a kind of almost pentecostal way try and convert try and convert the multiple arts of ways how how is um former Minister Boris Johnson viewed by the British public, since it is now well known that he served as Joe Biden's emissary to President Zelensky, telling him to forget about the peace agreement that had been negotiated freely between Ukraine and Russia.

And don't worry, Mr. President, we have your back. I mean, Johnson was a fool, did a foolhardy task, was subservient to the American president. Do the British people see it that way? Well, it's almost a schizophrenia about it. British people mostly see him as a clown, you know, who kind of messed up the COVID response, who had parties during that time and was, you know, hastily kind of kicked out of his position, you know, as prime minister. On his war record, he's almost channeling the kind of Churchill mentality. And people, I fear, are more forgiving of him, unfortunately, for that, despite what he did,

as you say, to scupper the Istanbul Agreement in March of 2022. You know, the mainstream media in the UK is so bought into the kind of pro-war narrative, that actually people forgive Boris Johnson for his kind of warmongering mentality while thinking in every other respect he was a really, really bad prime minister. Why does it seem not to matter whether the Labour or Tories control Parliament just as it doesn't seem to matter whether the president of the United States is a liberal Democrat or a conservative Republican, and whether Democrats or Republicans dominate Congress, there seems to be that same neocon forever war mentality. I know you have Jeremy Corbyn and George Galloway, and we have Thomas Massey and AOC. These are libertarians and progressives who are fiercely against war.

But for the most part of these part, neither government changes its foreign policy, no matter who is running it. Do you agree with that? And if so, why is that the case? Well, I can talk principally from the UK side, and that's the case because of the power of the state itself, the institutions of the state, the people who work behind the scenes. Now, in the UK, we've had so many prime ministers over the past 10 years, you know, seven different prime ministers, nine different foreign secretaries, secretary of state equivalent in the US, that actually the state has become even stronger because the politicians are coming and going so quickly that actually the state, the deep state, if you want to call it by that term, has even more power to dominate what the policy should be.

And let me just stop you here. So we define our terms. Can we define the deep state as those parts of the government, intelligence, law enforcement, military, central banking, administrative, regulatory powers, those parts that never change? Yes, exactly that. The blob, as some people call it. The swamp, as Donald Trump in the past has called it. Yes, yes, yes. You have that as well on your side of the Atlantic Ocean.

We do. It's alive and well, sadly. And, I mean, if Sir Keir Starmer wanted to, could he start sounding like Emmanuel Macron? Well, that's a bad example. If he wanted to, could he start sounding like Viktor Orban? Or would the deep state prevent him from doing so? It's not that they directly prevent him, say you can't do this.

The problem is he gets all of his briefing from the deep state, all of his intelligence briefs, all of his advice on what he should do they all come from you know the deep state so you know he's unable to kind of create his own ideas because the vast majority of advice he gets is from grey men and grey women who all say well you know this is our approach and there's no other way about it, but that's what we have to do. And because he doesn't have his own ideas, politicians tend to kind of go along with that. Before we get into too deeply in Syria, Chris, I'm looking for one of the cuts from Sowers,

the former head of MI6, if you can find the one. We don't have it. Okay. But that would be an example of somebody in the deep state, would it not? The head of MI6, just like the head of CIA here. Yes, of course. And indeed, John Soares, you know, the person that you mentioned, actually spent time interchangeably between MI6 and the actual R-covenant of the State Department, which we call the Foreign Office. So he's been across all parts of the deep state. Right, right. Does MI6 and does the CIA, do MI6 and the CIA actively seek 24-7 to undermine the government in the Kremlin?

Yes, absolutely. Of course they do. I mean, it's their core purpose. That's why they've been given billions of dollars in resourcing. That's why the resourcing has gone up since 2014 when the Ukraine crisis started, because the threat of Russia became elevated they needed more money to do their work I mean that is the whole raison d'etre that is our big strategic threat not even think about China or Israel Gaza they need more money and if they if it isn't the threat they get less money I mean there's a basic bureaucratic logic and if mi6 uh spends money, is it as secret or I should say non-transparent as when the CIA spends money?

