Judging Freedom - Pipelines & Liberate Crimea_ w_ Jack Posobeic

Episode Date: March 8, 2023

#ukraineSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, March 8, 2023. It's about 3.35 in the afternoon. I'm getting a kick out of the comments people send in. We're supposed to start at 3.30, so one of you goes, it's nappy time. Where is he? Somebody wake up the judge. Well, I'm here. Our next guest and I, whose intellect and background I respect a great deal, Jack Posobiec, and I were just having a little chat and we were working on an audio problem at the same time. But here we are, and Jack Posobiec, who of course has a very, very popular podcast and whose personal experience is military intelligence, joins us again and hopefully will do so regularly. Jack, my pleasure. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your experience and wealth of knowledge. And thanks for joining us. Yeah, thanks so much for having me again, Judge. And of course, to all the commenters, I'd like to apologize.

You know, of course, I was just taking my afternoon nap on my MyPillow. I had my MySlippers on. I've got the My... I'm not even joking. Actually, I'm wearing MySlippers right now. Listen, Roger Stone was paid $8,000 to put a pair of Mike Lindell slippers on Roger's bare feet. That's not a bad deal.

$8,000? Man been i've been getting jipped i ain't got none of that i need some of that roger stone money up in here wow so last time uh we uh spoke uh the great cy hirsch had uh revealed uh from his research what he believes was the story behind the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline. The Nord Stream pipeline, of course, there are two of them, supplied natural gas from Russia to Germany. It was jointly owned by Gazprom, a Russian public utility, 51 percent owned by the Kremlin, 49% owned by its investors. And then the German half was owned by a consortium of German utility companies. When it was destroyed, the president of the United States blamed the Russians. President Putin said, this is ridiculous.

Why would we destroy our own means of doing this? It was the Americans or it was the CIA and it was probably the CIA. Cy Hirsch, notorious for having three sources for every allegation he makes, but also notorious and happily so, or he wouldn't be in this business for protecting his sources, came out with a 20 page piece in which he sort of scooped everybody in big mainstream media, scooped even the German government and said it was Joe Biden, it was Jake Sullivan, it was the American CIA, and it was the Navy. And he went through a great deal of detail. You're familiar with all this. You were in naval intelligence. And without going through everything, basically, they went down there under false pretenses and packed it with explosive material and some detonation means. And then again, three months later, under some other subterfuge, the president gave the go-ahead and they destroyed

it. The cost was approximately $10 billion. That doesn't even count the damage to the economy or the damage to the ecology. That's just the damage to the pipeline itself. Okay. Nobody covered this in the media, except people like you and I and Gerald Salenti and Lou Rockwell and Tom Woods. No mainstream media covered it until the CIA started to feel a little bit of heat. And so they announced just two days ago, well, this was done by anti-Russian, this was done by pro-Ukraine forces. Yeah, pro-Ukraine forces, the CIA and Navy SEALs. All right, so give us your take, not on Cy Hirsch, whose research is impeccable and was a lifetime of government exposés, but on the American government's response to this.

And Joe Biden has yet to take a question on it. Of course, of course. And nor really the that we need to be careful to make sure to not overlook the very meaningful involvement of MI6 here. The idea that one of the- Let me just stop you for a second. MI6 is the British version of the CIA, and you are former naval intelligence. You may still have a top secret security clearance. You are speaking from your personal exposure and experience as well as your ability to reason and analyze. That's correct. So an operation like that would not take place in that part of the world without MI6 signing off and certainly wouldn't take place in that place of the world without even, I mean, to my mind, that sounds like an operation that MI6 would have even suggested from the first place. The idea, the know-how, the capability of this, it goes back to, there's a great book that people should all read. It's

called Blind Man's Bluff. This is the Sherry Sontag book. It was written in the 1990s, but it discussed covert operations that the United States Navy conducted throughout the Cold War directly targeting Russia, using two specially designed submarines, specially converted submarines for deep sea operations, one of which was the U.S. Pars, the other was the USS Halibut, USS. The operation that you want to look at is Operation Ivy Bells. And Cy Hirsch actually mentions this in his article, believe it or not. This was a book I read probably my first week at Naval Intelligence. Operation Ivy Bells, very daring Kamchatka Peninsula, a clandestine covert listening and surveillance operation, get swam in very close to Soviet waters. In some cases, the submarines would actually be caught by the Soviets and be

chased out under, you know, perhaps very grueling pretenses. I mean, you might have a situation that could have led to a kinetic war between the U.S. and Russia based on one of these. And so, of course, these sort of cat and mouse operations are part and parcel. Back to MI6. Why would MI6 be involved and why do you think they even suggested it? I mean, we're talking about the Baltics. We're talking about the Baltic Sea. We're not talking about any waters around England.

