Judging Freedom - Prof. Jeffrey Sachs : Is the West Tired of Ukraine?

Episode Date: April 16, 2024

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs : Is the West Tired of Ukraine?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, April 16th, 2024. My dear friend, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, joins us now. Great to be United Nations. What is the rule for member nations, one of which was attacked by another?

I speak, of course, of Israel attacking the consulate of Iran in Damascus, destroying the consulate, murdering two generals and 13 civilians? Well, of course, an aggressive action such as that is against the UN Charter, and the UN Charter assigns to the UN Security Council the responsibility for keeping the peace with a considerable amount of authority if the Security Council chooses to use it. The Security Council has 15 members. Five of them are the permanent members, the U.S., U.K., France, Russia, and China. The rule is that any one of the P5 of the Permanent Five can veto actions by the UN Security Council. So this ties the Security Council up in knots. After Israel's attack, which is not only an attack on another UN member state, but a direct and I would say provocative and vulgar violation of international law, not only in attacking another country, but also in attacking the

diplomatic premises of another country, because that's also covered by special convention, Geneva Conventions. So after that violation, there was a UN Security Council meeting that followed soon after, and a proposal was tabled to condemn Israel's actions for having struck a diplomatic compound. The United States, France, and Britain objected to that resolution and essentially paralyzed the Security Council in responding to it. Of course, subsequently, Iran attacked and gave notice to the Security Council that this was a counterattack under Article 51 that it had taken pains, in fact, very direct actions to notify the United States and other countries and thereby Israel of its intention to launch a drone and missile strike and to avoid civilian casualties and to target in a measured way military installations. Iran did that. There is a debate and an extremely

important one on the military level of exactly what happened. But putting that aside for a moment, the Israel of all countries called for an emergency UN Security Council meeting this past Sunday. And that was extraordinary because it was Iran acting in response to Israel. But Israel called the session. And what followed was really a remarkable exercise in how strange and, in a way, immature and unserious our government is and several other governments, because as they went around the room with statements of the 15 and the Secretary General and Israel and Iran, most of the government said, well, we deplore what has happened. We deplore the escalation of violence between Israel and Iran. We deplore the attack on the Iranian diplomatic compound on April 1, and Britain, the U.S. deputy ambassador said, we stand fully by Israel in this deplorable attack by Iran without mentioning any of the context at all that Israel had illegally attacked Iran. And this is how you get to

world war. Because if you don't speak with any honesty, with any truth, directness, responsibility, balance, but are simply blatantly falsifying every context, which is how the U.S. does things, you end up, of course, not only with your stature profoundly diminished at the world level and with everyone scratching their heads, what was that about? But you end up with most of the world feeling this is weird, out of control, and without any sense at all. Now, this is what the U.S., France, and U.K. did. The three of them out of their way to condemn Iran without mentioning Israel. Well, why would Israel slaughter innocents, violate the Geneva Convention, violate other principles of international law? If they felt threatened by Iran, they could have attacked the instrument of their threat, whatever the military threat was. Why would they do what

they did knowing what the response would be? Are they that lawless and criminal, the Israeli government? They want the U.S. to be in a war with Iran. That's it, pure and simple. That's what they want. They want the U.S. to be in a war with Iran. They are worried about Iran. Rather than having diplomacy with Iran, rather than trying to solve problems with Iran, they want the U.S. to attack Iran. That's it. And it's mind boggling in how wrong and stupid it is, because it's the view we can always get our way without ever having to talk to the other side, because in the end, we can absolutely destroy them. So they say. But that's not how the world actually is, because a fight can go both ways these days. And the U.S. actually would be very, very misguided to step into yet another war. They might, because this is one of the most incompetent foreign policy administrations. This is saying a lot, by the way, but it's extremely incompetent,

and it does not handle itself properly by making clear what the U.S. should do. At least the U.S. should have said publicly, as well as it did privately to Israel, don't do that. But publicly, it could actually stop the escalation, but it chooses not to for domestic political reasons. But the purpose for Israel is Israel wants the United States at war with Iran. Here's more incompetence. Here's Lord Cameron, David Cameron, the British foreign minister, on a British Sunday talk show. What about Iran's frustration at part of its sovereign territory being flattened? Well, I would argue there is a massive degree of difference between what Israel did in Damascus

