Judging Freedom - Ray McGovern : Has Witkoff Softened Putin?

Episode Date: December 22, 2025

Ray McGovern : Has Witkoff Softened Putin?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

New Year energy is all about resetting routines, feeling healthier, and starting fresh. Why not give your dog the same reset? From daily walks to better habits at home, our dogs are always right there with us. Ollie helps you start the new year with intention, beginning with your dog's bowl. With fresh, protein-packed meals crafted from real human-grade ingredients, your dog can start the year feeling their best, too. Choose from five recipes and get a personalized plan for your dog's needs. Meals arrive perfectly portioned with a scoop and storage container, so serving is fast and mess-free.

And with Ollie's in-app on-demand health screenings, tap real experts whenever you need peace of mind. Visit ollie.com slash crossover and use code crossover for 60% off your first box. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Excuse me, today is Monday, December 22nd, 2025. Ray McGovern will be with us in just a moment on one of his favorite topics, Steve Whitkoff and Vladimir Putin.

But first this. History tells us every market eventually falls. Currencies collapse. And look at where we are now. 38 trillion in national debt. Stocks at record highs defying gravity. So what happens next? Groceries, gas, housing, everything's going up.

And this dollar, it buys less every day. When the system breaks, your stocks won't save you and your dollars won't either. But one thing will. Gold. I've set it on my show for years. Gold survives collapse. Central bankers know this and billionaires know it. That's why they're buying more.

Is it too late to buy or is it just the right time? Call my friends at Lear Capital to find out. Ask questions. Get the free information. There's no pressure. And that's why I buy my gold and silver from Lear. And right now you can get up to $20,000 in bonus medals with a qualified purchase. Call 800, 511, 4620 or go to Learjudgeonnapp.com today.

Brian McGovern, welcome here, my dear friend. Before we get to Whitkoff and his negotiations over the weekend and his relationship to President Putin, I want to pick your brain on one of two issues involving China. In the past week, or two weeks actually, the national security strategy says that China is no longer an enemy but an economic competitor. think that's a good thing. However, last week the United States seized a Chinese oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela, and last week, President Trump signed into law of the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes $11 billion worth of offensive weaponry to Taiwan. Where are we going with China, in your view? Zig-zag, is the word, roller coaster. And I think,

a lot of it explained by the fact that not everybody wants Trump to do the kinds of things that were drafted for him as he dictated to real writers for the national security strategy. You have Tulsi Gabbard who's on board. She may have had a major input into that. But this thing really is not good for the people who build ships or build planes. And so you have to satisfy those people too. And what's another? the $11 billion for Taiwan. China can swallow that. So there is this dissonance within the administration itself. I don't know who authorized the seizure of the Chinese ship. That was really dumb. These kinds of things are going to happen. And as JFK said, at the height of the Cuban

missile crisis, when one of the Air Force B-52s violated Soviet airspace, everybody was in High Dutcher and JFK says, well, you know, there's always one guy doesn't get the word. I think I can't express the seizure of the Chinese ship. They will react. Well, the seizure of the Chinese ship, I can't imagine they're going to take that laying down. But the 11 billion in offensive weaponry long enough to reach or strong enough to reach Beijing has got to be something worrisome to them. I don't think they're going to invade Taiwan. I don't think you think they're going to invade Taiwan.

But having those kind of weapons pointed at them as shades of putting that stuff in Ukraine and pointing them at Mexico, at Moscow. Well, the military industrial complex that builds and sells these weapons often prevails. The more so with Trump. So, you know, they are a threat, but there are the threats to China. Right now we have a national security guidance that is very different from what Eldridge Colby used to say, and we have to build so many ships and counter China. So I see this as a kind of token gift to the military industrial complex,

which, after all, has to be appeased since they pretty much own Congress and parts of the executive as well. Do you think that President Putin will ever relent on his core demands, the ones which he articulated back in 2022, about the return of Russian-speaking lands to Russia, the effective neutralization of Ukraine, the removal of NATO and European troops forever? No, except there is flexibility at the edges.