Look, we have to go back to Lord Isley's famous statement, the first Supreme Commander of NATO. And what did he say? He said that the – and they asked him what was the purpose of NATO. And he said very specifically – and he's British – the purpose of NATO is to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down. He said this was the purpose of NATO. And so when you look at any of these operations and when you specifically look at the Nord Stream situation – and if you remember, and you just outlined there, everyone was saying that it was – Russia, it was the Russians, it was the Kremlin who did this. They're, you know, they're taking out energy infrastructure in Ukraine. So of course, they would take it out in here in the Baltic. But who benefits and who suffers, right? Qui bono, qui malo. So who suffers? Obviously,

it's the Germans, right? Of course, the Germans are the ones that are the direct. This happened in the winter, by the way, going into the winter. It happened in September. So their energy prices skyrocketed. We're now seeing data that said it skyrocketed over 300%. And of course, where are they backfilling that from? Norway and the United States of America. So, cherchez la femme, I say cherchez lerol, look for the gas, right, in all international relations and it will help to explain a lot of things and elucidate a lot of things. But when you look at who benefits, this has been a singular focus for the British government for years, the great game, the shutdown of Russia, this idea of who's going to have leverage

over Europe. And so I certainly think that MI5, or excuse me, MI6 and the CIA would definitely have at least been sharing notes, if not directionally involved in the operational side of this thing, certainly from an intelligence and strategy side. That being said, when I look at the piece that comes out from the New York Times yesterday, this idea that it was a pro-Ukrainian group, it's hilarious on its face for several reasons. There was actually a second report that came out in German media. And the German report went even further and said that there was a yacht that had been examined by German investigators out of Poland that had been rented by a Ukrainian company. And they weren't sure of exactly what was going on, but they thought that there may have been explosives

found on this yacht. This is ridiculous. Are we supposed to think that Azov battalion somehow secretly came all the way to Poland and went out there to conduct this? No. To conduct an operation like this with the amount of sauna buoys, with the amount of surveillance, with the amount of understand that's a lake up there. That's a lake that NATO and Russia and everybody are keeping eyes on 24 seven with the amount of air and sea assets that are available. The submarines, just like in the Cold War, are all over the place there. Nobody is going to be out there without detection. So right up right there, that's off the charts. But I think I think really what's going on here is that we have to go back to Lord Is there without detection. So right up right there, that's off the charts. But I think,

I think really what's going on here is that we have to go back to Lord Isley's statement. The audience for this, and think of the timing, right? So what did we have over the weekend? Olaf Schultz comes to Washington, DC, has a meeting with Joe Biden with no fanfare whatsoever. And they ask Kirby about it in the press briefing room. They said, why is there no, why is there no press conference? Why aren't they doing any availability? Why can't we talk? He says, this is a working meeting where they are discussing highly sensitive or excuse me, highly significant issues, a working meeting where they are conducting discussing highly significant. They met for an hour with nobody else in the room, which of course is

dangerous because who knows if joe will remember what they talked about without anybody else in the room but they were alone for an hour say again i think and in that meeting they were both handed the same script here's going to be the cover story you're going to go back to germany and this is what you're going to say or at least is this what you're going to stand by and then we are going to stand up and it's going to come out in the New York times. And everybody's going to go along with the new official story because Schultz has to come to some explanation to the German people. Otherwise, otherwise he's out of, otherwise he's out of a job. I mean, he was, he was attacked by his principal ally, the military of the United

States of America. If he can't credibly blame that on somebody else, he's going to be Mr. Schultz and not Chancellor Schultz. Which of course is something that the NATO charter never actually accounted for. What happens if a NATO country conducts an attack on another NATO country? But of course, when you actually look at the, because I've thought about this now for 24 hours, when you look at the official narrative, it raises even more questions because of course, Ukraine is not a NATO country. So if Ukraine is in fact responsible for the attack on NATO infrastructure, which of course Germany is, then is Germany allowed to use Article 5 against Ukraine? Are there going to be hearings on this? Is Germany allowed to use Article 5

against the United States? I mean, the United States attacked a NATO country. Article 5 says when a NATO country is attacked, the rest of NATO has to attack the attacker. I mean, you're right, this wasn't contemplated when NATO was created, but it's absurd. Joe Biden is the first president in the history of the country to engage in war against an ally. You have lies compounding on lies compounding on lies. And of course, we're not expected to believe or buy any of this. It's just that we're expected to not actually do anything about it. Right. That's why the lies never actually hold up to this.

This tiniest scintilla of critical thinking, of course. This. But but what is interesting? What is interesting? I will also say this because there's a possible secondary purpose for this press release from the CIA, which of course, when you see Adam Goldman there for the New York Times, then you know that he's a stenographer for Langley. He's been a long-time stenographer for Langley at the New York Times, is that this actually does potentially offer Washington a way to decide to put leverage on Zelensky himself. They could say, well, Zelensky is conducting these rogue operations without our say-so. He went and conducted this attack. It draws up NATO. And you know what? It creates for him a potential scapegoat. We see what's going on in Bakhmut. We see the meat grinder that's currently happening in that area. Prokosin is, more reinforcements and more troops to this situation where there's only one road in.