and, as I said, 301 weapons being launched by the state of Iran at the state of Israel for the first time, a state-on-state attack. 101 ballistic missiles, 36 cruise missiles, 185 drones. That is a degree of difference and And I think a reckless and dangerous thing for Iran to have done. And I think the whole world can see all these countries that have somehow wondered, well, you know, what is the true nature of Iran? It's there in black and white. And you know what? Then he was asked, what would happen if someone had attacked a UK diplomatic mission? He'd say, we'd flatten them,

basically. You know, he actually responded that way. Now, I've learned something over the years. I know David Cameron, actually, personally, and I know a lot of British leaders. And for a long time, I just loved listening to them because they speak English so beautifully. But what they say is so absurd, so stupid. But it's so beautiful that it really had me for many decades. The British are the worst of this. They're even worse than the Americans because they had a longer imperial reign. And what empire does is make you so arrogant that you think you can say anything and squash anyone that opposes. And it becomes a game to see what you can say that's so outrageous, but so authoritative that you can get away with it. And so the British are the most hypocritical

country in modern times. They're not the most powerful. They used to be the most powerful. They're the most hypocritical because they had the most violent militaristic empire in the modern world. They left behind all of these problems. Now they want to be a sidekick of the United States, cheerleading on, but with their good old imperial ideas. And it's a kind of absurdity at this point, but it's a lot of nerve because why are we in such a crisis in the Middle East? Because Britain wrecked the Middle East after World War I. Oh, you're going to love this. Here's two British voices, one of which you will approve of and chuckle with, the other of which you'll be harshly critical of from the House of Commons.

Speaker, I knew your father well for a very long time. He was a fine man and I am sincerely sorry for your loss. There was not one single word in the Prime Minister's statement of condemnation of the Israeli destruction of the Iranian consulate in Damascus, which is the proximate reason for the event everyone is here in concert condemning. He was not even asked to do so by the front bench opposite. Kay Burley is the only person so far to demand that of a government minister. We have no treaty with Israel, at least not one that Parliament has government minister. We have no treaty with Israel, at least not one that Parliament has been shown. And the Iranians are not likely to listen to him

when Britain occupied Iran, looted its wealth, and overthrew its one democratic socialist government in my own lifetime. un Llywodraethau Socioleiddiaid, yn fy mhrofiad fy hun. Mr Speaker, beth bynnag a ddigwyddodd ychydig wythnosau yn ôl, nid oes unrhyw ddyluniad i lawn mwy na 300 o droniadau a misailion o un justification for launching more than 300 drones and missiles from one sovereign state towards Israel. It's as simple as that. And in the Honorable Gentleman's question, not once did he condemn that action or indeed the actions of Hamas in the region. There is no equivalence

between these things whatsoever. And to suggest otherwise is simply wrong. Yeah. And to suggest otherwise is simply wrong. Your British accent. It's entertaining. Now, George Galloway is definitely a backbencher. He speaks clearly, honestly, forthrightly. That's why he's in the backbench. Rishi Sunak, ironically, you know, of Indian descent. Britain was the imperial power.

The British Raj ruled India rather brutally, I might add, leaving millions and millions to die in famines at the end of the 19th century, because this is what laissez-faire is. Leave it alone. They're dying. That's okay. We don't touch it. So this is a country that should be apologizing. Ironically, now their prime minister is of Indian descent. It's nice to see, but parroting all of the old lines and the double standards and what George Galloway was referring to of the overthrow of Iran's government is worth us just recalling that in 1953, Iran had a democratically elected and popular prime minister named Mossadegh, and the British Secret Service, MI6, and the US CIA teamed up to overthrow the Iranian government and to install a police state.

Why? Because Britain wanted control over Iranian oil to continue. Britain had been essentially the imperial power of the region. Then came a democratically elected government after World War II that had the audacity to think that maybe that oil had something to do with Iran, not just with Britain. And so the Brits and the Americans said, time to overthrow this guy. We don't allow people to have their own thoughts about their own country's interests. And that is one of the first of what became dozens and dozens of US regime change operations. It's notable because MI6 and the British imperial behavior was the mentor of the CIA, how to do it. And the CIA went on to dozens and dozens of further regime change operations, toppling governments that had the audacity to think that their own natural resources were theirs, or to say that they were neutral, that they didn't side with the United States in the Cold War, or whatever offense was

made. So that mention by George Galloway is also a good historical reference point for us. Transitioning. What did Russia hope to accomplish by the military action in Ukraine? 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. What is Russia trying to do? It's trying to keep NATO out of Ukraine.