Now, he's not going to give back Donbass, Donetsk and Lugans. The other two is a Porosier, Herzlons. He hasn't conquered them completely now. Would there be flexibility there? I think there would. For the proper deal, for the proper quid, it would be able to offer those quotes. Now, I'm an outlier on that, but this is a big game. The big game has to do with improving relations with the United States and getting Ukraine behind them.

And that's very clear in the national security guidance. And so we have from the outset, from the time when things began to improve under Trump, when Whitkoff went to talk to Putin and said, look, you know, we need to have a summit. At the very day, the readout from that, from Ushakoff, Putin's main man on that, said this in a very first paragraph, and it's indicative of where they stand. The discussions focused on some matters having to do with Ukraine, but once again, it was noted that Russia-U.S. relations should be placed on a totally different plane and a mutually beneficial footing, which would be in a stark contrast to what we had under Biden. Oh, I don't think there's any question whatsoever, but that the Russians are very anxious to have better relations with the United States, economically, culturally, in every respect. Yeah, and what I'm saying here is the other things are secondary, including Ukraine, including, as I've said before, if the U.S. bombs the hell out of Iran, as it did, well, that's a secondary issue.

The Russians explicitly said that. So that's the backdrop of all this. And so call me an outlier, but I think that these talks are for real. I think that they're going to succeed, not right away, because there still is a lot of opposition internally, as well as from people in NATO. But NATO has been chef the side, and Rubio has been shoved the side, witness what happened just during these last two days. in Miami, Florida, where Whitkoff and Kushner did the president's bidding both with

Dimitri, from Russia, and with Umairf from Ukraine. So, you know, that's where the action is. Whether whether it will succeed immediately is very doubtful, but I think Trump very much wanted to have something by Christmas. He's not going to get it by Christmas, but I think the talks are very productive. And I think, you know, when people demean them and say, oh, Dimitio, or Whitkoff said only they were constructive. Well, that doesn't not constructive. Well, construction is constructive.

And he said later, they're productive and constructive. So let's allow for the fact that both the U.S. and Russia are very serious about this. Putin said as much in his long Q&A just a couple of days ago. And now the U.S. has said that in its very, very new national security strategy. During that Q&A, a Russian oil tanker was damaged by some projectiles for which the Ukrainians have taken credit. And a Russian general was assassinated outside his home in Moscow for which the Ukrainians. have not yet publicly taken credit. These events cannot be seen,

unless you look at it differently than I do, as moving the ball forward, can they? No, but, Judge, we have to keep a perspective on these things. These are terrorist events. That event that killed over 200 people and that concert hall, the destruction of some strategic bombers, all those things were swallowed. by the Russians because they're not going to have any appreciable effect on what happens in

Ukraine. They're regarded as pinpricks. The Russians like them? No, but they're going to continue as long as there's some kind of peace deal. And I think Zelensky will have no money next year. They'll have no arms. There'll be no army. And so we have to be a little patient. Things will work out. The thing is, whether the neo-Nazis, that really support Zelensky, will be able to be dealt with in a way that can assure Russia of having a partner rather than an enemy on the other side of the Hippa River. I mean, that's why I'm not as sanguine as you are. I mean, obviously, I wish for a peace like anybody else does. But with the neo-Nazis controlling Zelensky on one hand, and with Putin's unwillingness to relent,

and I understand that, I'm not being critical of it. on his demands on the other. What can we expect of Whitkoff? Are they just going to say, well, let's put Ukraine aside and let's get rid of the sanctions. I want to be able to fly from JFK to Moscow. I don't think it's going to work that way. Well, the facts on the ground judge show what control this thing. Right.

In just a few months, there will be no Ukrainian army. In other words, Putin's twin name. of demilitarization and denazification, the first one would have been achieved. So what are the Nazis going to do without any army? As of battalion, their crown jewel has been decimated by the Russians. In other words, the reality will be that, yeah, the Nazis won't like this. Will they go away peacefully? Probably not.

