Judging Freedom - Ray McGovern: Dangers of Misreading Putin

Episode Date: June 17, 2024

Ray McGovern: Dangers of Misreading PutinSee 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 Monday, June 17th, 2024. Ray McGovern joins us now. Ray, a pleasure, my dear friend. How dangerous is it for the West to misread Vladimir Putin? I ask you this in light of what was an open-minded willingness to negotiate articulated by the Russian president late last week, combined with an immediate, immediate cessation of military hostilities? Judge, it's very, very dangerous. Not only that they would not understand it, but that the president and his coterie of advisors may not even have gotten the word that this is very, very serious indeed. In other words, what was it that Putin said? We're just one step away from real, real trouble.

I have the thing here. We're on the verge of real trouble, meaning nuclear use of nuclear weapons. So you have to hope that the intelligence people would be better than they have been for the last two and a half years. And that's, in my view, a forlorn hope. Even if they tell the president, look, this is the deal that Putin is offering, even if they tell him that, look, you ought to look at it and read it and think about whether you could negotiate taking this into account, there's no indication that they will do that. And the fly in the ointment is the election.

They can't possibly agree to the conditions that Putin has reasonably, from his point of view, set down without suffering a definitive defeat in Ukraine, and they fear in the election. And we know what comes after the election. They are in jeopardy of losing their personal freedom, given the fact that judges and courts and emails all over the place have the goods not only on Hunter, but on Daddy, on Sullivan, and on Blinken. So we just spent some time with Professor Sachs, who of course has been on a jihad for a long time about the unwillingness of this administration even to talk to their Russian counterparts. And you touched on something that I

did not ask Jeff Sachs about, but I will ask you to reach into your understanding of the way the intelligence community works. You just alluded to it. Wouldn't Bill Burns say to him, hey, Mr. President, Putin is serious. He really wants to talk to you. We overheard him say this in the men's room to Lavrov. I don't know how into Putin's inner circle they can surveil. But wouldn't a statement like that to Blinken, Sullivan, or Biden give them pause? Or doesn't the CIA do that? Judge, many of us had high hopes for Bill Burns. He knows a lot about substantive things and what's going on in the world, but he's a cog in the wheel. Witness the fact that in July of last year, he told the president to say that Russia had suffered a strategic defeat. The ineptitude of Russian military forces has been laid bare for the whole world to see.

Six days later, the president in Helsinki said, Putin has already lost this war with one. Now, if that's the kind of advice that Bill Burns and others, Austin, for example, who is well known for falsifying substantive intelligence at the highest level when he was head of CENTCOM. If that's the kind of intelligence they're getting, well, that's just fine with Lincoln and Sullivan, who may be smart enough to realize this, but it's not fine when Biden is still making the decisions. And I have to say, the overarching background of all this is look at President Biden roaming around aimlessly at that summit with use a mini-nuke, or we want to scare the hell

out of the Russians by doing X, Y, and Z. Well, he's likely to do it, for God's sake, and that's why it's very, very dangerous. Here's an example of how serious President Putin is. You will hear the translator articulate President Putin's condemnation of Western exceptionalism, recognition of NATO crumbling, and articulation. This is a dangerous phrase, but you can hear him say it. Point of no return. Cut number eight. Lastly, the self-centeredness and arrogance of Western countries have led us to a highly perilous situation today. We are inching dangerously close to a point of no return.

Calls for a strategic defeat of Russia, which possesses the largest arsenals of nuclear weapons, demonstrate the extreme recklessness of Western politicians. They either fail to comprehend the magnitude of the threat they are creating or are simply consumed by their notion of invincibility and exceptionalism. Both scenarios can result in tragedy. It is evident that the entire system of Euro-Atlantic security is crumbling before our eyes. At present, it is practically non-existent and must be rebuilt. To achieve this, we must collaborate with interested countries, of which there are many,

to develop our own strategies for ensuring security in Eurasia and then present them for broader international deliberation. this is the task set in the address to the federal assembly to outline a vision for equal and indivisible security mutually beneficial and equitable cooperation and development on the eurasian continent in the foreseeable future could you imagine biden attempting to to counter that verbally? I've read the whole thing, Judge, watched parts of it. It almost seemed to me that he was trying to draw contrast between Biden wandering around aimlessly, not able to string a whole paragraph together, and himself. It was quite a performance. And the problem is