Yes, of course. I mean, the king himself and the prime minister himself, just like over here, the president himself does not know how much money is being spent to bribe foreign officials by MI6 or CIA. Is that a fair statement? Yes, it is. I mean, they know the total amount that we spend on MI6, one number, but how that's divvied up and where the brown paper envelopes go to, they don't, of course, know. Okay. Let go uh to ukraine if we could how bad off because your field is economics how bad off uh is the average ukrainian middle class family today in december 2024 it's really badly off i mean mean, you know, an additional kind of 2 million people have been plunged in poverty. Three out of 10 people are considered now to be objectively poor in

Ukraine. About a third of people, you know, regularly have to skip meals because they don't have enough, you know, money to provide for that. This is not public. This is the World Bank. It's saying that based in good old Washington, D.C. This is not public this is the world bank is saying that based in good old washington dc this is not me making the numbers up by the way and if you add on top of that the fact that 80 of their power infrastructure has been blown up by you know the relentless missile attacks most of them will have a very very cold winter as well because believe you me i've been to kiev in the winter and it's a very, very cold place. So in addition to being poor, they're also going to be freezing cold, and I should imagine many of them will die because of that,

particularly the elderly, over this coming winter. And they have a government that is not legal, it's not licit, because President Zelensky cancelled elections, and it's just a holdover. Yeah, I mean, Zelensky comes to the D.C., he goes to European capitals, he comes to London, and he's treated like a hero, right? Rounds of applause. If the war ends and he has to go to elections,

he will lose. But Ukraine's ambassador to London, Zelushny, will probably win those elections, according to Ukrainian opinion polls. What's the advantage to him in ending the war? You know, if he carries on, he'll get more money. He doesn't have to stand for election. He won't have to find a new job.

So it's not in his interest to stop. You mentioned a few minutes ago, Ian, the World Bank. Is it true that the United States Treasury, without an appropriation from the Congress, has deposited funds in the World Bank to be a loan to Ukraine. I mean, if that is true, who in their right mind would lend a nickel to the government of Ukraine? Well, yes, it's true. And it just happened two days ago. It's Janet Janet Yellen she even got the the journalists in to kind of watch her using her computer you know pressing the big button to send

that 20 billion just across the road into into the World Bank you know coffers for Ukraine as part of this kind of G7 loan now who will loan clearly, you know, the West will loan because we haven't given up on this idea of defeating Russia. But the key point is, it won't be enough anyway. You know, Ukraine will still need another 70 billion over the next sort of few years. And the only people that can give them that money is us, i.e. you guys over in the US, us in the UK, and our European friends. So even that $20 billion that Janet Yellen sent, of course, two days ago, still won't be enough. The Ukrainians will soon be coming back for more.

Now, the World Bank, as I understand it, and of course this is your field, it's not mine, is not permitted to fund or finance hostilities, correct? So that $20 billion has to be used for what? To pay the salaries of civil servants? To pay the pensions of Ukrainian veterans? To operate the government? What do they do with it?

Yep, exactly that. And rebuild power stations have been blown up because the money that had been set aside for power stations to protect them from missile attack had all been stolen by corrupt Ukrainian officials. So it will also go into kind of buildings of power stations that through Ukrainian corruption, you know, have been blown up, sadly.

Dreadful situation, frankly. Corruption in that country is quite off the charts. Before we go a little deeper, my intrepid producer, Chris, has found the tape I was looking for. Chris, let's run the surprise to everyone. I want your opinion of this British civil servant. Well, I think it was a surprise to everyone, Trevor. It probably came as a surprise to Tahrir al-Sham, the group you're calling HTS, which have been the main rebel group involved in this march on Damascus. I don't think they expected to go so far so fast. I think we're all surprised at how the regime forces have just completely collapsed,

even those most loyal to the regime and closest to the regime. So yes, it is a surprise. It's not a failure of intelligence. It's a surprise to everyone. Now, put aside the substance of what he said for a moment. When he ran MI6, was he arguably one of the most powerful people in the British government? Well, of course he was. Yes, incredibly powerful. And in a very, you know, clandestine way. You know, the ability to wield that power out of public scrutiny. And wield that power over the prime minister. Yeah.