But they'll go away unless the British prop them up for another year. So the end is in sight. It's not very near, but it's going to happen, and these talks are very serious. And as I say, the overall objective is create a decent relationship between the United States and Russia. And Putin has made it clear that he'd like to do that. And he invites Europe if they want to change their ways. I mean, after all, in that Q&A, he cited Egan Barr, for God's sake. That was Ville-Bron's brain guy.

And he was Ostpolitik. He was the guy that said, look, you're a pastor, reach out to Russia and include. And he also mentioned former Chancellor Helmut Kohl, who said the same thing. So once the Europeans come to their census and with $90 billion to pay off Ukraine, it's going to be relatively, it's going to be a new situation. And what the Nazis do in Kiev at that point without any army, I just don't know, but I don't think they have much to go with. Good point.

Good point without an army. Where are your, well, not your former colleagues, but where is the CIA today? I mean, are they going to change 180 degrees? Oh, Russia's our friend? Judge, my breed, and I have to confess up front, that I don't even have any former friends, much even colleagues. in the CIA. They're all dead now, as my grandmother would say, at 97. But, you know, if you read the tea leaves, I don't know if Ratcliffe, the head of the CIA, is playing any major role at all,

who is playing a major role, is his nominal boss, the head of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. And she came out over the weekend with a really strong statement saying, people who write for Reuters and tell us trash about Russia trying to take over the rest of Europe really are out of their gourd and should be dismissed. There it is, I guess, huh? Yeah. I'll read it. Deep State Warmongers and their, this is from Tulsi Gabbard, the director of National Intelligence to whom Ray was just referring. I now read, deep state warmongers and their propaganda media are again trying to undermine President Trump's efforts to bring peace to Ukraine, and indeed Europe by falsely claiming that the U.S. intelligence community agrees to and supports

EU-NATO viewpoint that Russia's aim is to invade, conquer Europe in order to gin up support for their pro-war policies. The truth is that U.S. intelligence assesses that Russia does not even have the capability to conquer and occupy Ukraine, what to speak of invading and occupying Europe. She's obviously got intel assets that she can't control and that got under her skin. Agreed? No, Judge. It's a matter of she getting the ear of Whitkoff and the ear of the president and dissing Ratcliffe. If Ratcliffe's got a bunch of rats that still spew this nonsense, well, it's demonstrably wrong.

You don't have, even Putin said it, very very very. vividly just two days ago. So the notion as the head of foreign policy for the EU, Kayakalas, says that the Russians are going to take over Ukraine and then Poland and the Baltics. Well, I mean, Biden may have said that. Biden may even have believed it. But I don't think Trump does. I don't think it does now when people like Tulsi Gabbard have its ear. Now, Tulsi is close to Whitkoff. It's very clear. She's trying to defend him. Yesterday or over the two days ago, there was this scurrilous thing in Reuters, which she was reacting to with that X. And this morning, this is fresh off the press, as we used to say, Whitkoff is an amateur, say, administration officials.

His diplomatic arena, he's much too willing to accept Russia's assertions at face value, quote, he's a gift to the Russians. Now, that sounds like it was dictated by CIA. Could be, but the point that CIA has been brushed aside, okay? We're in a new deal here. Tulsi Gabbard is finally exercising her prerogative as being Ratcliffe's boss, not just their name only. She, as the Reuters article, has been briefing Whitkoff before he goes to Moscow, when he comes back from Moscow,

Wittkoff has shunned CIA briefings, and I'm sure he told his friend the president, you know, the CIA may still have a bunch of those foot draggers there, working for Ratcliffe. And Ratcliffe himself is sort of, well, just pay attention to Tulsi. And to me, you know,

one little thing about that Reuters thing that was so bad just two days ago, You know, it was written by Jonathan Landy and two others. Now, Jonathan was one of the two people working for McClatchy and then Knight Ritter before Iraq. He got it right. He published, no one would send it farther than McClatchy. He published that there were no weapons of mass destruction and no ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. He and Warren Strobel.

They were great. They got awards for it. finally when people realize that they were right, okay? Well, he's now authored this thing that really is indefensible in terms of... What do you suppose is the origin of hit pieces on Whitkoff, but disgruntled people in the intelligence community or the military industrial complex? It's Rubio. Now, Rubio wants to be president.