that people don't realize what went on because the New York Times and all those newspapers that follow its lead have obfuscated and deliberately eliminated the real news. And the real news is that there was an agreement. There was an agreement whereby the Ukrainians said, all right, we forswear any idea of joining NATO, okay? And the Russians said, okay, we'll pull back our troops and we won't invade Kiev. And we'll also give you some guarantees. We'll get other people to give you some guarantees because we appreciate that you have concerns as well. That was the deal. That was the 29th of March, okay? On the 30th of March, there was this fake massacre in Bucha near Kyiv where the Ukrainians blamed the Russians who had

already left. Read Scott Ritter on Bucha. The Russians had already left when this massacre took place. And the Ukrainians successfully, with the help of the New York Times and everybody else, blamed that on the Russians and said, there can be no dealing with the Russians. And then on the 9th of April, Boris Johnson comes in and says, look, don't deal with the Russians. You Ukrainians, don't deal with the Russians because they're terrible people. We can beat them. We'll give you all the arms you need to beat them. Cancel that deal.

Four days later, Putin recognized the deal was off. What's my point here? The big deal, the notion that Ukraine would join NATO was faced into and agreed to by the Ukrainian negotiators. The head was David Arachamia, yeah, Arachamia is his name, and his faction leader in Zelensky's party in the parliament. He was there and he testified and he said to the press, let me just include this. I mean, it's just outrageous how the New York Times has obfuscated

and cut all this stuff together. Here's the key of post, okay? Headline, November 26th, 2023, Russia ordered to end the war in 2022 if Ukraine scrapped NATO ambitions, says Zelensky's party chief, who is David Arachamia, okay, what else did he say, he said we had it signed, sealed, and delivered. The Russians would give us some guarantees, and we would agree to remain neutral. We would say we'd be neutral. Now, that's the name of the game. That was what the Russians were most concerned about, no Ukraine and NATO. And the New York Times and everybody else from the highest officials in our

government and all the others said, oh, no, no, it's not about NATO, it's about Putin being an aggressor. Last codicil to this, of course, is if, as is clear from the substantive record, as is clear from the Ukrainian chief negotiator, Putin agreed to stop, and did stop, and took troops away from Kiev as a gesture of goodwill. If he stopped in the Donbass, what's to indicate that he wanted to, oh, after Ukraine, he won't stop. He won't stop. He will go take the rest of Ukraine and take Poland or go to the English Channel. What's to justify that? Nothing but bollocks, as the British would say.

We have our own expression of that. My State Department colleagues call it bovine or masculine bovine excrement. Right, right. Here's Foreign Minister Lavrov, who was seated at that same table as President Putin, with what I suggest to you is a very, very savvy analysis of who trusts whom. Cut number one. No, we don't ask the West to trust us. Trust is not something which is illustrating the Western positions, the Western actions. And today there were many examples.

I don't want to recite those failures to deliver on the promises, those failures to deliver on the legal obligations. Frankly, I don't care whether the West trusts us or not. The West must understand the real situation. They don't understand anything except real politics. Let them go to the people. You are democracies, right? Ask the people what the West should do in response to the Putin's proposals. That's a diplomat. That's a human being that has a grasp on all of this. Your thoughts before we take a little break. George, that is a diplomat. Another diplomat with whom I served, actually, whom I briefed every other morning. Name is George Schultz. He would be 102 right now. He died two years ago. The last thing he did was a long piece for the Foreign Services Journal. It had to do with trust. Without trust, you can't make anybody make a deal with you. And that was his final

message. He was able to get Reagan, Karabachov to trust one another. It's a big deal, this trust. And Lavrov said, I'm not going to list all the all the violations of trust that I could but one of them and a big one that I have emphasized is the promise that Biden made personally to Putin on the 30th of December 2021 not to put offensive strike missiles in Ukraine. They really done that. Three weeks later, no one knows that better than Lavrov, who talked to Blinken on the 21st of January, 2022. And Blinken said, forget about that.