I think last time I checked, there's at least one road in. But even that is probably under artillery fire. And so this idea that if they want to cut him loose, they can easily say, well, we have to do it because of this. They can put the screws on him in terms of money. They can do a lot of things. It is putting more leverage on Zelensky. Very, very interesting observation. Two days ago, one of the websites reported that the Ukrainians have asked the United States for cluster bombs.

Now, cluster bomb, the use of cluster bombs is a war crime because of the way they spread and the way they kill civilians. So does the United States have cluster bombs? And if so, what are we doing with them and how do they work? Well, of course, the United States will maintain these types of armaments. They're going to be now that now as a Navy guy, that wasn't something ordinance isn't exactly my cup of tea, but I'm sure with with Colonel McGregor, he would he'd be able to go through the ins and outs of it. But with these cluster bombs, what you're essentially looking at is a

situation where they're going off mult that it's you have munitions and sub munitions. So the initial munition goes off these just spread. So right, the difference between bombs and precision guided targeting or precision missiles. So in the Navy, we would say putting warheads on foreheads, right, this idea of we're going to target a single building or in a hellfire strike, you're targeting a single vehicle or even a single part of the vehicle. You could hit the hood or the trunk, et cetera. With a cluster bomb, it's just everywhere. And these things roll.

They can go inert. They can come into contact with children. This is a huge problem. This is a reason that they have been banned by many, many nations. However, 123 nations are in the convention against cluster munitions, but you know which one isn't? The United States. Wow. Well, cluster bombs are by definition a war crime, whether the United States is a member of the treaty or not, because the failure to target the use of some device that sprays and can hit innocent bystanders, civilians, and children, the failure to prevent that or the knowing use of it is itself a war crime. Who knows if this stuff is being used? It's the last thing we want to see.

Speaking of the last things we want to see, here's Victoria Nuland, she of the Ukraine coup in 2014, the efforts to impeach President Trump the first time around, now number two or three in the State Department, advocating an attack on Crimea. Take a listen. There is a drone base in Crimea where the drones that the Iranians have given Russia are being launched from. There are command and control sites in Crimea that are essential for Russia's hold on all of the territory, including the land bridge. There are mass military installations on Crimea that Russia has turned into essential logistics and back office depots for this war. Those are legitimate targets. Ukraine is hitting them, and we are supporting that. Those are legitimate targets. Ukraine is hitting them, and we are supporting that.

Those are legitimate targets. Ukraine is hitting them. We are supporting that. Crimea has been a part of Russia since Catherine the Great. Catherine the Great reigned before George Washington was president of the United States. That's how long Crimea has been a part of Russia. Yes, I know it's been disputed, but it's been a part of Russiaussia yes i know it's been disputed but it's been a part of russia how crazy is it for the united states to allow its weaponry or to aim its weaponry in behalf of the ukraines at crimea look you're talking about escalation to a position where of course it all becomes it all comes down to the kremlin it comes down to putin it comes down to the hardliners it comes down to medvedev the people who are making the decisions there and whether or not uh shoigu and the others consider this the united states conducting and facilitating

active attacks on the russian homeland itself because of, if we're talking about Ukraine, they've basically taken a hands-off approach to say, okay, we don't consider the United States to be an active participant in this conflict, even though I think it's pretty clear to everybody at this point that NATO is an active member of this conflict. But if Crimea itself, an area which for, and regardless of what anyone else's personal views on the situation are an area that the russians consider to be part of their territory to be an immutable and intractable part of their territory comes under attack they will respond more forcefully than we've seen anything in terms of ukraine itself directly and And people like Victoria Nuland have been

obsessed with regime change in Russia from the very start that goes all the way back to the Maidan revolution, which he played a massive outsized role in. People like her, people like Alexander Vindman and over at humanevents.com, we leaked that Alexander Vindman has a pitch deck where he's asking the Ukrainian government for millions of dollars. Why? Because he's trying to get in on the defense contract side of this. You know, all the tanks that are going over the vehicles. He wants the maintenance contracts over there. Of course, Alexander Vindman and his twin brother, Yevigny, they got to make sure they get their piece of the pie. It's amazing, right? You start the war and then you profit from the very war you started. But Nuland, these others, these

Atlanticists, it has become an obsession for them. And it's an obsession that if we are letting them decide our policy, if we are letting them decide the policy that could affect our lives and the lives of our children, we should be very clear about what it is they're doing. They are talking about more and more increasingly the United States directly supporting and facilitating attacks on areas that Russia considers theirs. World War III on its way. My dear friend, I have to go for another segment, but thank you so much for joining us. Please come back again next week, Jack.

I'll be here. God bless. My dear friends, more wasn't a terrific, more as we get it. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.