Yeah, I mean, you know, when I was in Moscow, Boris Johnson, when he was foreign secretary, your equivalent Secretary of State, you know, came to Moscow. And, you know, the head of our sort of station, MI6 station, was sucking his teeth about whether he, you know, he should show Johnson any intelligence. And it was agreed that he wouldn't. And that was when our Foreign secretary he came to the british mc in moscow you know in 2017. talk to us please about this 300 billion dollars more or less in european banks either deposited by russian businesses or by the russian government itself which has now been stolen by western governments can you give us the background on this please it has been frozen but western governments are stealing essentially the kind of profit that's generating while it's sat there first of all whose money is it is it it are these deposits of the russian government it It's Russia's foreign exchange reserves, basically. And it's all deposited in one place

pretty much, in Belgium. And as trade happens, billions and billions in trade happens, it all goes to this clearinghouse in Belgium. And of course, as soon as you stop the hamster wheel, it's sat there and it has been sat there since the start of February

2022, just making profits and it's the profits that have been stolen at the moment to pay this so 300 million 300 billion used to clear a foreign exchanges we all understand that but now frozen in a bank or in Banks in Belgium earning interest just sitting there, and someone is stealing the earned interest. Is that correct? That's correct, yeah. People like Janet Yellen are equivalent to stealing the interest on that.

And what happens to that stolen money? Is it given to Zelensky and company? Well, it goes to repay this money that Janet Yellen's put into the World Bank two days ago and other loans like that. OK. But the problem is Janet Yellen and company, including her British counterpart, steal the interest on the Russian 300 billion to pay them back the loan.

Do I have this? That's correct. That's exactly correct. I mean, if this were done by anyone other than the government, this would be a classic crime of enormous magnitude, which would expose the perpetrators to 20 years in prison. Yeah, it's quite scandalous. And you know, the thing is, when war stops, and hopefully it will stop very soon, the Russians will want that 300 300 billion back that money will stop earning interest who's

going to repay janet yellen's 20 billion dollar loan then when that happens are there any litigations i should know this but i don't are there any litigations of which you are aware uh brought by the russian government or brought by some intermediaries, innocent intermediaries harmed by this in order to unfreeze or prevent the theft of the interest generated by the frozen assets? There's a huge amount of litigation around sanctions itself.

I don't know the specific case work on the actual frozen assets, but Russia has 20,000 different sanctions against it. That's generated a massive litigation industry around people counterclaiming and trying to reverse those sanctions. So yes, it's a huge, huge business. What do the British people think of, to the extent that you can put your finger on the pulse of their thinking, is there a consensus amongst the British public about the war in Ukraine and the West's efforts

to use Ukraine as a battering ram with which to remove President Putin from office? Well, I think most British people, I suspect like most American american people are blissfully unaware because we're fed government propaganda you know wall to wall that we're doing the right thing and eventually we'll win the media is a bit more balanced in the us you do get two sides of the argument you know john mearsheimers and they're very good folk like that you don't get that here it's almost like living in the soviet union you know state propaganda is so strong so

ordinary people just just read that and and that that's all that that's all they really know sadly but when i talk to people they're there they want to find out and say well is this really the right thing and i say well of course no it isn't so recently um after some embarrassing miscommunications in Washington, D.C., through which Sir Keir Stormer very diplomatically just smiled, President Biden and Sir Keir have pretty much come onto the same page, allowing the Ukrainian military, with the aid of British and American technicians, because the data used to set these missiles off is top secret, to fire British storm shadow missiles and American Atacom missiles into Russia. This has happened, as far as we know, three times now.

And recently, the Kremlin has said enough is enough um do the is the british government prepared for blowback quite literally blow back from the kremlin well i think it's worried about that because as soon as the the russians deploy the salishnik missile platform hypersonic in uh denipa petrovsk suddenly the the enthusiasm to kind of fire atkins and the storm shadow deep into russia subsided and we've hit a bit of an impasse i believe there's another atkins attack yesterday making number four but who would make that decision who would make the decision to authorize that in the british government would it be the prime minister himself would it be the Prime Minister himself? Would it be the head of MI6? Would it be a military person? Well, in this case, it was the

Prime Minister himself, and it was gleefully reported in the press that the Prime Minister had personally authorized this. There's been no further reporting of that, it has to be said, since the Ereshnik uh firing right not surprisingly right ian it's a pleasure interviewing you uh my dear friend i hope we can squeeze another one of these in before uh before the christmas holidays but you came highly recommended and i'm i'm happy to have accepted the recommendation and it's a delight uh it's a delight chatting with you uh likewise it's been a real pleasure to meet you, and I look forward to further conversations of this nature.

You bet. Thank you very much for joining us. Coming up, remaining today at three o'clock, is Matt Ho. And of course, we are celebrating today that, thanks to all of you, we did achieve our goal like two weeks before Christmas of 500,000 subscriptions. If you haven't seen the video celebrating it, you'll see it right at the beginning of Matt Ho's interview at three o'clock this afternoon, Eastern time. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.