We don't know anything about that. Maybe we can limit the number of offensive strike missiles to Ukraine, but forget about that. So trust, trust is the coin of the realm. And lacking it, you need guarantees. Trust but verify, you can be darn sure the next agreements such as there will be, will be verifiable. And that's a good thing. We're going to take a break for a commercial announcement when we come back. More with Ray McGovern. A little bit of a surprise of Joe Biden at his best or his worst, depending upon whether you like the

president as soon as we come back. 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. Infl inflation has reduced all of your savings all of your buying power and mine by 24 percent and gold is largely immune from that if you want to learn how gold will soon hit 3200 dollars 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. Can Ukraine win? Yes. Putin has failed and he continues to fail. Putin has already lost. Putin has already lost the war. Putin has already lost this war. I want to say that and I want to say it loudly. Putin has already lost in terms of what he was trying to achieve. In many ways, Putin has already lost.

And that is Russia has already lost this war. In short, Russia has lost. They've lost strategically, operationally, and tactically. Do these guys have any reverence for the truth or ability to acknowledge they didn't know what the hell they were talking about? I'm reminded of Julius Caesar in Shakespeare. What is truth? Quid est veritas? The truth is what you want it to be.

The problem is that most Americans don't know the truth, largely because the New York Times and others are cooperating consciously with distorting the truth. Now, I mentioned this David Arachamia, okay, the chief negotiator. Now, when was he appointed to negotiate with the Russians? The 24th, the 28th of February, 2020, 2022. That means four days after the beginning of the war. Did he go to Belarus? He did. He negotiated.

Then he went down to Turkey in Istanbul and came very close to an agreement. He said on the 28th of March, he said, we're really very close to an agreement. And in April, he said, Russia has agreed to almost all of Ukraine's peace proposals. We don't know about whether the U.S. and the U.K. will agree or not. Whoa, that's arachamia. Now, what happened next? Boris Johnson was sent by the UK and the US. He arrived in Kiev on the 9th of April, put the kibosh on the whole thing.

The New York Times has a major article, two major articles on this, yesterday and the Sunday time. No mention, search in vain, for mention of Boris Johnson and the way he put the kibosh on this whole thing. So Americans are led to believe as the, here it is, here's the headline in the New York Times yesterday, the big thing that spread all over page 1011. Ukraine-Russia peace is elusive as ever. It's elusive as ever because the representatives of the warring nations, they held peace talks, but they fizzled. You know why they fizzled?

Because they resorted to military action. And that's just the other way around. They were successful, and we have the documents, for God's sake. But Johnson came in, told Zelensky. Zelensky was stupid enough to rely on Western promises, and they went to war. Admittedly, he said, no, no, we're going to follow this militarily. We depend.

The U.S. says that they're with us for as long as it takes. We'll do it. Now, Judge, if I get a little emotional about this, I care about 500,000 young Ukrainian dead now and their mothers and their other relatives. They would not be dead if that agreement was allowed to go through between Russia and Ukraine. And again, again, the cardinal, the sine qua non for Russia was given by these Ukrainian negotiators, and that is no Ukraine in NATO. I'm going to make you feel a little better.

I don't usually read aloud what the viewers write in, but Lenny1777 writes this. Ray McGovern keeps getting younger each time he goes live with Judge Napolitano. That's good news. Well, I couldn't resist because I know you got a little emotional there. We saw a clip from Secretary Austin telling Senator Tuberville that Ukraine can win, along with all the other nonsense from the president and his buddies. Here's Secretary Austin last week, just as nonsensical and irritating. Putin is in no position to dictate to Ukraine. Ah, we're in a position to dictate to all the countries in the world.

But Putin's in no position to dictate to all the countries in the world, but Putin's in no position to dictate to Ukraine, number seven. He is not in any position to dictate to Ukraine what they must do to bring about a peace. I think, you know, that's exactly the kind of behavior that we don't want to see. We don't want to see a leader of one country wake up one day and decide that he wants to erase borders and annex the territory of his neighbor. That's not the world that any of us want to live in. And so I think, you know, he is not in my view, not in a position to dictate to Ukraine what it must do to pursue peace. Here's the world we do live in from the perspective of the president of Russia, cut number two.

Let me remind you that at the end of the 20th century, after the end of the acute military ideological confrontation, the global community had a unique opportunity to build a reliable and just order in the field of security. This did not require much. A simple ability to listen to the opinions of all interested parties and a mutual willingness to take them into account. Our country was determined to do exactly this kind of constructive work. However, a different approach prevailed.