It's very straightforward. And it has been clear for 25 or 30 years to those of us who watch these things that the U.S. policy of pushing NATO to Ukraine would be like China pushing a military base on the Rio Grande or what the Soviet Union did, which was trying to put missile bases into Cuba in 1962. It would lead to war eventually if we persisted in this. That's why at every opportunity, President Putin said, we have an off-ramp, stop this provocative behavior. Not only did we not stop it, but when a Ukrainian government got in the way of the US neocon plans, that is the government of Viktor Yanukovych, got in the way of NATO enlargement because he believed wisely in Ukraine's neutrality as a bridge between a nervous Russia and an expansionist U.S. military alliance.

The U.S. overthrew him in February 2014. And even after that, and then many things happened, but the U.S. started arming Ukraine and Russian ethnic regions in the East broke away. Even as late as December 2021, as we've discussed, President Putin said, look, stop the NATO enlargement. We can avoid conflict. That's when I talked to Jake Sullivan, when others tried. Nobody wanted to hear in the administration. They thought they had all of the winning hand. This is where incompetence comes in, I'm afraid.

And this special military operation ensued in February 2022. What was its purpose? Its purpose was a neutral Ukraine, very plainly, because within six weeks, Zelensky said, okay, okay, we'll be neutral. Russia said, okay, we can discuss everything, but you'll be neutral. And then the United States stepped in because we're incompetent. And the British stepped in because they are vulgarly cynical, imperial, and incompetent, and said to the Ukrainians, keep fighting. And Zelensky made a fatal mistake, fateful and fatal for hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. He said, OK, we abandon the negotiated agreement and we continue fighting. And that's where we are until today. What happens if the House of Representatives under the leadership of now Speaker, I don't

know for how much longer, Mike Johnson, votes in favor of the $61 billion in aid to Ukraine? More Ukrainians die. The U.S. debt goes up by another $61 billion, which is a lot of money for Americans that need the money. And nothing helps Ukraine right now. All it does is prolong the dying. It prolongs the destruction. And what it means is that Biden gets to say, oh, we continue because we're the great defenders of our values in the Western world. All he wants is to be able to say that up through November. So the money is absolutely against Ukraine's interest because it means more death, more destruction. It is in the interest personally of Biden and Zelensky because they're so up to their necks in this complete disaster that it's the Hail Mary again and again, anything, anything to try to hide

the massive failure. What mean, it's so irrational to vote any money from any substantive point of view other than the narrowest political interest of the president of the United States. And that's a very partisan, very specific individual interest. It has nothing to do with America's interest. It has nothing to do with America's interest. It has nothing to do with what's going to happen in Ukraine. It's purely a political gambit. Get to November. Probably it won't have much effect in getting to November. But if we had a speaker who just maybe is very inexperienced, of course, maybe he doesn't realize exactly what's happening. But Newt Gingrich would not be putting this to a vote right now.

Sam Rayburn would not be putting this to a vote right now. Tip O'Neill would not be putting this to a vote right now, experienced politicians would not be playing the White House game to try to string this along to November, because that's all this is right now. And it's nothing about Ukraine's interest. You want to do something for Ukraine, Mr. President of the United States, pick up the phone and call President Putin and say, OK, we are not going to expand NATO to Ukraine and you're going to stop the fighting and the dying and the killing. And by the way, that would Netanyahu, of course, wants a war with Ukraine, with the United States. With Iran. With Iran, forgive me. I've been doing that all day. With Iran, with the United States backing. Is Bibi's back to the wall politically,

morally, legally, internationally. All of those, absolutely. He will not be prime minister much longer. He's a complete disaster. He is a disaster on all of those counts. This is the lowest point in Israel's history, in its security, in its public standing, in its direction, in its disunity. And Netanyahu has a lot of personal responsibility for that. He's done a great deal to wreck Israel.

He won't last long in this because nobody likes him in Israel. He won't last long in this because nobody likes him in Israel. And he's playing for time rather desperately. You know, our politicians play for their personal time, but at our expense and at the expense of a lot of lives of innocent people. So Bibi's playing for time, Biden's playing for time, Zelensky's playing for time, but none of them is acting in the national interest of their respective countries. Is there a belief that Bibi's largely responsible for October 7th, either by deception, indifference or incompetence? Well, he's certainly the officer in charge, as President Kennedy said after the debacle at the Bay of Pigs in 1961. But unlike Kennedy, Netanyahu took zero responsibility because he doesn't even understand the concept or appreciate it.