Sometimes it's pretty simple. And he's got his coterie of supporters. It became very clear when Witkoff came up with this, the 28 points, if you will, the discussion points. Who did the first draft of that? Demetriov, it's clear from an intercepted conversation between two high Russians, okay? Ushakov, Putin's right person for you.

Ukraine, and Dmitriev. Where was Dmitriev? He was in Saudi Arabia. Where was Ushakov? He was in Moscow. Who intercepted that message? I leave that to your imagination. It almost certainly was somebody, either the Five Eyes, the U.S., or maybe the Saudis, okay? Who leaked the information? Rubio's folks. And what was Rubio saying at the time? Well, he briefed Congress and said, yeah, Wittkoff and the Russian The Russians really came up with that. Well, they did. It's in that intercept. That's why they leaked the intercept to show how terrible this is.

How does the Kremlin, in your view, you understand the Russian mentality very well. How does the Kremlin view the use of Wittkoff, a non-governmental official for the core negotiating and the rivalry between Whitkoff and Roeuf. I mean, this type of rivalry doesn't really exist in the Kremlin, or if it does, it's not known to us. Who could possibly rival Lavrov? Well, this is open dissonance in the U.S. I think the Russians say, well, you know, we've been here before. Those with some memory, almost as old as I am, remember the salt negotiations,

1970 to 1972, which emerged with the ABM treaty, setting strategic stability for three decades, okay? Was there a lot of tension? Sure, there was. Who did the work?

Kissinger. Who supported Kissinger? Not this state. Well, the State Department was good. Jack McClock was my opposite number there at the Russian desk. I was chief for the Soviet foreign policy branch. We supported Kissinger. And when Kissinger said, well, people say this can't be verified, can we? Yes, we can. How soon?

Well, we'd find an unlawful site within a week. So what I'm saying here is that Kissinger did this all by himself. Who was the Secretary of State Fellow named William Rogers? Was he in the act? No, he was allowed to go to the opera when we were all together there in May of 1972. Now, here's a little quip here. In the political section of the U.S. Embassy, and I was there, 1972. I was there for the signing of the Accords. On the back of the urinal was a big sign that it said Kissinger was here. Okay.

That was a, you know, the ambassador of, Ambassador Jake Beam, an old timer. He learned about this and he called us all into the bubble. He said, all right, now, we're cut out of this. Kissinger called me from Helsinki and he says, I just talked with the Riesniff in Kassigin, and I want to let you know. So this is the way it works. This is what we do.

Don't be complaining about nobody tells you anything. This reminds me of that naval attache in Berlin right before the war. People goose stepping all over the place, lots of remembrance. And he says to us, nobody ever tells me anything. So do your job. Don't complain. And don't be putting any more signs up there that remind everyone that Kissinger is doing this all by himself. Now, Whitkoff is doing this all by himself. Odd referendum,

the big guy, Trump, okay? Rubio has been marginalized. Where was he this past weekend? He wasn't there talking to the Russians, nor was he there talking to the Ukrainians. So, I mean, this is the new reality. Rubio is going to have a lot of support. According to one of those hit pieces on Whitkoff, Rubio was at a wedding because his daughters were maids of honor. You can't make this stuff up. Ray, I've got to run. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you for everything you've done to educate the public through this program, Judging Freedom in 2025. We'll look forward to seeing you in two weeks in the new year. Judge, one little announcement. I mentioned a week ago that Tony Aguilar has won the Sam Adams Award for Integrity, and that award will take place. on January the 7th at the Burning Coal Theater in Raleigh, and we have a consortium news item this morning

that explains more of the details and explains for people who don't already know who Tony Aguilar is. So thanks for letting me make that announcement. Okay, thank you, Ray. Merry Christmas to you and your family, all the best. Same to you. And coming up later today at 11.30 this morning,

Larry Johnson at 2 o'clock this afternoon, Professor Glenn Deeson at 4 o'clock this afternoon, Scott Ritter, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.