The Western powers, led by the United States, believed that they had won the Cold War and had the right to determine how the world should be organized. He's right. They believed they had won the Cold War and had the right to determine how the world should be organized. The very mentality condemned by Secretary Austin and attributed to the other side. Judge, you know, from an intelligence point of view, I have to remind people that it is the Pentagon that does the military intelligence now.

There is no independent military analysis capability left in the CIA. There was when I was there, and we took great umbrage of what the Pentagon was saying about Vietnam, for example. So here's Austin. Here's Austin, against whom over 50 intelligence analysts at CENTCOM, where he was commander, and at Defense Intelligence Agency filed a formal complaint with the Pentagon Inspector General saying Austin was shaping the intelligence, was making the intelligence look like what the president wanted, okay? So this is the same Austin. Didn't Biden know that? Well, maybe he did. Maybe that's what Sullivan and Blinken wanted. Anyhow, he's not giving the president any good intelligence about enemy capabilities.

Now, he went to West Point, right? Obama didn't go to West Point. Obama's famous dictum, 2016, was, look, we shouldn't give the Ukrainians the idea that they could prevail against a much stronger Russia on its border. And at that time, Lincoln himself, working for Obama as Deputy Secretary of State, added, you know, if we give arms to Ukraine, that would not be smart because Russia is at a position to double what we give, to triple and quadruple what we give. That was Blinken in 2016. Why did he change his mind? I guess because megalomania prevailed with Biden and his closest associates. They said, you know, we can do this because we're exceptional,

because we're indispensable, because we're the United States of America. Well, those days are over now. And Obama happened to be right on that one. What is the value of intel if it's imbued with, infested with politics? Zero, or actually minus zero. Now, Judge, there are very few things I can cite that can show how good intelligence can really prevent wars. And one is that after Iraq, the next target was Iran.

Bush and Cheney had their sights on Iran. So the question was, how close is Iran to getting a nuclear weapon? And the standard answer was five years from now. Five years. They've been saying this for 20 years, right? So finally, an honest, really, an honest intelligence manager named Tom Finger came in from the State Department and said, look, I'll do this job. I'll run this estimate on how close Iran is to getting a nuclear weapon. If you let me bring my own people in and you leave me alone for a year. That happened.

The year was 2007. In November, the conclusion, unanimous with high certainty, Iran stopped working on a nuclear weapon in 2003 and has not resumed work on a nuclear weapon. Unanimous with high confidence. It was out there because Congress made it public and Bush himself wrote in his memoirs, this deprived me of the military option on Iran, because how could I possibly explain a nuclear attack or some kind of attack on a country that the intelligence community says has no active nuclear weapons program? And quote, oh, too bad, huh? Deprived me of the military options.

So what I'm saying here is that if you get an honest guy and you get honest analysts, and they're given their freedom to tell the truth, they can prevent a war. And I wish I could cite other examples, but I can't really. Here you have... Isn't this hogwash? Well, of course.

Well, it's bollocks, as the British would say. It's male bovine... For those who are taking the show just audio only, when I say, isn't this hogwash? This is the famous or infamous picture of Prime Minister Netanyahu at the UN showing, claiming that Iran is in the final stage of developing a nuclear weapon. I don't know the date on that. I think that's about 10 or 12 years ago. That's my recollection. About seven or eight years ago, I would say. So they made all this up. Yeah. And there's terrific works done on this. Gareth Porter, who writes for Consortium News,

has written a book about this. And the evidence is there from UN inspectors, from some former Israeli officials, from Iranian officials. It's all there. It's bollocks. It's all made up. And it's meant, of course, to justify war against Iran. And it almost worked. So that's why I emphasize. Yeah, I wish I could cite other other instances where national intelligence estimates, the supreme genre of intelligence, where it worked that way and prevented a war. I can't. But that's big enough for me. And I was prevented from saying, destroy the CIA,

because I didn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And now the baby is drowning in that same bathroom. The Netanyahu photo, Chris tells me, was September of 2012. So we were both very, very close. Ray, a pleasure, my dear friend. Terrific, terrific analysis from you as always. I was happy to hear the Russia Today people asked me to give my opinion of Ray McGovern

and it was extremely high. We'll see you with Larry on the Intelligence Community Roundtable at the end of the week. Have a great week, my friend. All the best. You too, Judge. Thanks a lot. Thank you.

Coming up later today, the aforementioned Larry, Larry Johnson, 5 o'clock this afternoon, Eastern. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Altyazı M.K.