He's a deeply incompetent and cynical man. But of course he has responsibility. The responsibility is much deeper, though, because he has led Israel into an absolute blind alley. His government is the most extremist government in history. Its mission is to control so-called greater Israel. It's an impossible mission because it means a genocide or ethnic cleansing. And to do that in the face of a world that is aghast at that and against the 1948 genocide convention and against the UN Security Council and all the rest is an impossibility. So it's hit the wall.

Now, this escalation to Iran, again, on this question of what it signifies, other than the risk of escalation in general, what is apparently the case is that several hypersonic missiles of Iran evaded the Israeli defenses. And that is probably the profoundly alarming next step of this, which is that Israel cannot carry out what this government aims to carry out objective and it fails and then it fails more, the individuals that have led that objective then try to use every bit of state power for their personal survival against the state's own interest. So Israel is a case that is on a fundamentally wrong course. And Netanyahu, as the lead author and conductor of that wrong course, is a desperate person. Biden is leading a fundamentally wrong foreign policy right now, based on the idea of US hegemony and NATO goes where it wants and we don't have to talk to anybody it was never sensible but it's wildly out of date but we will not acknowledge

it and hence throw another 61 billion dollars and tens of thousands more Ukrainians into the bonfire this is another personal uh stake zolens well, he's up to the neck in this. He could have been the savior of Ukraine if he had signed an agreement that he knew was right in April 2022, but Boris Johnson talked him out of it. I would say anyone that would allow Boris Johnson to talk him or her out of anything has a pretty big weakness because Boris Johnson is about the least convincing person I know, even with his British accent. Last subject matter, how dangerous is it for us to have a few hundred Marines on an island off the coast of Taiwan engaged in some sort of war games? You know, this is yet another front that the U.S. is playing with that is the U.S.-China front. We are escalating with China, even though it was supposedly the intention of Biden to keep

things calm in his election year. And that was the basis of his meeting with President Xi Jinping in San Francisco last fall. And they said, we are trying to stabilize relations. But they don't follow through. Again, there seems also to be a deep state impulse here that every time there is, for example, a call, as there was recently between Biden and Xi Jinping. The next step was President Biden hosting the Japanese prime minister in an absolutely bellicose display of anti-China rhetoric. Here he is, Jeff. Now, I'm going to assume that if a foreign leader addresses a joint session of Congress, somebody in the United States knows ahead of time what he's going to say. Oh, you better believe that. Okay, so here's Japan's Prime Minister, cut number two, Chris, last week.

China's current external stance and military actions present unprecedented and the greatest strategic challenge, not only to the peace and security of Japan, but to the peace and stability of international community at large. Couldn't have been written better if Jake Sullivan had written this. Well, maybe he did. And it is a shame, first of all, for a Japanese prime minister to come to the U.S. Congress and speak that way. Really a shame. false because in the 2,200 years of Chinese-Japanese relations, China never attacked Japan. China once was briefly conquered by the Mongols who tried to attack Japan in the year 1274 and 1281, just for the record, but that was the Mongols. The Chinese never attacked Japan in 2,000 years. Now, when Japan industrialized in 1895 in the Sino-Japanese War. Then in the 20th century, Japan repeatedly invaded China, and then very brutally in the 1930s. So it's not right for a Japanese prime minister to come and trash talk China in the U.S. Congress. It's not right for the Japanese people. It's not historically accurate. It's not popular in Japan because Kishida is so unpopular. His approval rating is something like 21% and disapproval rating something like 70%.

And I think a few people don't know or don't care. But he's overwhelmingly unpopular, just so people in the United States and others that are listening understand that fact. Someday, maybe soon, I'm going to moderate a debate between two very dear friends of mine over China, John Mearsheimer and Jeff Sachs. Oh, I'd love to talk to John, so we should definitely do that. All right, we should definitely do that. All right, we'll set that up. Professor Sachs, thank you very much. You went over on time a little bit, but you're so good, particularly when you're talking about tying history to the present. How many people on the planet know about the Mongols trying to invade? But thank you, Jeff. Great to be with you. A great conversation.

Safe travels. And we hope wherever you are that you can be with us again next week. We'll do that. Thanks a lot. All the best. Great conversation with a great man. Let me just bring you up on tomorrow. Connor Friedman from antiwar.com at 2 o'clock in the afternoon.

The great Phil Giraldi, formerly of the CIA, at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. And our dear friend Aaron Maté at 4. Thank you for watching. Like and subscribe. We're on a bit of a roll with our numbers this week,

but you can help that roll go faster. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.